ASCLEPIADES

We agree.

Salve, Amici. Certainly sounds right! As you said, Roman naming conventions had become quite flexible by that time, as evidenced by the fact that Roman women were acquiring names of more variety, adopting their own distinctive, feminine cognomina. -- Nephele This might be too off-topic to keep in here, and perhaps should be split off...I'll let the mods take care of that. But... Why was this acceptable at the time of Vespasian? Were women given more rights in society, and therefore adding the feminine-line to the name was acceptable? Or was it simply to be more distinguished? It would seem to me that if it became acceptable to put the feminine-line to the name, then matrons of the family (not necessarily matriarchs) started to weild more influence and/or power. It's a big step in such a patriarchal world. I know that, as a whole, (patrician) women in Rome had more power and rights (for lack of better terms) than the (elite) women of ancient Greece, but they still weren't exactly 'liberated' in the modern sense.

You are... Orpheus? I love that story of Orpheus and Eurydice. So sad. Indeed it is. Indeed you are.

He knows she is behind him She has to be But her steps are so quiet He has to know He cannot turn around He is not allowed Suddenly he turns They stop A look 'Farewell, ' And she's gone

Would you be... Atlas? yes--want to give the decoding a shot? For example, "Creation's first lovers"? "Olympian thug"? My best guess for the clues: "Creation's first lovers...": Under one version (Hyginus) Atlas was the son of the primordial divinities Aether and Gea. "... denied embrace": The Sky (Aether) and the Earth (Gea) have no physical arms. "Crush my shoulders, fix my place": Heracles' petition while he was holding the Heaven. "Two tortures set..." bearing the Earth and bearing the Heaven. "...by an Olympian thug": Zeus "Why must I struggle? Why not shrug?": A referrence to the novel by Ayn Rand.

Would you be... Atlas?

Ah, good old Guardian. Only they could have come up with a 'ground-breaking' statue. Gives the swords to ploughshares concept a whole new meaning.

You are... Hero and Leander? Very nicely written! (But I believe the credit for these couplets goes to Mr. Marlowe.) -- Nephele Entirely right of course, Lady N. Your turn.

Essentially, the following phrase is an oxymoron: Not at all. ... or any other rebel, resistance, partisan, or guerilla group that has taken on professional troops and won in the early days before they gathered enough experience to justify your comment.

Salve, Amici Here comes an easy one: On Hellespont, guilty of true-love's blood, In view and opposite two cities stood, Sea-borderers, disjoined by Neptune's might; The one Abydos, the other Sestos hight.

Caius Julius Caesar Minor aka Caligula actually had a child.

In general terms, the available sources are not alternative but complementary.

This is a nice example of descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive) linguistics; the Collins English Dictionary is just describing how the people is actually using the language, not prescribing the way they should use it. Linguistic evolution is the perfect democracy.

Salve, CN and weolcome to UNRV.

Salve, Lady N Cardea. (If I am right, and being a lttle busy by now, I wouldn't mind if anyone else takes my turn; thanks in advance).

Why couldn't it happen both ways?

In fact, what defines any army's quality is its performance; whatever example you may imagine to try to sustain such argumentation (maybe Napoleon before the Alps?) it would imply that for whichever mechanism you may imagine such men have become high quality soldiers; period.

Come on, I can`t believe you're seriously saying that. Impressive deeds require BOTH capable commanders and high standard soldiers. Period.

Salve, Prr Then your interest goes far beyond Cn Pompeius Magnus biographies, from which you seem to be well aware.

Including Nero ? I see him as an aged actor in the amphitheater of Mutina... Oh! Was it not a joke...? Okeeeey... As any other male related to theJulo-Claudian dynasty not in the throne, Claudius and LD Ahenobarbus' (not Nero) lives would have been always at risk; it would have been quite unlikely for them to survive 43 additional years! Regarding everything else on this thread's first post, I must entirely agree with Ingsoc; particularly regarding question # 3, the fate of the Empire during the late Julio-Claudian period was fundamentally in the hands of quite able administrators (mostly equites and freedmen); in fact, that's the main reason why the Empire successfully thrived across all these years.

Salve, Amici I would have expected to see a larger impact of the huge Roman defeat by the Cimbrii at Arausio (DCXLIX AUC / 105 BC) in Brunt's table XIII.

The main point here is that there's is essentially no objective evidence of any significant decline on the Roman Army at the Late Imperial period, neither qualitative nor quantitative .

Salve, U Here comes a related previous THREAD. (Well, make it TWO).