ASCLEPIADES

I know McCullough has an extensive bibliography and was quite meticulous, but as expected in a novel, she doesn't provide extensive support of every piece of conjecture. I vaguely remember reading something about this incident in a work by Christopher Mackay. I think it was this. However, I can't find it now, so I'll simply accept responsibility for the unverified claim and move along. Salve, Amici. Here comes Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology: "L. Porcius Cato (7)... uncle of Cato of Utica,... was consul with Pompeius Strabo (89 bc)... He lost his life in an unlucky skirmish with the Marsians, near Lake Fucinus, at the end of a successful battle. It was thought by some that his death was not to be attributed to the enemy, but to the art of the younger Marius ; for Cato had boasted that his own achievements were equal to the Cimbrian victory of Marius the father. (Liv. Epit. Ixxv.; Oros. v. 17.)"

I dare to disagree: the Spanish had by then some four decades of war experience in the New World, and they knew perfectly well the expected effects of smallpox and other plagues; in fact, the consequences of these diseases predated and facilitated the Spanish conquest, as the death of the Sapa Inca Huayna Capac in 1527 was the immediate cause of the civil war between Huascar and Atahualpa. The same as the Mesoamerican warriors, the Incas fought literally half-naked with sticks and stones. If you have more than 10 well-armed European soldiers (ie, enough to cover each other's back) and plenty of ammunition, there will be no number of Neolithic-like warriors that could ever defeat you. Besides, as in the previous American conquests from 1492 on, the Spanish look for the assistance of other natives. Even more, au contraire of the Aztecs, the Inca resistance didn't end with the capture and death of their King (Sapa Inca) Atahualpa in 1533; it lasted at least until the death of Tupac Amaru in 1572. The technological and biological gap made the conquest of big urban centres relatively easy for the Spanish troops, but they performed badly against the guerrilla tactics of nomad groups, as the Chilean Mapuches (Arauco) that defeated Diego de Almagro, Pizarro's comrade and adversary. When you check out the performance of Pizarro and his men against similar forces (vg, the civil war against Almagro and other conquistadores) you could see how pathetic they were; not to talk about the performance of such "warriors" in contemporary professional warfare (vg, Hernan Cortes, the famous Pizarro's cousin, at the Spanish expedition against Algiers in 1541).

Well, it's hard to believe any potential Roman conqueror (let say of the contemporary Mesoamerican early classic period and the andine Nazca culture) would have done it otherwise given the chance (even they would have had a favourable technological and biological gap against the American populations; vg. iron weapons, horses and smallpox). BTW, all these cultures were at the Neolithic stage at best when the Spanish conquered them, with the potential but very controversial exception of the very late Tarascan (P'urh

Hint: he pretended to have regal ancestry.

No, sir. He also wasn't Abel to stave off his own assassination. Britannicus, son of Claudius I. This is a sestercius minted in Thracia, and its legend says "TICLAVDIVSCAESARAUGFBRITANNICUS".

Caius (Caligula).

Nope . Hint: it was built at DCCCLXIX AUC in a western province for an eastern victory .

As PP explained you, that depends in what you define as Greek. The supremacy ended by Rome at Greece was Macedonian, not strictly "Greek" (ie, Hellenic); this distinction is cardinal.. Presumably the end of Macedonian supremacy was determined by the defeat of the King Philip V by Titus Quinctius Flamininus in DLVII AUC / 197 BC at Cynoscephalae ("Dog's heads"); from then on, Macedonia was mostly a Roman satellite until it became a province at DCVIII AUC / 146 BC.

Diadumenianus He was the son of Macrinus, who was procurator rei privatae to Caracalla ... who was born in Gaul. And from Historia Augusta: "The boy himself was beautiful beyond all others, ... " Salve, GM . Of corse you're right. Congratulations . Your turn .

I think there were not many examples, but legio V Alaude (recruited at DCCI AUC / 53 BC from Gaul) and XXII Deioteriana (Galatian recruits at DCCVII AUC / 47 BC) seem like promoted auxilia to me (By definition, Legionaries had to been cives).

Salve, JB. I would think that is almost impossible to determine based on available sources. Anyway, judging by the Roman attitude toward conubium, I think intermarriage was not so common.

Salve, Amici. BTW, Sic semper tyrannis is also the motto of the city of Allentown, Pa., "the Queen City".

It's important to note that this policy changes during the late republic times and Rome tend to grant citizenship to the local aristocrasy for services it has done for her (A good example for this is that Caesar granted Antipater citizenship for his aid during the Egyptian campain) and in the empire auxiliary soldiers were made citizens after they finished there service. The first reference to auxilia that I was able to find was during I Punic War (check this related thread(post #20)).

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum), Salve, Amici. The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV): Was there not an earlier encounter with Capua... hmm, this may have been later than I recall? Anyway, Capua was not Greek.

Libertas is not the same as civitas, (peregrini had the first but not the second) and I am not aware of any primary source which stated that all freedmen became full Roman citizens previous to Augustus. Even so, I think it's clear that only a small fraction of all the slaves were eventually freed.

There were probably some early engagements between the Romans and the Greek colonies of southern Italy (Magna Graecia) to be sure (Capua, Neapolis, Tarentum), Salve, Amici. The earlier I was able to identify was at CDXXVII AUC (327 BC) against Palaeopolis and Neapolis within the Ist Sammite War (T. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber VIII, Cp. XXIII-XXV): "Both consuls sent word to the senate that there were very slender hopes of the Samnites remaining at peace. Publilius informed them that 2000 troops from Nola and 4000 Samnites had been admitted into Palaeopolis, more under pressure from Nola than from any great desire for their presence on the part of the Greeks; Cornelius sent the additional information that orders for a general levy had been issued throughout Samnium, and attempts were being openly made to induce the neighbouring communities of Privernum, Fundi, and Formiae to rise. ... Publilius meantime had taken up a suitable position between Palaeopolis and Neapolis in order to prevent them from rendering each other the mutual assistance they had hitherto given. The time for the elections was close at hand, and it would have been most inexpedient for the public interest to recall Publilius, as he was ready to attack the place and in daily expectation of effecting its capture. An arrangement was accordingly made with the tribunes of the plebs to propose to the people that at the expiration of his term of office Publilius should continue to act as proconsul till the war with the Greeks was brought to a close. The same step was taken with regard to Cornelius, who had already entered Samnium, and written instructions were sent to him to nominate a Dictator to hold the elections. He nominated M. Claudius Marcellus, and Sp. Postumius was named by him Master of the Horse. ... At last L. Aemilius, the fourteenth interrex, declared C. Poetilius and L. Papirius Mugilanus duly elected. In other lists I find Cursor...The foundation of Alexandria in Egypt is stated to have taken place this year, ... The new consuls, acting on the orders of the people, sent heralds to deliver a formal declaration of war to the Samnites, and made all their preparations on a much greater scale for this war than for the one against the Greeks... the other war against the Greeks was approaching its close. Not only were the two towns Palaeopolis and Neapolis cut off from all communication with each other by the enemy's lines, but the townsfolk within the walls were practically prisoners to their own defenders, and were suffering more from them than from anything which the outside enemy could do; their wives and children were exposed to such extreme indignities as are only inflicted when cities are stormed and sacked. A report reached them that succours were coming from Tarentum and from the Samnites. They considered that they had more Samnites than they wanted already within their walls, but the force from Tarentum composed of Greeks, they were prepared to welcome, being Greeks themselves, and through their means they hoped to resist the Samnites and the Nolans no less than the Romans. At last, surrender to the Romans seemed the less of the two evils. Charilaus and Nymphius, the leading men in the city, arranged with one another the respective parts they were to play... The Roman commander gave his approval to the proposed scheme and furnished him with 3000 men to seize that part of the city which was in the occupation of the Samnites. L. Quinctius, a military tribune, was in command of this force."

That was probably not the case for the Porcia Gens, for one; Tusculum was the first municipium obtaining Roman citizenship as early as CCCLXXIII AUC (381 BC). Not to talk about all that Patrician families of Etruscan or Sabine origins

Why do you think that Coriolanus lacked general support among the Roman army? Seems to me that Coriolanus' political failure came from his opposition to the plebs, who formed the majority in Rome. You're right, I included Cn. Marcius Coriolanus as a populist leader by mistake. He was indeed exactrly the opposite, an aristocratic snti-plebeian commander. I was thinkinking in people like Sp. Cassius Viscellinus and M. Manlius Capitolinus.

As you were talking about blood relative you seem to forget that Claudius was the grsndson of Octavia, sister of Augustus and grandaughter of Caesar sister. And btw Claudius "adoption" into the Iulian family was illegal, since he simply took the name Caesar without any Iulian adoption him. infact Caligula was the last true Iulian. Of course, you're right on both counts. My bad. Gratiam Habeo.

Salve, Amici. I will go for number 2: a fictional place, like Swift's islands. The original and only reference of Atlantis was written by Aristocles (aka Plato) circa 360 BC in the double dialogue (failed trilogy?) Timaeus-Critias in the voice of a literary Critias, supposedly passed through Solon from Egypt. These dialogues were explicitly for the analysis of "the State-how constituted and of what citizens composed it would seem likely to be most perfect". So it is not surprise that the description of Atlantis is basically social. Plato was a Philosopher, not a geographer nor a Historian; Atlantis' account is clearly a fable and a social allegory, both topgraphically and chronologically absurd. In fact, the main characters of this unfinished story are the Olimpian gods Poseidon and Zeus.

Felicem Natalem Dies, ML.

You forget to include Claudius and Nero. Not Claudius: he was a Claudian, descendant of Anthony and an adoptive member of the Gens Iulia, but he was not a blood relative of CJ Caesar. (Neither was Tiberius, BTW). On the other hand, C. Octavius (aka Augustus) was the grandson of CJ Caesar's sister, and Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (aka Caligula) was Augustus great-grandson. I certainly forgot that, via Agrippina Minor, Nero was a great-great-grandson of Augustus and so, great-great-great-great-grandson of the sister of CJ Caesar. Sequitur

Salve, T and welcome. There's a huge amount of information here at UNRV for you, so my answers will intend to be only introductory. 1.- Generally speaking, ancient populations were harsh to strangers. The legal category for non-citizens (cives) at Rome was the peregrini; briefly, had no legal capacity ^according to the jus civile Romanorum, but had the capacity-of acquiring rights according to the jus gentium, which rights the Roman courts of justice acknowledged. They had neither connubium (the right to marry a cives) nor commercium (the right to enter into legal contract under Roman law). 1b.- Hebrews status under the Roman rule was especially complex, as their relationship varied notoriously thorough the time. 2.- Short answer: No. Long Answer: The Roman autocrats during the Empire were Emperors, not Kings; the latter title was specifically avoided by Caesar's successors. Strictly speaking, only Augustus and Caius (aka Caligula) were blood relatives (but not descendants) of Caius Julius Caesar.

Nope . This time, it is not Asia Minor .

Salve, GO. Yes, it is. The aforementioned naval battle was at Drepanum (modern Trapani, Sicily) at DV AUC (249 BC) during the I Punic War, with the Roman fleet of 120 vessels, under the command of the Roman consuls, Publius Claudius Pulcher and Lucius Iunius Pullus, attacking the Carthaginian fleet of probably the same size, under the command of Adherbal; the Romans lose 93 vessels. Titus Livius Ab Urbe Condita Liber XIX is lost, so here comes its Periocha: "Claudius Pulcher cos. contra auspicia profectus (iussit mergi pullos, qui cibari nolebant) infeliciter adversus Carthaginienses classe pugnavit, Consul Claudius Pulcher fought without success against the Carthaginian navy after evil omens (he had ordered the holy chickens to be drowned if they refused to eat)." It was a good example for Cicero's treatise de Divinatione (Liber I, Cp. XVI, sec. XXVIII-XXIX): "Nam ut nunc extis (quamquam id ipsum aliquanto minus quam olim), sic tum avibus magnae res impetriri solebant. Itaque, sinistra dum non exquirimus, in dira et in vitiosa incurrimus. Ut P. Claudius, Appi Caeci filius, eiusque collega L. Iunius classis maxumas perdiderunt, cum vitio navigassent. For just as we now consult the entrails of victims, though even that very practice is observed less now than it used to be, so in ancient times, before all transactions of importance, men used to consult birds; and, therefore, from want of paying proper regard to ill omens, we often run into alarming and destructive dangers: