ASCLEPIADES

Salve, I . Right indeed. Congratulations . Your tun.

I'm sorry, Caldrail, this is total tommy rot! I am not sure what books you have been reading at all! There was the little thing called The Augustan Peace; there was an enormous rebuilding programme and advances in engineering; there was the founding of colonies; there was stability. Augustus's reign was remembered for all these things. And you are not prepared to call them 'events and advances'? Words fail me, for once - they really do. Augustus' reign may have contained many fine things, but this thread was on the man and not his legacy. I don't think Caldrail is wrong to point out that Octavian's character (at least when he was young) is relevant to understanding "what Augustus was like". I assume you don't think that it was the avuncular Brian Blessed-type of fellow who had the family of Livia murdered? As you can read at the original quotation, Caldrail remark was indeed about Octavius' legacy; I cannot agree more with Lady A commentary. I assume nobody on this thread has ever characterized Octavius as an avuncular or Brian Blessed-type fellow.

Hint: He fought some memorable battles at Iudea.

Nope .

Salve, K. I think such impression would be mainly explained by 1. - Imprecise definition and 2.- Perspective effect. 1.- Imprecise definition, because some of their respective naval forces, especially at the beginning, were probably allied or auxiliary forces sailing under the Spartan, Roman or Vandal flags. 2.- Perspective effect, because the development of these Navies would have been actually not so fast; vg, the Ist Punic War took place over a 23 year period. I'm just in a little hurry now, so I will try to find source's support later. Vale. Gratiam habeo, Lady BH, for that wonderful post. With a little more than one thousand words, it seems like you really found "some notes" for us again.

Late 3rd century/early 2nd century BC. He proved a huge help in a certain crisis! And No to A's and G-Man's guesses. Masinissa.

C, have you checked any translation from a Latin primary source? (Let say T. Livius, for example?) You can review previous posts on this same thread. I may not be particularly clued up on latin but I do occaisionally look things up. However, in the case of imperator, the title is often confused with 'emperor'. The two words are very different although usually applied to men in similar situations. Imperator is a term conferred on a roman ruler (sometimes by himself although he shouldn't) by the military. It means something along the lines of 'Honorary Chief Commander of Rome's Armed Forces' - and since Rome was a conquest state, the title has political significance. Being awarded it means the troops recognise you as their overall commander and therefore so should you. Now, if you think that definition is wrong, you're entitled to say so, but you will get an arguement, because it came from someone far more learned than me. This is chronologically the first use of the word imperator by Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Liber II, Ch. XX: The Latin text: "Ibi alia inter proceres coorta pugna. Imperator Latinus, ubi cohortem exsulum a dictatore Romano prope circumuentam uidit, ex subsidiariis manipulos aliquot in primam aciem secum rapit. Hos agmine uenientes T. Herminius legatus conspicatus, interque eos insignem ueste armisque Mamilium noscitans," 1st translation: " There another engagement took place between the leading officers. The Latin general, on seeing the cohort of the exiles almost surrounded by the Roman dictator, hurried up some companies of reserves to the front. Titus Herminius, a lieutenant-general, seeing them advancing in a body, and recognising Mamilius, distinguished among them by his armour and dress," (Translation by John Henry Freese, Alfred John Church, and William Jackson Brodribb, 1904) 2nd translation "Another single combat between the leaders took place; the Latin commander saw the cohort of exiles almost hemmed in by the Roman Dictator, and hurried to the front with some maniples of the reserves. T. Herminius saw them coming, and recognised Mamilius by his dress and arms." (Translation by Rev. Canon Roberts) You could find the same translation in any other quotation of Livy or any other Latin primary source Here; simply compare them with their English versions.

Io, Niobe, Echo, Daphne, Aegina, Callisto, Iphigenia, Semele, Lamia, Leto, Tantalus, Sisyphus, Danaid, Ixion, Lycurgus, Tyresias, Paris.

Brutus. EDIT: Lucius Junius, more pecisely.

Antoninus Pius.

Nope . We are at Asia Minor .

BTW, Marcus Claudius Marcellus was a Patrician; tsk, tsk... No. The Marcelli were plebeian. See HERE: they were the most illustrious of the plebeian branches of the Claudii. You're totally right. My bad . And I think Lady A got it right .

BTW, Marcus Claudius Marcellus was a Patrician; tsk, tsk...

The only person with sufficient influence and motivation to stop Caesar was Cato, and he did everything in his power to do so, including winning Pompey to the defense of the republic. Had Pompey acted with just a little more gusto at Dyrrachium, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Or maybe we would be talking about how Pompey re-emerged as an autocrat and the sole remaining triumvir, eventually eliminating Cato (as Cicero was eventually eliminated after helping Octavius).

Salve, Amici. An open question to UNRV community: Is there any conclusive evidence of long-standing permanent armies at the Classical more-or-less democratic regimes (vg, Athens or Carthage)? I deliberately left open the main operative definitions of this question (ie, "long-standing", "permanent armies" and "democratic") to the expressed personal interpretation of the respondent. I ask this question trying to get support to the idea that the presence of long-standing permanent armies was the most significant isolated contributor to the demise of the Roman Republic. Thanks in advance.

Click An apology, GM. I wasn't aware. Anyway, he was "Severus III", (I suppose Septimius I and Alexander II), not "Libius Severus III". And if I'm not wrong again, there's still an usnsolved pic from GM Here. (Post # 255 on this same thread). I propose you all to solve it first.

Salve, DD. Notwithstanding its title, I would say Tom Holland's Rubicon may be also a good candidate. Valete.

Salve, Amici. Now, I have seen everything . Anyway, as I have found evidence of only one Libius Severus... MPC, it's your turn. Congratulations! .

Nope . Hint: He was of Lucanian origin .

Nope to all the previous.

Nope . He was an emperor, indeed.

Hint: It's in the eastern half of the Empire.

Maybe the Legio II Parthica, levied at 197 AD by Septimius Severus and established at Italy (Castra Albana) could be another example, as it acted both as an strategic reserve for any battlefront and as a safeguard against praetorian rebellions. So, it was critical for any Imperial pretender. In fact, during the following years (military crisis of the III Century) II Parthica was on the winner side most of the time.

Even so, Hadrian's military career was impressive indeed in comparison with any other Imperial heir: trib. militum legionis II Adiutricis Piae Fidelis (95, in Pannonia inferior) trib. militum legionis V Macedonicae (96, in Moesia inferior) trib. militum legionis XXII Primigeniae Piae Fidelis (97, in Germania superior) legatus legionis I Minerviae Piae Fidelis (106, in Germania inferior) .