ASCLEPIADES

Still spitballin' ... Quintus Servilius Caepio the Younger? Nope to all the previous. At some point, he was at the court of Mithridates VI the Great in Sinope .

No Sulla, No Cicero, No Sextus . He was the grandfather of at least one triumvire's children. In fact, maybe even two.

Nope to all the previous . He practiced a form of personal cult to Dionysos (Bacchus) .

No Sulla, No Cicero, No Sextus . He was the grandfather of at least one triumvire's children.

Nope . But he was considered mostly a friend of Pompey .

It's not a bad comparison. Mario Puzo would seem to agree: HAGEN You were around the old timers who dreamed up how the Families should be organized, how they based it on the old Roman Legions, and called them 'Regimes'... with the 'Capos' and 'Soldiers,' and it worked. PENTANGELI Yeah, it worked. Those were great old days. We was like the Roman Empire. The Corleone family was like the Roman Empire. Salve Iterum. Puzo made a fictitious analogy between an idealized Cosa Nostra and a literary image of the Roman Empire. I think such analogy would be unfair for both sides in the real world (ie, an undeserved compliment for the Mafia). Valete.

Gratiam Habeo for that X-cellent Link, GO.

Salve, AE. Aegrum Effectus (Latin) = "Ill Effect". Valete .

Nope . We are talking about the Late Republican period. In fact, he was one of the most notorious contributors to Rome's economic success.

I don't believe for a minute that while Octavian was slaughtering the family of his future wife at Perusia he had any consitutional reforms in mind. The second settlement of Augusts wasn't animating young Octavian to hide in a swamp whilst his camp was overrun by Brutus' troops. Octavian left Italy in poverty and starving because he didn't know what the heck he was doing. Then, I suppose Octavius did slaughtering and Constitutional Reforms at different times. The Battle of Philippi (DCCXII AUC / 42 BC) and the Second settlement (DCCXXXI AUC / 23 BC) had almost twenty years between them. Apparently, the contemporaries of Octavius blamed mostly Sextus Pompeius for the Italian poverty and starving, and considered Octavius' victory over him a major contributory factor for its correction.

A capital distinction indeed, but I would think it was Caesar's conduct which was the atypical one. Once again, Octavius was hardly original: after all, the Triumvires were three, their accomplices were many, and we must remember that it was the second wave of proscriptions. Besides, Sextus Pompeius' piracy was no limited to armed vessels. Butchery was the rule, not the exception. Presumably Caesar's demise gave a bad message to the non-butchering proponents; after all, many of his assassins were pardoned former enemies.

Correction: Octavian had others butcher anyone that may have been capable. Octavian himself was too busy hiding in a swamp or behind his friends' petticoats to butcher anyone. Of course, I'm sure there's a legitimate excuse for his gross cowardice at Philippi--maybe he was busy looking for his filial irae. To me, Octaivan's swamp-mucking at Philippi is emblematic of his whole military career. Even as a thug, he was simply a cowardly, short-sighted opportunist, with his successes almost entirely confined to his use of force against the unarmed--the unarmed Senate, the unarmed men whom he proscribed, and the unarmed men at Perusia and Philippi who surrendered to him. That he outlasted his competitors by this disgusting technique is true--but in a civil war, SOMEBODY has to be the last person standing. I take this is to be an achievement of rather dubious quality. If there's a case to be made for any method in all this sneaky madness, it's going to have to be made after Actium. Before that, there's absolutely nothing in Octavian's early career that is even worthy of a Roman name (funny, it should be Caesar's!). As far as I know, at least at the end of the Civil Wars, every Roman Nobile was trying to butcher every other Nobile (thug, if you like) who was not on his side. In this disgusting Roman practice, Octavius was hardly original; he was only the most successful. Most of his enemies (check my last previous post), senators or not, were hardly unarmed. In a Civil war, obviously someone has to be the last person standing. The obvious question is: why Octavius? I suppose we are not pretending once again it was mere luck or that his ethical background gave him an advantage over his supposedly more scrupulous competitors. Contrary to Caesar, he was indeed a coward, but hardly a short-sighted one, even at the pre-Actium era;; why do you think so? And why "madness"? His butchering was not indiscriminate; on the contrary, his victims were very carefully selected, and the method behind such carnage is clearly discernable.

Salve Asclepiades From that I gather the word was used in a very generic sense. What Pertinax says makes sense. One thing that always bothered me was the picture of legionaries and armoured auxiliaries fighting in the heat of, say, North Africa or the Judean desert in chain mail or lorica segmentata. It might very well be that some of them simply discarded their armour in these areas for simple convenience and comfort. Anyway I'll certainly look into that book "Roman Legionary 161-284 AD" for more details on this. It sure is fascinating. Salve, GD Maybe this will be more useful for you if you could upload the exact quotation, so its context may contribute to determine the exact meaning of expediti in your source. Valete.

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.

Hard to know... he butchered anyone that may have been capable. Salve iterum. That depends on who are we talking about; Octavius was certainly not a Maximinus, not even a Sulla. If you mean one of the Brutus brothers, Cassius, MT Cicero, Marcus Antonius, Sextus Pompeius, Menas, Cleopatra, Cesarion, or Q Salvidienus Rufus (and maybe even MV Agrippa, or A Postumus) he simply butchered them before being butchered by any of them. Now, if you mean C. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Lucius Antonius, C. Asinius Pollio, L. Munatius Plancus, Aulus Hirtius, M. Aemilius Lepidus, C. Sosius, or M. Aemilius Scaurus (and maybe even G: Cilnius Maecenas or Tiberius), he simply didn

Gratiam habeo, PP, for that X-cellent link. BTW, it would also perfectly apply to a Sibylline text or a Delphic oracle. In fact, well designed obscure prophecies can be used at any time and any place.

Salve, Amici. I have to admit that so far, after a thorough search, I haven't been able to find or figure any rational basis for the House decision. Now I think maybe the House

Heliogabalus? Nope . We are talking about the Late Republican period.

D'oh! Otho? Nope. He had some kind of musical fame.

Salve, GH. If you check out Titus Livius' Ab Urbe Condita, the adjective expediti is translated simply as "light", ie like in "light cavalry" or "light infantry". For example, at Liber XLIV, Cp. II; " deinde adeo inops consilii, ut obtorpuisse uideretur, cum equitibus expeditis litore nunc Heracleum, nunc Philam percurrebat, eodem inde cursu Dium repetens. And here it would almost seem as if his reasoning faculties were benumbed and he was destitute of all resource, for he used to start from his camp at Dium with an escort of light cavalry, and gallop to Heraclea or to Phila, returning at the same speed to Dium." ...and also at Liber XXXIII, Cp. VI, and Liber XXXVI, Cp. XV.

It's not Apuleius.

Baths of Caracalla.

Gratiam habeo, Lady D.

Salve, V, and congratulations. Are you included in any of those pics?

Salve iterum . I'm guilty as charged . Keep on searching .