ASCLEPIADES

I'm not sure I can, but let me try. A standard practice at that time and during most of History Once again, standard methods for almost any Empire. And in the Republican period too. BTW, that is the common historical self-interpretation for the vast majority of Empires. Both the Romans and their victims would probably found it easier to understand. Subjugation and slavery were the alternatives to annihilation. Otherwise, the risk of retaliation was always present. Romans were very well aware that they would have been enslaved if they were ever defeated, as it has been indeed the case, Valerianus being probably the most notorious example. You can skip the "almost". It fits perfectly with nowadays UN definition. I'm not very fond to cyclical interpretations of History, mainly because there are too many variables involved.

Sorry, I only have an easy one.

Salve, Amici. Qote: "Icarus would have approved of this, sickest way of humans flying, ever!". I agree. But maybe Daedalus wouldn't.

John the baptist? Nope! This is definitely a Roman legendary man. OK - one last clue. He is credited with building a little temple that had a fire in in! Numa Pompilius! (Thank Vesta this was "another quick and easy one"!)

Non est, quod gratias agas.

John the baptist?

Salve, Amici. I would agree with CA, SO and RI; the Renaissance had begun long before 1453; simply check out the dates for Dante Alighieri (1265

Oh, excuse me. I would think Octavius knew or may have imagined he was at least one of Caesar's heirs. What Lady A posited was "Octavian probably did not know of his adoption until he reached Brundisium"; I think his course of action was perfectly congruent with such assumption: (Appian, Bellum Civilis, Liber III, Cp. IX-XI): "At the end of a six months' sojourn in Apollonia, it was announced to him one evening that Caesar had been killed in the senate-house by those who were dearest to him, and were then his most powerful subordinates. As the rest of the story was untold he was overcome by fear, not knowing whether the deed had been committed by the Senate as a whole or was confined to the immediate actors; nor whether the majority of the Senate had already punished them, or were actually accomplices, or whether the people were pleased with what had been done. Thereupon his friends in Rome advised as follows: some urged him to take refuge with the army in Macedonia to ensure his personal safety, and when he should learn that the murder was only a private transaction to take courage against his enemies and avenge Caesar; and there were high officers who promised to protect him if he would come. But his mother and his stepfather, Philippus, wrote to him from Rome not to be too confident and not to attempt anything rash, but to bear in mind what Caesar, after conquering every enemy, had suffered at the hands of his closest friends; that it would be safer under present circumstances to choose a private life and hasten to them at Rome, but with caution. Octavian yielded to them because he did not know what had happened after Caesar's death. He took leave of the army officers and crossed the Adriatic, not to Brundusium (for as he had made no test of the army at that place he avoided all risk), but to another town not far from it and out of the direct route, named Lupiae. There he took lodgings and remained for a while. When more accurate information about the murder and the public grief had reached him, together with copies of Caesar's will and the decrees of the Senate, his relatives still more cautioned him to beware of the enemies of Caesar, as he was the latter's adopted son and heir. They even advised him to renounce the adoption, together with the inheritance."

Septimus Severus.

Salve, P. It seems like Papal revisionism as a response to the notorious success of The Da Vinci Code and similar stuff. Most interesting indeed and potential material for a couple of Best-Sellers, but I would think mostly innocuous. It would be in some way analogous to Galileo's affair.

Salve, SP As far as I remember, Caligula (1979) tried to please both History and *or* fans; eventually nobody was pleased. Too much *or* for the historians, too much history for the *or* fans.

Why did Octavian go to Brundisium? That was the normal port for coming to Italy from Greece. Octavius was going to Rome from Apollonia after knowing of Caesar's death . Strictly speaking, he first arrived at Lupiae: (Appian, Bellum Civilis, Liber III, Cp. X-XII): "He took leave of the army officers and crossed the Adriatic, not to Brundusium (for as he had made no test of the army at that place he avoided all risk), but to another town not far from it and out of the direct route, named Lupiae. There he took lodgings and remained for a while... he went to Brundusium, first sending in advance to see that none of the murderers had laid any trap for him. When the army there advanced to meet him, and received him as Caesar's son, he took courage, offered sacrifice, and immediately assumed the name of Caesar... Directly multitudes of men from all sides flocked to him as Caesar's son, some from friendship to Caesar, others his freedmen and slaves, and with them soldiers besides, who were either engaged in conveying supplies and money to the army in Macedonia, or bringing other money and tribute from other countries to Brundusium. Encouraged by the numbers who were joining him, and by the glory of Caesar, and by the good-will of all toward himself, he journeyed to Rome with a notable crowd which, like a torrent, grew larger and larger each day."

Salve, GO Malaria. Here comes AC Celsus, De Medicina, Liber III, Cp. XIV: "But if it be a tertian, when there are complete p281intermissions, or a quartan, on the intermediate days the patient should make use of walking and of other exercises and of anointings. In this kind of malady, well before the paroxysm, a certain Cleophantus, one of the ancient physicians, poured over the patient's head quantities of hot water; and then gave wine. Asclepiades, although he followed many of this man's precepts, rejected this one, and rightly, for it is of doubtful effect. In the case of a tertian fever, Asclepiades said that on the third day following the paroxysm, the bowels should be moved by a clyster; on the fifth day after the shivering a vomit should be elicited; then, after the paroxysm, according to the custom of Cleophantus, patients whilst still heated were to be given food and wine, on the sixth day to be kept in bed; for so he hoped to prevent a paroxysm on the seventh day. It is likely that this may often happen. It is safer, however, so that we may use the exact order laid down, to try the three remedies, vomiting, clystering, and wine-drinking, on three several days, that is, on the third, fifth and seventh days, with this proviso that on the seventh day wine is not to be drunk until after the time for the paroxysm. But if a tertian fever is not dispersed within the first days, but is becoming chronic on the day that the paroxysm is expected, the patient should keep his bed; after the paroxysm he should be rubbed, then, having taken food, drink water; on the day following, which is free from fever, the patient should keep quiet, avoid exercise and anointing, and be content with water only. And that indeed is the best procedure; but if there is urgent weakness, he may both take wine after the paroxysm and a little food on the intermediate day."

Salve, PC PP knows: 63 Lex Ampia Labiena de Trimphalibus Ornamentis Cn. Pompeius By tribunes T. Ampius and T. Labienus, allowed special provisions for Cn. Pompeius Magnus regarding triumphal attire after his eastern victories. (Vell. Pat. 2.40) "In Pompey's absence the tribunes of the people, Titus Ampius and Titus Labienus, proposed a law that at the games of the circus Pompey should be permitted to wear a golden crown and the full dress of the triumphator, and at the theatre the purple-bordered toga and the golden crown. But he forbore to use this honour more than once, and indeed that was itself too often." (Cass.Dio.37.21) "As for the triumph,

Sorry for the reprtition BTW, maybe the extinction of the discredited Gens Antonia had also something to do with the rehabilitation of Marcus Antonius, as from now on the members of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty were his only living descendants at Rome (plus the Numidian Dynasty in Mauritania): (C. Tacirus, Annals, Liber IV, Cp. 44): "Lucius Antonius too then died (25 AD), of a most illustrious but unfortunate family. His father, Julius Antonius, was capitally punished for adultery with Julia (the Elder, 2 BC), and the son, when a mere youth, was banished by Augustus, whose sister's grandson he was, to the city of Massilia, where the name of exile might be masked under that of student. Yet honour was paid him in death, and his bones, by the Senate's decree, were consigned to the sepulchre of the Octavii."

Salve, Amici. Certainly not. I think the depicted equines are onagers.

It's a likely explanation, though I suppose we can never be sure. That was especially the case for Claudius: (C. Suetonius T., De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Claudius, Cp. XI, Sec. II-III): "Then turning to the duties of family loyalty,... He did not leave even Mark Antony unhonoured or without grateful mention, declaring once in a proclamation that he requested the more earnestly that the birthday of his father Drusus be celebrated because it was the same as that of his grandfather Antony."

Something like that might always happen, but being that the case, I think the Turks have much more to lose than either the US or the EU, especially on the economic ground. I think we are going to see a more conservative and diplomatic solution to this incident.

Well, now I am even more confused, because I never said anything like that. Anyway, here's an Aztec grammar. I hope it may be useful for you.

As far as I know, Octavius had minimal contact with Caesar for any possible "tutelage" (C. Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. I-II): According to Cassius Dio his relationship with Caesar were close: "So much for Antony's conduct. Now Gaius Octavius Caepias, as the son of Caesar's niece, Attia, was named, came from Velitrae in the Volscian country; after being bereft of his father Octavius he was brought up in the house of his mother and her husband, Lucius Philippus, but on attaining maturity lived with Caesar. 2 For Caesar, being childless and basing great hopes upon him, loved and cherished him, intending to leave him as successor to his name, authority, and sovereignty." (Cassius Dio, 45.1) And according to Nicolaus of Damescus Atia indeed object to her son joining thr military for fear for his life: "Caesar had by this time completed the wars in Europe, had conquered Pompey in Macedonia, had taken Egypt, had returned from Syria and the Euxine Sea, and was intending to advance in to Libya in order to put down what was left of war over there; and Octavius wanted to take the field with him in order that he night gain experience in the practice of war. But when he found that his mother Atia was opposed he said nothing by way of argument but remained at home." (Nicolaus of Damescus, Life of Augustus, 6) Gratiam habeo, I. As you can see from the three sources, mostly (flatter) rumours, no hard facts. Check Caesar's agenda; Octavius was not with him at any battle (he supposedly was praised for arriving late at Munda) nor in any other campaign. And during the aftermath of the civil war, while Caesar was at the climax of his dictatorship, Octavius was going to school at Greece (in spite of his terrible health). There was simply no chance for any "tutelage". We have to believe that mommie didn't let him come out to play.

Gratiam habeo.

Salve, GO. Something like Mamucium Maius, for example? You know very well that I have absolutely no idea what that means! It's where Lady A comes from; please check her profile.

MPC: 1 G Man: 0 Touche'! Salve, Amici. Quite a nice job on this thread.