ASCLEPIADES

Salve, amicus! (Leonidas):"Tonight, we dine in Hell!" Spartan: "Phooey! Taco Bell again!" MAD magazine, Libri CDLXXXI, pg. L, September MMVII.

Gratiam habeo et felicem natalem diem, Lady N!

Felicem ante diem XVII Kalendas October, Nebula! Sequitur I et Sequitur II

Salve! Here is a very recent publication on this same topic by DeLattre: Papyrus coptes et grecs du monast

Salve! From the same JR's link to en.wikipedia: "The Strategikon of Emperor Maurice, composed in 539, calls for "ballistae revolving in both directions," ('Βαλλίςτρας έκατηρωθεν στρεφόμενας), probably traction trebuchets" Phonetically, something like "Balistas Ecaterothen Strefomenas"

Ausa (Vic) in Tarraconensis?

I totally agree. Good question. Here comes Mestrius Plutarchus of Chaeronea, Parallel Lives, Brutus, Ch. XXVII, sec. IV-V: "Straightway, then, he (Octavius) brought indictments for murder against Brutus and his associates, accusing them of having slain the first magistrate of the city without a trial. He appointed Lucius Cornificius to be prosecutor of Brutus, and Marcus Agrippa of Cassius. Accordingly, their cases went by default, the jurors voting under compulsion. And it is said that when the herald on the rostra pronounced the customary summons for Brutus to appear, the multitude groaned audibly, while the better classes bowed their heads in silence; and that Publius Silicius was seen to burst into tears, and was for this reason afterwards put on the list of the proscribed."

Συγχαρητήρια

Salve, T! You're right, indeed! BTW, the unlucky Plato's disciple who ruled this town was Hermias of Atarneus, previous slave of the Bythnian Eubulus and Aristotle's father-in-law by his(adopted) daughter Pythias. Your turn.

Salve! Nope, it's not Priene. This city was founded by colonists from a nearby Hellenic island. (In fact, you can see that island from this city on clear days). As far as I can remember, we haven't talk about this city on this thread yet. Oh, and this baby was dedicated at the late VI Century BC to an extremely popular goddess. Keep on trying!

Nope.

The nice piece of propaganda that opens this thread comes from Appian, Bellum Civilis, Liber IV, sec. VIII-XI. With the terrifying precision of the Alexandrian, here comes some of the remaining of the Liber IV (sec. V-XXX): "As soon as the triumvirs were by themselves they joined in making a list of those who were to be put to death... on the ground of enmity... or on account of their wealth, for the triumvirs needed a great deal of money to carry on the war ...senators who were sentenced to death and confiscation was about 300, and of the knights about 2000 ... ... (Lepidus') brother Paulus was the first on the list of the proscribed ...second name on the list was that of his (Antony's) uncle, Lucius Caesar.These two men had been the first to vote Lepidus and Antony public enemies... The massacre began, as it happened, among those who were still in office, and the first one slain was the tribune Salvius... sacred and inviolable ... The second one slain was the praetor Minucius ... Annalis, another praetor, was going around with his son, who was a candidate for the quaestorship ... killed by the same soldiers who had killed his father ... Thoranius (who was said by some to have been a tutor of Octavius)... Cicero ...was proscribed, together with his son, his brother, and his brother's son and all his household, his faction, and his friends... Cicero's brother, Quintus, was captured with his son ... (The murderers) killed them at the same time ... (Balbus) delivered himself to the murderers ... When she (Arruntius' wife) learned that her son also had perished at sea she starved herself to death... (brothers) Ligarius ... one of them was killed and the other ... threw himself from the bridge into the Tiber... so she (Ligarius' wife) starved herself to death ... the wife of Septimius, who had an amour with a certain friend of Antony... kept him until the murderers came. The same day that her husband was killed she celebrated her new nuptials ... Salassus ... seeing ... his wife bringing the murderers, he precipitated himself from the roof... Statius, the Samnite ... now eighty years of age, was proscribed on account of his riches ... set fire to it(his house), and perished ... Capito ... was overpowered by numbers and slain after killing single-handed many of his assailants... Naso, having been betrayed by a freedman who had been his favourite ... Lucius ... gave himself up to the murderers. Labienus, who had captured and killed many persons in the time of the proscription of Sulla ... waited for the murderers. Cestius ... leaped into it(a pyre) ... Aponius ... came forth and delivered himself to slaughter... Lucius, the father-in‑law of Asinius, who was then consul ... leaped overboard. Caesennius ... while he was reading (the proscription list) (they) killed him ... The centurion, recognizing Aemilius, replied, "You and he," and killed them both. Cillo and Decius ... their running betrayed them to the centurions whom they met on the road. Icelius, who was one of the judges in the trial of Brutus and Cassius ... was recognized by the murderers and killed. Varus, who was betrayed by a freedman ... a centurion ... recognized him, and cut off his head, Largus was captured in the fields by soldiers who were pursuing another man. Rufus, he possessed a handsome mansion near that of Fulvia, the wife of Antony, which she had wanted to buy ... His head was brought to Antony ... She ordered that it be fastened to the front of his own house instead of the rostra. A slave revealed the hiding-place of Haterius and obtained his freedom in consequence. Such were the miseries of grown men, but the calamity extended to orphan children on account of their wealth. One of these, who was going to school, was killed, together with his attendant ... Atilius, who was just assuming the man's toga ... revealed himself to some passing centurions, and was killed." Try to be neutral.

Salve! Nope & nope, it isn't Smyrna nor Ephesus. This city was ruled by a feedman that was a former student of Plato; he was eventually tortured by the Persians. Keep on trying!

Salve, guys! Here comes the Lex Duodecim Tabularum: Tabula V (concerning estates and guardianships) Lex VII "Si furiosus escit, adgnatum gentiliumque in eo pecuniaque eius potestas esto. " "If someone goes mad, his nearest male kinsman shall have authority over his property." This was one of the Curae sui iuris incapaces, provision for people unable to defend their rights; specifically the Cura furiosi.

Salve! Nope. Sorry, I have been busy. It's more than enough time for some clues: These beautiful Doric columns are on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor. Both Aristotle and Saint Paul came here. Keep on trying!

Gratiam habeo, MPC. IOU another. BTW, any idea of an alternative source for Carthaginian electoral practices in general and bribery (and other electoral faults) in particular?

Polybius had also something to say about bribery, in his own sui generis romanophilic way: (Histories, book VI, Ch. LVI, sec. I-V): "Again, the laws and customs relating to the acquisition of wealth are better in Rome than at Carthage. At Carthage nothing which results in profit is regarded as disgraceful; at Rome nothing is considered more so than to accept bribes and seek gain from improper channels. For no less strong than their approval of money-making is their condemnation of unscrupulous gain from forbidden sources. A proof of this is that at Carthage candidates for office practise open bribery, whereas at Rome death is the penalty for it. Therefore as the rewards offered to merit are the opposite in the two cases, it is natural that the steps taken to gain them should also be dissimilar." Regarding Rome, please note this happened likely a few years before the Lex Gabina Tabellaria. The tribune A. Gabinus was apparently not so openly optimistic about his own people as the Megalopolitan. Besides, the penalty for ambitus was not death (Lex Cornelia et Baebia de Ambitu). I may be confused, so I will be grateful for any clarification.

For the 59 BC (695 AUC) consulship election, besides CJ Caesar and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, there was only another candidate, Lucius Lucceius. Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Julius, Ch. XIX, sec.I-II: "Of the two other candidates for this office, Lucius Lucceius and Marcus Bibulus, Caesar joined forces with the former, making a bargain with him that since Lucceius had less influence but more funds, he should in their common name promise largess to the electors from his own pocket. When this became known, the aristocracy authorized Bibulus to promise the same amount, being seized with fear that Caesar would stick at nothing when he became chief magistrate, if he had a colleague who was heart and soul with him. Many of them contributed to the fund, and even Cato did not deny that bribery under such circumstances was for the good of the commonwealth. So Caesar was chosen consul with Bibulus"

Your recall is right indeed, Quintus Lutatius Catulus (previously Consul on 78 BC) and also a third candidate, Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus (previously Consul on 79 BC) for the 63 BC (691 AUC) election for Pontifex Maximus. Plutarch. Caesar, Ch. VII sec. II: "The favour of the electors appeared to be about equally divided, and therefore Catulus, who, as the worthier of Caesar's competitors, dreaded more the uncertainty of the issue, sent and tried to induce Caesar to desist from his ambitious project, offering him large sums of money." Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Julius, Ch. XIII: "After giving up hope of the special commission, he announced his candidacy for the office of pontifex maximus, resorting to the most lavish bribery. Thinking on the enormous debt which he had thus contracted ... And in fact he so decisively defeated two very strong competitors (for they were greatly his superiors in age and rank), that he polled more votes in their tribes than were cast for both of them in all the tribes. Sallustius, Bellum Catilinae, Ch. XLIX, sec. I-II: "But at that very time Quintus Catulus and Gaius Piso tried in vain by entreaties, influence, and bribes to induce Cicero to have a false accusation brought against Gaius Caesar, ... the hatred of Catulus arose from his candidacy for the pontificate ..."

Salve, MPC! I was checking your thread of March 2006 about the stereotypical symptoms of the triumvirate period, as you suggested me. The third symptom is "Intense electoral competition leading to secret pacts, bribery, and corruption". -Were you thinking in ambitus or in non-electoral bribery? -Even if ambitus was not effective, was its frequency related to the coming of the triumvires? -How can we compare the frequency of these conditions between diverse periods of the Republic? Thanks in advance.

In the case of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, I agree. Judging by outside evidence, however, John is much more reliable about historically verifiable matters than the other three, New Testament's historicity is an extense and always controversial issue and that was not what I have in mind; I tried to restrict myself to the legal aspect. Please remember, the absurd legal explanation of the Barabbas episode appears on the four canonical Gospels.

Touche. Gratiam habeo, Lady A.

Salve, VTC! If you were really subtle, you probably went on unnoticed (and unreported). In a previous post on this same thread (#5) I quote two reported cases of ambitus, one suspected (Marius) and one overt (Vetidius), this last one far from subtle. Anyway, the specifically forbidden acts and conducts by the respective legislation might give us some clues, for we can reasonably infer that was exactly what the candidates were trying; these laws were progressively more restricting: - Lex Pinaria et Furia et Postumia from 322 AUC (432 BC) for

OK, two points: - I still see the same uncertainty problem for both electoral strategies; you may expel and/or deny bribes to voters for your own candidate, or the inverse. - Once again; you may be right (and you may eventually prove it); many notorious Roman politicians had been wasting money, time and playing like idiots for centuries, waiting for us to tell them how the things should have been done. But idiocy is not commonly considered one of the characteristic traits of the Roman politicians, as far as I know. Therefore, it might seem right if we first explore some alternative explanations (vg, the ballot was not so secret after all, even after 138 BC). Mnnn. Maybe we should return to that in another thread, at least for the most remarkable cases, such as that of M. Aemilius Lepidus or L. Aemilius Paullus.

Lucky you. I am no warrior, so I haven't been able to empirically prove that statement, Nope, nope: I am trying to disprove a positive (that bribery has any effect on the election result). Remember Karl Popper. In fact, my previous statement was that it's easy to find evidence that sacrifices have no effects on agriculture results; you had no apparent problem with that one. And yes, maybe we have been over this before. That may be because your quoting of my quotation on Yakobson is incomplete (we've been over this before). If you put at the beginnig that part of "The prevalence of bribery speaks to the importance of the vote of non-wealthy individuals.", it probably makes more sense. And yes, I also find interesting Yakobson's point about oligarchy.