Cassius Loginus

Sometimes I wonder comparing Ancient Rome politics to nowadays politics, it seems that Roman used to conduct their government in barbaric way. Praetors, Quaestors and Consuls used to be elected through bribery, murder etc. Even Tiberius Gracchus murder seems barbaric to nowadays. Am I correct to think that in those days (the Republic days) Rome was barbaric compared to today however the way the Romans conduct their ways of Government was civil compared to their world (the Goths and Vandals were even more barbaric).

During the Roman Republic, the Senate (the aristrocracy) and the Tribunes with the Plebeian Assembly were always confrontational. The Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus murder was a case in point. Am I correct to say that this tension in politics has always been even to our own age: the Senate (right-wing parties) and the Tribunes/Plebeian Assembly (left-wing parties).

During the Republican era, both two Consuls represented the Aristrocracy of the Senate or one of them represented the interests of the Plebeians apart of the Tribunes?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely it would seem. The emperor's ego was not bound by the constraints of law that most everyone else was. It's civilization led by autonomous power. Such a combination will certainly have it's moments of incredulous behavior, but such behavior does not mean the absence of civilization. Here's the full passage relating to the death of Apollodorus from Cassius Dio Book 69.4. Strangely, the Historia Augusta ignored this particular piece of juicy gossip. I thought that Apollodorus was killed just for fancy sake. I believe Roman Civilization was the best thing that happened to the early history and we owe them our gratitude especially the West.

Here is an excerpt from Simon Baker's book 'Ancient Rome' (the famous BBC Documentary) "His (Hadrian) drive to excel and his inquisitive mind made him, for example, an accomplished, experimenting architect. The building of a temple to Venus would be the very first mark he would make on the city, the first imprint of his reign. He drew up the plans himself. When Apollodorus, the most famous architect of the day, criticized the proportions of the columns on the drafts that, in deference, the emperor had sent to him for approval, the quick-tempered, unforgiving Hadrian promptly had him killed." (Page 296) I cannot understand why Hadrian like other emperors where so brutal in their decisions, killing important people, in this case Apollodorus. We call this 'civilised' Rome?

Map updated. Forgot to include Cumae (Cuma) underground aqueduct. You may download the updated file from this link Aqua Augusta

Thanks. I try to draw them on Google Earth and post the file on this forum.

I have constructed on Google Earth the aqueduct system of Neapolis area. You may download it from this link Aqua Augusta I based the drawings on the following map from www.romanaqueducts.info:

Where can I find a map of Rome's acqueduct system. Thanks.

In Robert Harris's novel POMPEII mentions custom officers at Pompeii. Did they really exist and when did they start?

In the year 165AD two emperors reigned at the same time: Marcus Aurelius (seen in the movie Gladiator) and Lucius Verus. 1) How the power sharing really worked? 2) Was the return of the Republic two consuls system re-vitalised?

What was in 79AD: 1) the annual income of a aqueduct engineer 2) the price of a standard slave Thanks. (At the moment I am reading the novel POMPEII by Robert Harris and I am wondering how much the main character Attilius earned and how much he had to pay for his Greek slave Phylo.)

But this doesn't make any sense either. Plebeians and senators were not mutually exclusive groups. In fact, most senators WERE plebeians. What do you think a plebeian is? Senators always came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero. Plebeians were of the lower class, the mob. When the mob was angry, havoc struck.

I have read some chapters from Josephus's work 'Jewish Wars'. In 67AD Vespasian and Titus initiated a campaign of terror in Galilee by killing men and enslaving women and children. I am trying to understand how the Romans controlled their Empire by slaughter and intimidation. The old Republic's motto of Romans attacking other nations just to 'defend' themselves seems obsolete in the Empire period. The Romans were noble in virtues and in the Pax Romana however they were brutal and 'savage' practically. I am finding it hard to bringing together the two extremes of the Romans. The Romans dealth with the first Jewish revolt with ferocity and amounts almost to genocide. Anyway, the old USSR did the same to Ukrainians and other satellite Soviet nations. History always repeats itself. Please help me understand.

Salve, CL. I'm not sure why do you consider "the plebs had the upper hand in Nero's reign". It would be helpful if you could explain your thesis a little more. Thanks in advance. What I mean is that the plebs were politically superior than the Senate.