Germanicus

thanks Silentium - added to my Itinery

The (warning) extreemly limited reading I've done on the subject has all indicated the seige began in 213, and that Archimedes died in 212, during the sack of the city. Some then go on to say the city was captured in 211, but in my thinking sacking the city seems equivalent to capture, so maybe 213-212 ?

'Wherever you are, remember that you are equally within the power of the conqueror.'

I think squabbles over who got a triumph were symtomatic of the fall of the republic, but didn't cause it directly. Sulla squabbled with Marius, Caesar with the Senate, etc etc. After the Empire came into being, there were no squabbles, because the only person who could celebrate a triumph was the Emperor. Germanicus was the last non Emperor to celebrate one, granted by Tiberius.

No worries - yes - Marius and Pompey - both the very definition of - forgive the pun "quit while you're ahead"

no...really ?

I am heading to Italy for three weeks, Rome for one of those. I'll check everything out in detail that I can, and understand that Hadrians Villa is about 15 miles south of Rome. Question for everyone :- Has anyone been and can you tell me about it ? I've seen some pics and it looks awesome.

How were the battle/seige scenes Hamilcar ?

Which Pompey are you referring to here Augur ? Strabo or his son Magnus ?

I just found out that the family Sempronii Gracchi were only elevated to Patrician status by Augustus - prior to that, the The Sempronii Gracchi were a plebeian family. see:- http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/gracchi.htm also- In looking for Patrician lists I found this - which was also intersesting :- http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Aug-Senatorial.html

I believe Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus Snr was a plebian, he served as Plebian consul in 177BC, hence the younger Gracchi were also plebian and could serve as Tribunes.

Smartass You are 71% Rational, 85% Extroverted, 71% Brutal, and 71% Arrogant. You are the Smartass! You are rational, extroverted, brutal, and arrogant. You probably consider people who are emotional and gentle to be big pussies who are obviously in lesser stature than you. You have many flaws, despite your seeming intelligence and cool-headedness. For instance, you aren't very nice. In fact, you're probably an asshole. And you are conceited and self-centered. Not only that, but you are very loud and vocal about all this, seeing as how you are extroverted. There is no better way to describe you than as a "smartass", I'm afraid. Perhaps just "ass" would do, too. But that's a little less literary and descriptive. At any rate, your main personality defect is the fact that you are self-centered, mean, uncaring, and brutally logical. To put it less negatively: 1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive. 2. You are more EXTROVERTED than introverted. 3. You are more BRUTAL than gentle. 4. You are more ARROGANT than humble. Compatibility: Your exact opposite is the Emo-kid. Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Capitalist Pig, the Braggart and the Sociopath. * Ursus, Lynch and I should get along well....classic

In the case of the Gracchi - would they not have to have a Patrician father, and inherit his name in order to be Patrician ? ie - Scipii - Patrician - Grachii - Plebian That's how I thought it worked, and it would make sense in terms of the tribunate requirements.

I've heard the name, and guess it would be the same person, but didn't know who he was or why he was known. I loved the Masters of Rome series too, I doubt there's a regular to UNRV that hasn't read them. I was already a Caesarean, but yes, Colleen certainly help to cement that position, to an extent. I'm curious to know if others were at all effected in their leanings between Optimate----Populare persuasion by these books ?

It's interesting, because I've heard him called the black emperor too, perhaps historians, people have been confused by this :- According to Dion and Herod, who were subsequently quoted by Gibbon :-

Thanks Lacertus - that page had what I was after. Although I'd like to know where they got this pearler :- At least there's this :-

I think Septimus Severus should be on the list Hamilcar. While he may not have come to the prominence he did without the Commodus' disaster, it was to a cerain extent the shift in attitude he displayed toward the senate that began to push that body heavily toward irrelevance. For sometime already it had been largely irrelevant anyway, but it always appeared to function, and Romans still liked to think they lived in a republic of sorts. After Severus, this illusion vanished with the Emperor no longer requesting the senate to ratify his laws or edicts, he simply issued them, like an eastern monarch - to quote Gibbon:-

I don't think Primus is saying that if you go and read some more on the subject that you will change your opinion G. Nero, it's fairly obvious no one will. But he is perhaps saying that you will see why he has his, which you have so far been incapable of doing.

"Would a abridged version due good or would it cut out too much?" Couldn't get the quote to work, anyway - I have an abridged version, and it's pretty frustrating, with what I think could be the some of the best chapters missing. What is included is really enjoyable anyway, not as heavy going as I'd been lead to believe either, and I'd now include it on a "must read" list. Some of the theories Gibbon puts forward are pretty dated in my opinion, and as one would expect, his views on women, the ethics of slavery and monarchy reflect his society and position in it. On the whole though it's just plain fascinating, and as Hamilcar said - no detail on anything is spared.

So JC, whats your opinion - Punative or Expansionist ?

Great work Hamilcar, I knew nothing of these wars.

Good call - expecting them will only lead to disappointment

You know you're going to have to spend that twelve bucks on it anyway Hamilcar, no matter how many people tell you it's a dog. I know I will

Just wondered if anyone could advise me on this - and point me in the direction of a historical resource where they are mentioned - or dog soldier descriptions from any of the conquered nations would be good too.

I think you guys are reaching the "agree to disagree" stage. Personaly, there are two reasons in particular that make me think Tiberius was not responsible:- 1 - Germanicus was offered the purple during the mutiny he put down in Pannonia, and refused. He even forged a letter from Tiberius giving in to the Legions demands, essentially promoting Tiberius. 2- Tiberius granted him a triumph, the last to ever be celebrated by a general who was not also emperor. If Tiberius was worried by Germanicus popularity, why offer the triumph ? Because Tiberius was setting Germanicus up as heir. I would have done the same thing - the people love him, he's refused already to try to steal my crown, and he's got 5 healthy children, and he's a good deal younger than me. If Augustus passed on any information to Tiberius, you can bet the importance of a popular heir for stability was one of them.