DDickey

Oh, you know what: I was talking about the wrong book. The series I was talking about, of which I own two paperbacks, is the Age of Bronze, not the Marvel one. Sorry for the confusion.

A new translation of Sallust is coming out from penguin in late February. I plan on picking it up; I haven't read Sallust and this will be a good time to pick him up, I suppose.

I own the first two volumes in tradepapeback. I'm a big fan of this series. It's incredibly well told.

As usual, and unsurprisingly, you all are awesome. Thanks a lot for the links. I'm beginning some pretty serious research, so I'm sure I'll be bugging you with more questions. Thanks again.

Thank you for the response. In all my research, including ancient and modern sources, I've never come across anything defining plebeian as not being magistrates until, while beginning to compile my research, I came across this, from the appendix of The Fall of the Roman Republic by David Shotter: "Aedile Four elected annually, of whom two were 'curule' aediles, two 'plebeian' aediles. Strictly only the curule aediles were magistrates [my emphasis], elected by the comitia tributa, the plebeian aediles being elected by the plebs alone, in the concilium plebis. The functions of the two kinds of aediles were, however, apparently indistinguishable. They had a general responsibility for maintenance in the city of Rome, a cura urbis (maintaining roads, water supply, etc.), a responsibility to maintain the corn supply (cura annonae), and they were expected to lay on magnificent games. They also had some limited powers of jurisdiction in minor matters.

I've been doing research on the various magistracies of the Roman Republic and, while researching the various functions of the curule and plebeian aediles, I came across the notion that only curule aediles were considered, strictly speaking, magistrates because they were elected by the assemblies in the comitia tributa. If the plebeian aediles, having been elected in the concilium plebis, weren't considered magistrates, what were they considered, and why weren't they considered magistrates? Thank you in advance.

Currently reading The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic by Fergus Millar. So far it's decent.

Sweet! I've been planning on picking this up since I read Rubicon.

I finally dipped into my wallet--which is a lot thinner now--and ordered The Cambridge Ancient History IX The Last Age of the Roman Republic, Second Edition, which I plan on sinking my teeth into soon. And I can't effin' wait.

I completely understand where you're coming from. Also, I didn't think you were calling me out, but I wanted to throw that out there. I'm all for a good debate; sometimes I even get a little too zealous. I certainly appreciate your input and perspective.

Well, I completely understand what you’re saying. Perhaps I framed my opinion wrong. What I meant to say was that the tides were changing and the senators seemed more interested in self preservation that the preservation of the republic. In all the cases cited, the one constant throughout all of these events was that the senate acted too late to affect real change, or, more specifically, to counter the changing tide. These conflicts began with the opposition publicly opposing their rivals first to save face or to curry favor or popularity. Only when they realized the full depth of the threat facing them, did they act, but often their actions were put into effect too late to make any real changes. As for your question: My statement meant to illustrate the case that the senate, it seems, in times of crisis often suffered from inertia. They only seemed to act when their popularity or political careers were in jeopardy. Putting a new law into effect is better than simply avoiding the issue altogether for political purposes. If a weak or failed law was put into effect to try to address a social or political crisis, its weaknesses could be addressed or reformed, or the law could be abandoned altogether. Simply sticking ones head in the sand in order to avoid change isn't the answer, and avoiding to address change for fear of addressing it poorly was, and is, no excuse. And I am in no way defending the actions of Sulla or Caesar, but the question originally posed in this thread asked who could have had the influence to stop Caesar; and if someone meeting that criteria existed, why didn't he act on it? I was simply approaching the question from the point of view that the senate was more often than not more concerned with personal status than the status of the republic. I would like to state here, though, that I in no way, shape, or form pretend to be as well versed in the history as most here. I’m still learning every day. These are simply my observations based on what I’ve learned. And I have no problem admitting I’m wrong or on the wrong track if it’s pointed out to me. Knowledge, after all, is an evolutionary process. An absolute today may not be so secure tomorrow. I understand this and admit my evolution in learning about Rome. And I’m really glad I found this forum and I encourage anyone to call me out if I’m speculating wildly or blowing smoke out of my ass, so to speak.

Salve, DD. Notwithstanding its title, I would say Tom Holland's Rubicon may be also a good candidate. Valete. It's funny you mention that. I'm almost finished with Rubicon, but I want more! I truly love that period in history and would really love to immerse myself in it, so to speak.

By the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the Senate had long ago passed into a fraternity of prestige. Members of the senate wore the SPQR badge more as propaganda than a point of honor. They succeeded in doing only what benefited them. If it helped the Republic, great; but passing laws to preserve or enlighten or strengthen the Republic was only done if those sponsoring the bills benefited from it; in other words, “if it benefits me, awesome; if it helps the republic, that’s okay, too.” There are many instances in which the senate stifled laws designed to help the republic and its citizens simply because the passage of a law might curry favor for a person or persons not well liked in the senate. There was so much political infighting by the time Caesar crossed the Rubicon that his threat was only taken seriously in a peripheral sense. Only when he crossed into Italy did the Senate begin to take his threat seriously, but it was too late. So the senate—not all, by the way—relied on Pompey, but, because Caesar’s threat was taken seriously too late, Pompey had to flee in order to build a stronger army. I know this doesn’t answer your question, but I think asking who could have saved the Republic is a question answered by history itself. Who rose against Caesar during the civil war? Who defied him after Pompey’s death? The culture had denigrated after Sulla’s dictatorship, and the many controversies and crises in the interim, that the Senate’s collective weakness of resolve to address the conflict empowered Caesar to do what he did. In other words, he was the right man at the right time. A failure to address the steady decline of the republic in lieu of individual prestige led to Caesar becoming who he became. I think it was simply the right time in the history and chronology of the Roman Republic for a dictator such as Caesar to come along. Even Cicero said something to the effect that, had Pompey defeated Caesar, the republic would still have suffered. With Pompey’s victory, according to Cicero, Rome would have seen a different dictator and a different kind of dictatorship. But it would have been a dictatorship nonetheless. Because the times, and the increasingly selfish individual senators, enabled one. That’s my take on it anyway.

I'm about 250 pages into Tom Holland's Rubicon: The Last Years of the Roman Republic. It's a quick read, really well written, but having blown through Adrian Goldworthy's Caesar: Life of a Colossus, it's not doing a whole lot for me. Holland's books is narrative non-fiction and doesn't include as much historical analysis as I would like to see. Still, it's a good, and quick, read.

dleeklalocualnnteidony Male If that's too long: diadcenoleutkanlly I'm glad I found this site. For too long I've been corresponding with various Professors of Roman History around the world via email, bugging them with questions, speculation, etc.; now, having discovered this site, I can bug everyone here instead.

Hello all, I'm new to the forums here and I'm looking for a book, or books, that paints a fairly vivid picture of the city itself during the first century BCE. I know this is a broad request, but I'm curious to find out what the city was like, the layout of the city, etc. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, D.