sylla

Just read Plutarch and Appian (and Frontinus, BTW). Your quotation on Frontinus (Strategemata 5;21-22) is in the chapter On Escaping from Difficult Situations , among similar anecdotes from such notorious "guerrillas" as Sulla, Hasdrubal, Brasidas and Crassus himself. Frontinus is talking here about huge armies openly facing each other in the field; in fact, the conclusion of the Spartacus/Varinius encounter was (Plutarch, Crassus 9:5) By defeating the praetor himself in many battles, and finally capturing his lictors and the very horse he rode, Spartacus was soon great and formidable; As stated, Spartacus consistently

That was an excellent commentary on the Third Servile War that would probably have deserved its own thread; besides one single major point, it

I will drink for myself as all days . Please have the best of days with your loved ones!

While waiting for better options from other UNRV members, I would suggest (if you have not already done it): - to thoroughly read the HERACLES article of W.Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology"; - to carefully check on its referred primary sources.

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Thx for so well balanced posting, CN. Being utterly ignorant in this area, my general impression is that the issue of the authenticity of the Falling Militiaman is still unsettled. The mere fact that this pic remained essentially unquestioned for decades makes you wonder about the reliability of our cultural perception. However, such authenticity would only affect our memory on Capa's personal honesty and abilities; for the iconic nature of this image, that is hardly relevant. After all, the image itself is still beautiful and expressive. Besides, nobody disputes the historicity of the facts; Borrell Garcia did die that day, the same as thousands of Spaniards across their Civil War.

What's wrong with the new avatar??? Yeah, poor predictive skills from the chorus.

While waiting for better options from Neph and other UNRV members, what about "Veritas Victrix"?

Sorry, I entirely missed your post. The inclusion of the Roman citizens in the equestrian order was an official appointment; money was an absolute requirement but not enough by itself. If those senators (or their sons) had ascendants of consular rank (as was the case for Pompey), they were nobiles by definition. They couldn't fall out, because they were never in; patricians were nobiles by definition, even on bad economic times; that was presumably the most relevant of their residual prerogatives (the Jus Imaginum). They were indeed by definition, as long as we are talking here about true Roman citizens. That's a big "IF".The issue is too extensive and it would require an additional thread. By now, let just say the Roman Republic undoubtedly had prominent democratic features, especially the obvious fact that the Nobiles wasted immense amounts of money, effort and sometimes even personal risk to court the votes of the mob. However, the Roman popular vote was hardly representative as compared with any regular definition for democracy, modern or ancient (ie, one citizen = one vote); contrary to Millar statements, an extreme social stratification was forever evident: the urban voters had only 4 of 35 tribal votes and were always outnumbered by the rural voters, no matter how few voted in each rural tribe; the latter were easily controlled by the wealthy ladowners (ie, nobiles and equestrians). The former applied to the Comitia Tributa; the Comitia Centuriata (for the election of the superior magistrates) was more complex, but it was equally biased in favor of the wealthier classes. That indirect voting system was applied to both the designation of elective magistrates and the legislative decisions of the popular assemblies. In modern terms, Cuba may be arguably as democratic and representative as Republican Rome at its best moment (or maybe even more). And we have still not even considered the obvious geographical restraints (voters could only vote in Rome, excluding most provincials and soldiers) and the effect of ambitus. The purported independent legislative capabilities of the comitia centuriata were essentially theoretical at best and almost never verified in practice by our available sources. In fact, the fate of Tiberius Gracchus and his men in 133 BC is our best evidence for what happened when radical popular politicians believed that such theory was for real.

This is the lavish but in all likelihood reliable description of Polybius on the personal ethics of the Roman state religion: " But the quality in which the Roman commonwealth is most distinctly superior is in my opinion the nature of their religious convictions. I believe that it is the very thing which among other peoples is an object of reproach, I mean superstition, which maintains the cohesion of the Roman State. These matters are clothed in such pomp and introduced to such an extent into their public and private life that nothing could exceed it, a fact which will surprise many. ... as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held in by invisible terrors and suchlike pageantry. For this reason I think, not that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell, but that the moderns are most rash and foolish in banishing such beliefs. The consequence is that among the Greeks, apart from other things, members of the government, if they are entrusted with no more than a talent, though they have ten copyists and as many seals and twice as many witnesses, cannot keep their faith; whereas among the Romans those who as magistrates and legates are dealing with large sums of money maintain correct conduct just because they have pledged their faith by oath. . . "

That

Really? Because that seems like a full contradiction. Why "anachronistic"? For one, at least in some Hellenic poleis blue-collar (without quotation marks) workers had indeed access to elected magistratures (or if you prefer, manual workers). Education was certainly not cheap; however, it was not an absolute requirement. As previously stated, huge amounts of money were required essentially for electoral promotion. Democracy and plutocracy are certainly not mutually exclusive. However, it's hard to find any modern equivalent for the Roman Republican nobiles, ie an almost entirely hereditary aristocracy with almost absolute monopoly of magistratures who never have to engage in manual or professional work of any kind for their daily living, as they were completely reserved for military and political activities (rhetorics included). Indeed; it is the degree of high dependence on economic resources in extremely unequal societies which let us define plutocracies. In fact, it's hard to imagine any better example than ancient Rome, either Republican or Imperial. As previously stated, only if they were sponsored by a rich patron or if they became suddenly rich by inheritance or military spoiling. Besides, that, you haven't been able so far to point any single example; that might be because you have not been able to found any after an extensive search and/or because it is easier to make unsourced general statements. As Ingsoc rightly pointed, MT Cicero was born rich, even if not in Rome.

This video (53:16 min) is about Mr Wright's book The Evolution of God; its subject is Abrahamic religions ("monotheism"); "polytheism" refers here to other middle East ancient religions (as the original source of the Abrahamic religions). Mr Kleiman considered that Wright implicitly described monotheism as "ethically superior" (meaning more tolerant) to polytheism, but Mr Wright plainly denied having done such statement. Mr Kleiman only tangetially dealed with classical polytheism. IMHO, as stated the main conclusions of both panelists were clearly biased: - Mr Kleiman considered polytheism more tolerant just because it acknowledges the existence of many cosmic beings instead of only one. In fact, polytheists don't acknowledge the existence of all Gods but exclusively of their own, and they can perfectly be intolerant against alien divinities; Wright in fact quoted some modern examples (Hinduism). - Mr Wright considered Abrahamic religions as not intrinsically less tolerant than other religions; this seems to be mostly a political correct statement, hardly compatible with History, even if we admit another statement of Mr. Wright, namely that religious conflicts are fundamentally not about religion (ie, they would be explained by other social, political or economical factors). As originally posted, the answer for MPC's question is easy; as ethics and religion are independent domains, no religion is "ethically" "superior" or "inferior" to any other.

Did they? Seems to me that there were plenty of nobiles that--far from being wealthy--were saddled with so much debt that it would take the wealth of a whole nation (*cough* Gaul! *cough*) to pay it off. Good point, however you should note that nobiles without money (such as Sulla, Caesar, Catillina) had some difficulty reaching the higher offices. Sulla, Caesar and Catilina were excellent examples of troubled plutocrats; even so, as far as we know, they were never poor and they never had to work for their daily living as regular Roman proletarians did (or any of us, BTW). Roman electoral campaigns were simply so fantastically expensive (elephants and other exotic animals included) that even the most opulent nobiles may eventually get broken; no matter how well supplied they might have been, they could always spent more than they had. For the beginnings of their respective cursus honorum, the not-so-wealthy nobiles systematically required sponsors; his first wife for Sulla, Sulla himself for Catilina and no less than Crassus for Caesar. BTW, the provincial Pompey was filthy rich form the very beginning, with enough money to field a couple of legions on his own. We know that because the Roman biographers (eg, Plutarch) were rather well aware of the huge economic resources required and they regularly tried to follow the path of the money. For the record, the answer for MPC's question ("Did they?") is definitively "yes, they did"; within this single post we have more than enough evidence of the huge economic requirements for the Roman Republican electoral campaigns. No blue-collar worker could have ever became even a questor without either a wealthy sponsor or suddenly becoming rich by inheritance and/or military spoiling; period. I have not been able to identify so far any single hereditary nobile that may have been a blue-collar worker across or immediately previous any successful electoral campaign; in fact, not even any novus homo either (obviously, military command was definitively no blue-collar work). If you are aware of any bona fide example, just name your primary source(s) so we might be able to check out the evidence; thanks in advance.

I can hear him breathing. Impressive as usual.

A. We entirely agree. B. Sorry, now I get it. I simply can't understand what would you require to consider any regime as a plutocracy; from Merriam-Webster: 1 : government by the wealthy 2 : a controlling class of the wealthy The Roman Republican nobiles widely fitted both acceptations. Panem et Circenses were not introduced by the Empire; they were required for any Republican campaign and, consequently, such campaigns were impressively expensive, as you can check on virtually any source. Any candidate required filthy amounts of money, either on his own or from a sponsor (ie, his patron), at least across the last two centuries of the Republic (BTW, the only well-attested period in our sources for this issue). Lacking the latter option, the only chance for any ordinary Roman citizen to get enough money was the war booty, as exemplified by Curius Dentatus. If you are aware of any well-attested exception, I would gladly check on your primary sources.

Scipio had decided that landing in Africa via Sicily, was the best way in reaching a final victory over Carthage, almost certain that this would draw Hannibal after him. He was, however, bitterly opposed by Fabius Maximus who saw this strategy as somewhat devious and therefore un-Roman. The old 'delayer' was now in favour of a direct attack on Hannibal in southern Italy and concerned himself with the prospects for Licinius once left alone to deal with Hannibal.Scipio's response was that enough destruction had befallen Italy during the fourteen years of Hannibal's presence and he would now take this misfortune to his homeland. He recognised that Hannibal's army was certainly past its best and Licinius was more than capable of dealing with it if the occasion arose. Scipio's plan was aggressive and, in my view, was correct for the circumstances of the time. However, although Carthaginian forces were still highly capable, I don't quite think that had he taken the Fabian line and remained to attack in Italy, that at this stage it would have been a defensive move. Fabius somewhat contradicts himself by stating that Hannibal is still formidable and how he might march on Rome after defeating a lone army under Licinius and later stating that he was "boxed in" in Bruttium and was therefore weak and ripe for the taking. If we are to believe indeed in Livy (Book 28), PP was absolutely right in his last option: Bingo:A great portion of Book 28 is a long synopsis of what must have been a long rhetorical competition across weeks or months, presented as two brilliant literary speeches with the evident influence of Thucydides and even Homer. Let us check some eloquent and self-explanatory pearls from both speeches: First, the eloquent thesis ("This speech of Fabius, so appropriate to the circumstances under which it was delivered, and backed up by the weight of his character and his long-established reputation for prudence, produced a great effect upon most of those present, especially upon the seniors"): -

Argument "A": The urban poor retained a huge influence during the Imperial period: that's why panem et circenses were required, even at Constantinople. Argument "B": Please forgive me, but I can't find the relationship between "A" and "B".

Linguistic traits can be extremely persistent: in fact, that is the operative basis for glottochronology. Culture is a whole different story; as far as I know, almost all evidence of the Gaulish civilization was utterly erased surprisingly quickly, in the lapse of no more than one generation after the Roman conquest. An even more extreme analogous example of linguistic survival in spite of cultural annihilation would be Mesoamerica after the Spanish conquest. Regarding the Romanization of Gaul, Roman imperialism By Craige Brian Championbsite seems like a good place to begin with.

I suppose you are well aware that by setting your standard for

A most cleaver observation, as the distorted image of Anthony as a useless drunkard implanted by the Augustan propaganda has persisted to this very day. The enmity of Octavius and Anthony was just because of the lust for power, not ideology. It is frequently ignored that Anthony was a most able absolute ruler of the Eastern half (ie, the richest and more populated) of the Roman world for almost a decade. Most of his personal reforms were preserved after Actium, and even the client kings appointed by Anthony were mostly conserved by Augustus; in fact, some the few that were dismissed by the latter were eventually called back again

Long before the Marian Reforms, his share of the war booty was essentially the only chance for an ordinary Roman fellow to obtain enough money on his own to translate it in real personal political power, as exemplified by many new men; that might very well have been the case for Marius himself.

Let me guess... Caius Proletarius and his other poor citizen peers were lucky enough to be comfortably waiting in their farms while the altruistic rich soldiers were risking their necks for them... pretty unlikely, isn't it? Especially because we have good evidence that, when things got hot enough, even slaves were recruited. Maybe we should try this one... like in any other city-state, military service was an absolute duty for all citizens. As any soldier had to pay for his own equipment, poor soldiers ought to get the money from moneylenders, the same as in so many ancient and modern societies. So these poor citizens became clients of their noble patrons (Patricians or rich Plebeians alike), usually for generations. The main difference from the Republican and Imperial systems was the number of patrons; multiple in the Republic, just one for the Empire. Never heard of this before. Maybe they used whatever they got in crisis, but there was no real crisis after Cannae. Can you give some sources for your statements? Nope, we are still just comparing notes on our respective working hypothesis. In othe words; HELP!: does anybody know any evidence and/or estimation on the recruitment procedures and rate (ie, proportion of the eligible male populetion) for the middle or late Roman Republic? Thanks in advance from Kosmo & Sylla. While we are waiting, we can begin with LoCascio (2001) for the so-called crisis of the Hannibalic War: Rome drafted close to 9.5 per cent of its entire citizenry in 215 BCE (the year after Cannae), 11.8 per cent in 214 BCE, and 12.6 per cent in 212 BCE (even omitting naval personnel); these figures are among the highest ever recorded and actually close to maximal biological capability (indeed, our definitons for "crisis" may vary). By any measure, it's clear the poorest Roman citizen was not excluded from such draft. BTW, please note these figures are also a strong evidence against the candid idea of perpetual voluntary recruitment, as suggested in another thread. It shouldn't surprise anyone that, when things got really hot (which was actually not a rare ocurrance for the III & II century BC), the Roman Republican recruitment became compulsory.