indianasmith

Good point. While iron may rust away, objects made of stone, pottery, and bronze will basically sit in the ground - especially in a dry climate - until they are found. It's not that the ancients were careless with their possessions so much as people were there for a very long time, and everyone drops or discards stuff at some point. Over time, large amounts of artifacts wind up in the soil. Once it's there, it will stay there until someone finds it.

People can't exist without drinkable water, and the Romans knew that. Their aqueducts were remarkable works of engineering genius!

Amazing things are found in that ancient land almost every day.

Awesome idea!! Raising money for a good cause is always a good thing. Let me see what the bid is up to. . .

Good video!

True - but all of those choices were forced upon him to some degree - the invasion of Transalpine Gaul probably the least so, but the threats to prosecute him for acts which the Senate had already voted public thanksgiving feasts for were the main reason for his insisting on running again. Most of the things he asked for were not without precedent - goodness knows they had made so many exceptions to the rules for Pompeius Magnus already, including letting him serve as "Consul Without a Colleague." Caesar only asked the Senate extend the same exemptions to him that Pompey had already been given. By the time the extended dictatorship was voted on, the Republic was so shattered by civil war that all the old norms were thrown out. I think Caesar was a reformer, but I don't think his end goal was something like the principate that eventually emerged. Then again, my concept of him may well be inaccurate. I think we all, to some extent, see historical figures as we wish them to be as much as we see them as they were.

Much appreciated!

I grew up in church, and heard a lot about first century Rome from the pulpit, in the context of Jesus' trial and Paul's travels. But it was when I read the novel THE ROBE by Lloyd C. Douglas that I started seeing the emperors of Rome as main characters rather than bit players. Later, in college, I read the novel I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves, and then I was hooked. What fueled your interest in Rome?

I think Cassius Longinus was the abler of the two, to be sure. Who would the legions have sided with? I think that would be the deciding factor, in the end. Could Octavian have won their loyalty?

THANK YOU! I am about to write a description of a triumph in my current novel, and this will be very helpful.!

I wish they would do a similar video showing the route of a Roman triumphal procession.

I suppose that is possible - but who would he have lost to? Octavian was incredibly clever and a very deep thinker, even at a young age. I don't think there was a mind among the conspirators to equal his.

This is very cool! Thanks for sharing.

There is no evidence he ever asked for a permanent dictatorship. If you look at the reforms he instituted, they were dedicated to reforming, not destroying, Rome's political fabric. I think the "Dictator for Life" was foisted on him by the Senate in order to further the idea that he wanted to make himself a king. If you go back to the beginnings of the conflict with the Senate, all Caesar ever asked for was to run for consul in absentia, serve out his term, and then go east to conquer Parthia and regain the eagle standards lost by Crassus. We'll never know, really, barring the discovery of more detailed ancient records of the era.

That would have left Octavian, and Caesar's legions, untouched. The soldiers were loyal to Caesar and would have transferred their affections to Caesar's heir. Without Antony as a rival, Octavian would have leveraged Caesar's popularity with the great mass of the Roman plebs into absolute power even more quickly. The best hope for the future of the Republic would have been to let Caesar finish his conquest of Parthia, and then use the loot from that campaign to rebuild and reform Rome. I don't think he wanted a permanent dictatorship.