Virgil61

You shouldn't have to pay for an anti-spyware program. There are two excellent free ones out there you should download now-- Spybot and AdAware. Once you download them run the updates and then scan your system. Have both on your system as they each tend to catch things the other doesn't. Also download WinPatrol and install it. It's a great program that alerts you when something is trying to install itself in your system. Do you have a firewall? If not then you need to get one now, try Sygate, it's free for personal use. Let me know how it goes.

I don' think Claudius was stupid, remember he wrote histories of Carthage and the Estruscans although they're lost to us. Reading Seutonius he does seem to have some odd idiosyncrasies and could be very arbitrary. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned his cruelty; among other things he'd had thirty Senators and a couple of hundred equestrians put to death and during games would condemn men on the spot, throwing them in.

Just a quick clarification I should have been more specific, defend wasn't the right word to use; In Plutarch's Life of Caesar my copy says Cicero was castigated for not implicating JC, Seutonius says that Cicero was "invoked as a witness" by JC and Sallust says Cicero could not be prevailed into supporting the manufacture of an accusation against JC. Plutarch seems to hint at more sinister motives for JC in his Life of Cicero, but even then says he found no evidence implicating him, though some thought he was afraid of JC's friends.

There seems to have been a number of Romans who'd always been attracted to cults and foreign religions-- much to the consternation of traditionalists-- so their adoption of an outside religion doesn't strike me as all that strange. I do think that the troubles of the third and fourth century-- civil war, incursions from barbarians, roving brigands in some areas, high agricultural taxation, plague, etc. probably led much of the population to find consolation in Christianity which can have a somewhat apocalyptic feel as well as that "meek shall inherit the earth" thing which must have been attractive to many. I should add here in the edit that Christianity also made itself more attractive by adopting many pagan and Roman trappings. When you strip away the medieval layer of Catholicism you can still see some of that Roman influence. I've never put much stock in Christianity leading to Rome's downfall because I see it as a symptom not a cause of the decline of Rome.

I don't see the linkage between the run for the priesthood, which I suspect he would have done Sulla or no Sulla. It may have been a last-ditch attempt to protect himself but by the time he'd attempted the run-- if the timeline is correct-- his career was already damaged; he'd refused to divorce his wife, had his wife's dowry and property stripped from him and Rome was in a state of terror over Sulla's proscriptions. JC was an ambitious opportunist but I don't think he was a fool even at that age. He also had the added burden of being Marius' nephew for whom Sulla's hatred probably didn't escape him. His "highly suspected" involvement in the Catiline conspiracy boiled down to accusations and promises of proof that never materialized. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination that there were many optimates who disliked JC even then and wished to rid themselves of an irritant-- one of the accusers had lost to him for the position of pontifus maximus. Plutarch, Seutonius and Sallust (biased of course) agree that Cicero, who was no ally of JC and a target for the conspirators, came to his defence. Don't think I believe JC was a choir-boy, he was as opportunist as they come up to a point and could be guilty of certain shenanigans. I do believe that, warts and all, he did commit himself to the populares cause. I think he was almost as consistent at that as he was ambitious. For all his faults the optimates were generally a much worse bunch. I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one.

I appreciate your well thought out arguments JKM, but I do have to dispute the issue with Varro. The Romans had already lost several armies to Hannibal and Polybius makes very clear in the parapgraph before the election of Varro and Paullus that the Romans understood Fabius prudence, especially after his rescue of Minucius from total defeat by Hannibal. Fabius strategy was appreciated and not only by Paullus but by none other than Minucius who Appian states finally understood his wisdom. You make a good argument about the pressures Varro thought should force him into battle, but the primary responsibility of a good general is to access the tactical situation according to the terrain/position, the enemy, his army's capabilities and finally his own abilities and experience. Varro ignored his position which Paullus found unfavorable, was faced with one of the greatest enemies anyone has ever faced, he had an army where a large number had little or no combat experience and he himself had no military experience, ignoring the advice of his own co-consul who did. His reputation further suffered from the fact that Paullus, who opposed the battle, fought and died alongside plebes, senators and equestrians while he fled the field. To me the evidence is conclusive that Varro had made a serious error and disregarded solid advice. His mistake not only caused a great disaster, it stripped Rome temporarily of an army to defend it.

He certainly was pandering and the poster boy for the word "opportunistic". But I believe his stance with the populares was genuine, though no less opportunistic because of it. When Sulla held the cards he was given the choice of going over to the side of the optimates and divorcing his wife Cornelia, daughter of Marius' ally Cinna, thereby saving his neck-- he refused. A pure opportunist wouldn't have chosen that path. For all his ego-centered faults he remained constant in his support of the masses and many of his attempts at reforms seem moderate measures compared to what can only be described as the reactionary Senate of that time period.

When it comes to classical history you've pretty much covered it with the exception of museums perhaps. With a graduate history degree you can get-- here in the U.S.-- a government job depending on your area of specialization. I worked with a several Phds in the Army who were civilians and who's degree concentrations ranged from Balkan and Russian to Middle Eastern history. They spent a lot of time doing nothing but reading as far as I could see. I also know both the State and Defense departments as well as the CIA have hired history MAs and Phds. Perhaps Australia has something equivalent in its civil service. There's always a law degree, here in the U.S. a law degree is a three-year graduate program that leads to a Juris Doctor. I think in Australia lawyers practice with a bachelor's degree (horror!), but some schools offer JDs as well though I think they're only two years. When I received my JD something like 20% of law students I knew, including me, were undergraduate history degree holders. Trust me, lots of coffee and time in the library. On the other hand a good friend of mine's husband has a Master's in history from a city college in the Northwest. He sells insurance. When you find that job that allows you to drink coffee in the library, read and write in solitude--without a Phd in history or the classics-- and it pays well, let me know.

Economically the U.S. will probably continue coming along as the leading economy. I'm not a big fan of capitalism, but the U.S. economy's uncanny ability to efficiently utilize capital, the financial framework in place to raise that capital, its ability to implement technical knowledge into the market (such as the internet/computer boom of the '90s which, although it finally burst left more wealth, higher efficencies and created new markets) its reaction to market challenges like those from Japan twenty years ago, and-- in spite of the varying quality of our primary/secondary education system (from very baaaad to excellent schools)-- a great university system will continue to give it a strong economic engine. In other words I don't see a great move away from capitalism here. The WHO will become more all encompassing in it's power to mediate between nations and continue to eliminate some barriers but allow others due to demands within economic sectors of some nations for protection of national importance, such as agriculture. If the EU can get its act together and deal with some rising social issues, it may be a big contender, especially if its intellectual capital is used to greater capacity. I fear that the presence of a rising Islamic population there will lead to a serious backlash against them among Europeans that might become ugly. As for Russia; I've studied, lived there, dated them here, have Russian friends and have worked on Russian issues in the Army and my the civilian world for most of my adult life. I have no idea where they'll be, still can't figure them out. I'm not so sure about China, they're hopping along but I think there'll be some major changes there as the population's expectations rise. Their economy is moving but it's so based on exports that small changes in the economies or import laws by the U.S., Japan and the EU would effect it greatly. I've got greater hope for India, language and technical expertise may be their way up. I think Japan, which has been having economic difficulties in the last ten years, will have to change many of it's imporation laws and internal barriers to foreign investment and ownership or be countered with economic sanctions. Except for South Africa, the rest of Africa will remain a hellhole. The South Africans may possibly be a big success story. They have a very good technical base, universities and natural resource. They're trying to lure white professionals who left in the last ten years back, Cape Town seems to be a new tourist mecca for Europeans and the increasing participation of black Africans in universities and technical schools means they may have a bright future if they can get their social issues straighted out--AIDS, crime, etc. Ursus comment on Islam is interesting. I think Islam is going to come to a crossroads soon. Either they adapt to the modern world and more moderate Islam becomes the mainstream or they'll be relegated to economic hell. I think other sources of energy will be discovered besides oil, due to some technological breakthrough, and after that the Islamic world will be with even less resources or any reason the rest of the world is interested in them. If they don't moderate, then I think Christianity and Islam will come to serious conflict in Africa where both religions are booming. I also somewhat agree on his prospects for Christianity, especially in the U.S. although I think it will continue to boom in Africa, possibly causing problems with Islam. It also looks like it may boom in Asia perhaps causing social problems while cultures adjust. I also think that Catholicism will continue to grow in the third world. Once a non-European becomes Pope I think the trend will continue, maybe permanently, and may become a great draw. South America will become a hodge-podge of ecnomically successful nations alongside poor ones. Australia will have Disneyland, be a retirement community for Americans and become the 56th U.S. state after Puerto Rico, British Columbia, Alberta, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan.

Genocide? Surely you have figures besides Plutarch

I believe his point seemed to be that the rich oligarchs feared JC because he'd thrown in his lot with the populares at a fairly young age. He may not have been "selfless" but there's ample evidence that he was keen on reforming the system by leveling the playing field between populares and optimates with land reforms, debt reduction, etc. He extended the benefits of citizenship on a relatively wide scale and I believe he was the first to appoint a Gaul as Senator much to the consternation of many in the Senate. When seen in the light of the optimates history of disenfranchisement of a large portion of the populace, JC comes off as a much more sympathetic figure.

I'd forgotten Cilicia, still he was a bit of a self-promoter on the triumph thing. He was never shy of self-promotion that's for sure.

I hope this is the correct forum for this, you're all the perfect group to share this with. My brother and I are planning on visiting relatives in Italy next summer. Both of my parent

It escapes few on UNRV, but it still has little relation with "generalship" in the military sense. In Roman history, along the spectrum of politician to general, Cicero stands as close to pure politician as any Roman and almost utterly devoid of military skill. Cicero's inability to "control" the outbreak of civil war and the outcome at Pharsalus or the Second Triumvirate makes him less than the greatest general or politician-- according to your own hazy definition.

Now why would you want to cheer your country on in this? You have a wonderfully chaotic and respectably violent sport in rugby.

Hello Professor Ward-Perkins and welcome to the forum. I

Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro were the two consuls. Don't be to hard on Lucius Paullus, he'd tried to talk Varro into avoiding battle knowing that the Roman army wasn't trained up to speed (according to Polybius) and wary of Hannibal's generalship. But according to the consular system it was Varro's day to command. Varro fled the battle to "warn Rome", while Lucius Paullus stood and fought (and was killed).

I wonder if splitting it into the Republic, the Principate and the Dominate (or just late Roman Empire) might be feasible. They're quite distinct eras, although we tend to focus on the first two much more than the last one. It might just fracture the topic of empire a bit too much at this time, but might be something to keep in mind if traffic increases on UNRV at the pace it's been going.

Tacitus, The Annals, 12, 35.3. A google of AJ Woodman shows that he was a prof at University of Durham in northern England near the border with Scotland. I suspect that influenced his choice of the word claymore, it may be more commonly used there then here. Anyone from that island want to chime in?

I did find this: Scottish Claymore Sword. This and other google returns seem to show it's the Scottish sword Flavius described and used in the 14th - 16th centuries. Learn something new everday.

My translation by Moses Hadas says So it appears to mean sabres. I've seen claymores in action, they're a Vietnam-era piece of ordinance with the famous "Front Toward Enemy" label on them; you give me about six well-placed claymores and I'd cause carnage in any ancient armies ranks!

Born in Italy and lived there for six years, family is from the Pacific Northwest, live in Northern Virginia (DC area) and lived in North Carolina the longest. NC-- Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill-- is without a doubt the best place I've ever lived.

It's ironic that 1500 years later Europeans resurrected the idea of the phalanx modifiying it by making it smaller, faster and a bit more flexible and then gradually adding other weapons into the formation alongside pikes.

I'd recommend Power, Corruption and Lies by New Order. Hands down my favorite New Order cd. Joy Division-- the band the surviving members of New Order came from-- is great but can be a little intense depending on your tastes. The Band was an influential "band" from the late 60s and early 70s that played with Bob Dylan and backed him on a couple of albums. If you like Dylan or Neil Young you might like them, I'd recommend their first albums called "The Band" or "Music from the Big Pink". Both routinely make the best 100 albums lists but they aren't like much music being played on MTV today or on the charts today; country-rock-folk might be the best way to describe them.

The Smiths and Stone Roses are now considered "classics", man I'm getting old. I've got a fairly wide range of music from punk to classical to jazz/blues etc. that I listen to with over 2,500 cds, tapes and records (those vinyl things) collected so far. I have a decent stereo system with Quad and ACI speakers, an NAD integrated amp, old Nakamichi tape deck, old McIntosh tuner and Pioneer Elite cd player. I try to give it good workout every once in a while. Bands sitting on my cd player, tape deck, turntable and mp3 player lately: Mahavishnu Orchestra- The Inner Mounting Flame (great guitar jamming fusion) Allman Brothers Band- Live at the Fillmore East and Eat a Peach. Duane Allman comes close to Hendrix. Jimi Hendrix- Band of Gypsys and First Rays of the New Rising Sun. Late Hendrix at his best. John Hiatt- Master of Disaster New Pornographers- everything Rory Gallagher- outstanding but forgotten blues-rocker. Hawkwind- mid-70s Pink Floyd meets Black Sabbath. And recently as well a lot of Neil Young, Uncle Tupelo, The Connells and Warren Zevon. I'm a big Howling Wold fan, listen to him and you'll hear where Zepplin got their inspiration. I'm also partial to a lot of early-punk and post-punk like Sex Pistols, Ramones, Wire, The Replacements, Guided by Voices and Husker Du.