frankq

This also from Dio Cassius and now I think I've got to the heart of the matter and am answering my own questions... Here, an excerpt after Octavian's victory at Mutina. 39 ..... And when they learned the outcome of the struggle, although they rejoiced at Antony's defeat, and not only changed their attire, but also celebrated a thanksgiving for sixty days, and, regarding all those who had been on Antony's side as enemies, took away their property, as they did in the case of Antony also, 40 yet as regards Caesar, they not only did not consider him any longer as deserving of any great reward, but even undertook to overthrow him by giving to Decimus all the prizes for which Caesar was hoping. The pro-optimate senate reverses things and.... they arrayed all his personal enemies against him. Thus to Sextus Pompey they entrusted the fleet, to Marcus Brutus Macedonia, and to Cassius Syria together with the war against Dolabella.

This from Dio Cassius (boy, this guy really disliked Antony) I, for my part, do not admit that in doing this he is acting legally or constitutionally. Far from it: he abandoned the province of Macedonia, which had been assigned to him by lot, chose instead the province of Gaul, which did not belong to him at all, assumed control of the legions which Caesar had sent ahead against the Parthians and keeps them about him, though no danger threatens Italy, and after leaving the city during the period of his consulship now goes about pillaging and ruining the country; for these reasons I declare that he has long been an enemy of us all. The question remains, when did the senate decide to take Macedonia away from Antony's brother Gaius (Antony gave it to him according to Dio) and give it to Brutus.

CORRECTION: of the Adriatic to offer their allegiance to Brutus and Caesar...... Should have read ''of the Adriatic to offer their allegiance to Brutus and Cassius''.

I'm in a pickle, see if you folks can help me out with some very confusing coverage of events after Caesar's death. Before the Ides, Caesar's regime had either promised or already appointed Brutus and Cassius the proconsulship posts of Macedonia and Syria. Yet after the assassination, Antony and Dolabella seized those posts (many of Caesar's Parthian campaign legions were there). Now it gets confusing. Once pardoned officially, Brutus and Cassius complained and according to some sources the government offered Cisalpine Gaul to Antony and Asia to Dolabella instead. Catch here was that Decimus Brutus had seized Cisalpine Cisalpine Gaul. So Antony went to kick him out. Here it gets more confusing. Some sources like Appian state that Brutus and Cassius intended to take Macedonia and Syria back by force. Other vague sources relate they were given the posts by the new, pro-optimate government in Rome. This latter course is supported by the fact that, in order to soothe things out due to the vacuum Caesar's death had left, the senate issued an edict requiring all Roman commanders east of the Adriatic to offer their allegiance to Brutus and Caesar. Moreover, why would Antony have gone to all the trouble laying siege to Cisalpine Gaul? It meant that the senate transferred his governorship there instead, and when he wouldn't desist from the siege, it gave Octavian his chance to play the senate's champion and stop him. This whole course of events is glossed over by many historians, and the ones that do cover it have differing descriptions. For Antony to have taken the time and trouble to march on Cisalpine Gaul, it meant that he had accepted that province as compensation for Macedonia. Moreover, Cassius used the edict to force Bassus and Caesar's forces to lift the deadlock in Syria, and overnight acquired eight legions that he would use to take on Dolabella. Any input? Some better source I missed? Plutarch totally avoids covering this.

Exactly, incomplete account, and Appian's rendition makes Bassus look like the good guy and Sextus Caesar as the no-goodnik. My guess, Bassus joined Cassius at Philippi.

Anyone know the fate of Q. Caecilius Bassus, the Roman knight who murdered Sextus Caesar and took over Syria? Note---he is not to be confused with V. Bassus who drove the Parthians out of Syria and avenged Carrhae. Cassius eventually dislodged Q. Caecilius Bassus from Syria, but his fate I can't find. One source states: He only finally yielded upon terms that he himself offered to his antagonists.

The answer I think is simpler; he never was able to complete the full history of Rome that he originally intended-..... .... I believe he is the only professional historian to have ever won the prize. That is indeed interesting. But why not use Munda for dramatic effect as we near Caesar's grand achievements in Rome at the end his work. Fire or not, it just doesn't make sense to drop his pursuit of the Republicans in the narration. It would, on a grander scale albeit, be like recounting Hitler's death in the bunker and then leaving out Hiroshima. By the way, how do you define being a ''professional historian''?

All I know is that a film was made starring Victor Mature in the 50's. I've never seen it it, nor Richard Burton's Alexander the Great. Also from the 50's. They are two that I have somehow missed in my half century on the planet. Dunno how, but...

I dug deeper on the French website and came up with the translator's epilogue. Here's my rough translation: Here the account of Mr. Mommsen ends. After Thapsus, after the suicide of the last of the republicans, the Roman Republic died: was in the tomb. The framework which our author traced appears for him, as for the present, filled. For him, as important as the later events were, the second war of Spain, the battle of Munda, the return of C

I

Nevertheless, for such a definitive work, one that is often quoted, such a glaring error as omission of Munda is inexcusable. Again, I could be missing something but how? I read and then scanned over and over the section and couldn't believe he'd just close this vast civil war by saying that Gnaeus Pompey and Labienus went to Spain to hide out.

Yes, he was an early, almost revisionist historian who put Caesar in good light. It still doesnt explain why he goofed on Muda. If anything, it was the last stand of the resistance. How could he miss it? It's a glaring error. Like almost not mentioning Alesia.

Either I'm missing something since I'm reading things online but, Mommsen, one of the great Roman scholars, completely leaves out the Battle of Munda. Instead, he states that Pompey's sons and Labienus moved to the hills to set up a resistance. Period. No more. According to him, end of the land-based resistance.

Herod was a big name, even at that early time. The Sanhedrin knew they were taking a risk trying him, and Herod called their bluff.

Forbidden by whom? Rome might forbid all it wants, but it would only apply if the state who was 'forbidden' feared Roman punitive action. Would a client state government not try a citizen without approval from Rome? Probably not, but I can't see Parthia being overly concerned with a merchant who broke the law unless they used his life as a negotiating tool in some form of diplomatic gesture. Good question, and good point, I should have been more explicit. The case in point I am stating is with a client state, Judea. The Sanhedrin was trying Herod, at that time governor of Galilee. He was also a Roman citizen. Herod had the right to appeal to Rome and Rome did step in. My question was that whether client states were forbidden all together from trying Roman citizens. Herod went before the courts because his political position as governor required him to do so.

I need to know the legal implications. A citizen had the right to appeal to Rome if he felt he was being unjustly tried. But were foreign courts entirely forbidden to try Romans, especially if they might issue capital punishment?

Anyone know how well protected Roman citizenship was? I was under the impression that no foreign court could try a Roman citizen. Or, at least, no foreign authority could sentence them to death. Yes? No?

I need to go back and find the references. These are what threw me since I initially assumed he was just another Hellenistic king.

Those post do not answer my question about his ethnic background. He is referred to as a Hellenistic king, but, again, I have read references that he was of partial Persian descent.

Anyone know what the full deal was with Mithridates of Pontus as far as ethnic background goes? I read he was descended in part from Persian royalty, yet wasn't he and his kingdom Hellene culturally?

To answer my own question, I'm new here, my 2nd day, and I read only the first page of threads that made no mention of Pompey. A word on his merits as a general. A great strategist, but when up against tacticians like Sertorius and Caesar, he wasnt at his best. Pompey's genius was in putting the odds in his favor. If he'd not listend to the Boni, and had employed Fabian Tactics instead as he intended during the Civil War, things might have turned out differently. But he was past his glory days. The gods frankly had grown bored with him. A noble figure though.

Where's Pompey?!!!!

Makes sense, thanks. Irony of it all is the headaches Pompey put old Sulla through after he returned and, like a little boy, demanded his first triumph.

Hi. i'm new to the forum. I have a question. Cicero took great flack and was even sent into exile for having members of the Caitline Conspiracy executed without trial. Yet Pompey had Carbo, a man who had even served as consul, executed in Sicily without, I believe, a proper trial. (One of the things that earned him the title ''kid butcher''.) Anyone have better info on this?