frankq

Interesting reply. Thanks! Then where, in the course of all this could you place Bibulus' response that basically the law "wasn't going to happen no matter what..."

Something curious caught my attention when I put it under cross-referencing. It concerns the heated events around Caesar's trying to pass the bill for getting land for Pompey's troops. The more popular story by many ancient sources is the way it is presented here at UNRV. Caesar wrote a great bill, was willing to amend it, and the Senate (led by Cato) just delayed and turned it down out of spite, confirmed later by Bibulus. Well, not so according to Plutarch and Appian. According to them, Caesar knew he would be rejected and was setting them up, and the moment he got grunts and hesitation on matters from the senators, took it as his green light to storm out of the curia and go right to the people's assembly. I cross-referenced further. Modern sources. One making Cato the villain, the other Caesar. I find this interesting. Although I am not a big fan of Cato and the Optimates, I find that all too often they are almost Hollywood stereotyped as reactionaries. There are two sides to every coin. Plutarch I can understand. He often got detailed facts wrong and he was as good as convinced that the moment Caesar sprang out of Aurelia's womb, he was savagely eager to establish dictatorship. But Appian I trust. History is resolved best on middle ground. I am in Europe where English isn't the official language so when I tried to get a copy of Holland's Rubicon to see what his stance was, neither the book stores nor the library had it. If anyone has it nearby and the time, could you see what his position is on how this played out. Did Caesar set the Senate up? Or did Cato and the diehards act like boneheads? Or was it, in fact, a combination of both? Again, history is resolved best on middle ground.

http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/war/romanarmy/ By far the best capsule summary of the Roman army I have ever come across. Written by a Lt. Colonel back in the late 40's.

Interesting to note how so much attention is given to the division of sides at Pharsalus and not at Philippi. Many of the brighter minds died there, too. Actually a long list could be drawn up. And events building up to it are exciting too, like how Cassius hammered Dolabella at Laodicia. From Pharsalus to Actium a brain drain was taking place. MHO.

Nice work, Asclepiades. Your analysis further supports what I've been arguing--if anything, the patricians favored the patrician Caesar to the republican cause. The only modification I might make would be to count the Liberator Brutus as half-patrician (through his mother and adoption by his uncle, Quintus Servilius Caepio). Numbers can be deceiving. I'm not disputing the figures. The fact of the matter is, after Pharsalus, Caesar was dependent on the opposition to properly run Rome. Many of his associates were army thugs. My opinion, the brighter minds in Rome went with Pompey to defend the Republic.

Primus, good point. Here's a link, scroll down: http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/classics/undergrad...TUREHandout.pdf It runs over the case mentioned by Cicero.

No. I'm still doing my homework on this. What I do know is that Ateius was definitely later (50BC) held accountable by the censors for publicly damning Crassus and saying that his expedition would lead to ruin for the Roman people. Technically speaking, he was alerting the gods about the matter and there was some case, which Cicero records, in which the utterer was deemed innocent and the doer (Crassus) the sole guilty party. I was alerted to this by a paper written in the 30's that states that Plutarch and the others got their facts wrong and that Ateius didnt do wild incantations at the city gate. The only contemporary source, Cicero, sticks to the facts that the auguries about the Parthian expedition were all negative and Ateius used this to publicly damn Crassus. The "Pompey escorted Crassus to the city gate" echoes too much of anecdotal Plutarch and it alerted me and I couldn't quite buy that a tribune would try to pull this kind of legal rank on someone leaving the city. Plutarch's way out was to have other tribunes veto the arrest.

Many of you are familiar I

What source do you have on it being used during Marius' time?

This thing in ROME with Caesar's face being painted red. I'm curious. This was the custom for triumphs in ancient times, but I have found no more "contemporary" Roman source from like the 1st Century BC that refers to its use. Was this indeed still in practice in the late Republic?

I can't find the quote at all. It is in Eusebius' chronicle but what parts I find translated on line have no mention of this. And his chronicle was based on Julius Africanus' lost chronicle. Grant is a credible source but cavalierly throws reference to this out in his book on the Jews in the Roman world. The method of poisoning naturally probably won't be given. Again, in a way, it might well make sense, poisoning a legion. Taking a legion on and knocking it completely out of the field is no easy task, especially for guerrilla fighters. Even the XII Fulminata had to be pinned in a pass and lobbed by slingshot before they were forced to leave behind their eagle. Any case, all Grant states is that ''a party of Pharisees'' did the dirty deed. Study of the Bar Cochba revolt also points that maybe the IX Hispana was discredited here, too.

I just ran into this in a book by Michael Grant. According Eusebius, who based it on the lost chronicle of Julius Africanus, the XXII Deiotariana was poisoned by a party of Pharisees. In a way, not a wild theory. The XXII was marching in as backup at the outbreak of the Bar Cochba revolt. Possibly it stopped at Gaza for provisions that were tampered with? A whole legion retching away is a sitting duck target. Anyone every read any mention of this?

Could be! Cool. I never saw them use it as such and I even thought I saw Caesar's freedman present it once like a certificate. But I could be wrong. Probably am.

Can anyone tell me what that certificate was hanging around the neck of the Greek freedmen in ROME?

I checked this thread out but little really is given as a review of this series and more is mentioned about Douglas' film.

There was a mini-series SPARTACUS? Just came across it at IMDb and the actors look like an ad for GQ. A 30 year old Crassus? Nice. This had to be bad. Was it?

Hmmm. Well. All the former posts are interesting. It seems the show started off to impress. Why then the reduced PR here atn this site? Since I joined it's been ROME this and ROME that. But never any mention (that I recall) of EMPIRE. Did EMPIRE have a Brit cast or a US one? You know there is a UK conspiracy, (in league with the Romulans), to dominate all Roman roles.

I have to ask this as an expatriate living in Europe. The TV series EMPIRE? Have I been sleeping? And how come I didn

I have to slightly amend my opinion of Hinds

Octavia is depicted as more feisty and colourful than her real-self is usually portrayed in the history books, so maybe she will assume part of the Fulvia role too?? Phil Interesting idea. And I agree, intro'in Fulvia would have knocked everything off. I do not find Octavia too far from character so far, but remember, i'm only up to ep. 6 and who knows how she really was in history. Austere, dedicated, but nothing saying she wasnt into a bit of hanky panky with an older woman from time to time. Antony was a load to handle and she gave him 2 daughters, she wasnt idle under the sheets.

Atia to Antony: ''Let's get married.'' Indeed? Antony was married at this time to Fulvia. If she faced incantations from Brutus' mother, she would have faced Fulvia bearing a sword and something like ''you messin' with my husband, tryin' to steal him, uh?'' The writers were wise not to open this can of worms. Having Fulvia in there would have thrown the whole balance off big time. Of course, I've only seen up to ep. 6. But if Fulvia isnt in there by now, I can't see her in there at all.

I just saw this last night. Oh my God. It's so bad it's actuaLLY FUNNY. Who the hell did Lambert's hair? While he has long been assigned to B movies, I was surprised to see Brandauer and Max von Sydow lend their part. They must have had a new house to paY FOR to accept the roles. Brandauer actually has some zip and spark as Caesar. But it's obvious that Brandauer's a boozer and doesnt cut the trim and vital figure that Caesar should be. And how come he's the only Roman with a German accent? See the movie, gang, just for laughs.

Could be, they are already downplaying or ignoring Cassius, who was the one true military man at Philippi and who went out after the first round. Poor Brutus.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good battle, but by dramatising Philippi, might not there be more problems than there would have been with Pharsalus? Excellent point. From a dramatist's point of view and fight scene coordinator's, it's a much tougher call.

One of them, the snake, is direct tribute to the great BBC epic I, Claudius. I think. Phil might be able to elucidate on this better.