pompeius magnus

Segestan not meaning to be a perfectionist but Caesars life began in 100 BC, not 102.

My favorite one is the one I use for one of my signatures by Martial. As all his quotes it comes off as cynical and often rude.

First you have to state the type of disaster. Almost any disaster that happened to a Roman town was that the gods were upset at something. In the case of Pompey it was Vulcan who was upset. Another source that well documents disasters is in Livy's War with Hannibal which describes different omens and how the Roman people reacted to them, disasters from battles are also described such as Cannae which the Romans prayed to just about every god and dedicated games to them.

At least you know that they are two different languages. I prefer good english(American) and bad english(British).

I'd love to read it, i might take a month before a review can be posted as I am in school right now.

Does anyone know if there have been any recent efforts to find the lost manuscripts of Livy. Are they presumed to be destroyed or still in hiding.

bellum is a second declension neutered noun, whereas bellus is an adjective of the first and second declension, so could be bellus, bella, or bellum, bella is where the english word belle is derived from meaning beautiful.

If you want to get technical, the Julii branch wasn't Roman either according to your views, Rome engulfed Alba Longa.

Hate to break the news to you, but the United States is far from a republic. To be technical it is a constitutional democracy and is even slipping away from that as power is more and more being put into the executive branch. Enough of the politic discussion as PP and I have had our disagreements about this in the past, leave the American politic discussions to the Off Topic Forum.

If you study latin you will learm there are many ways to say the same thing, that there is a simple translation saving me from the headaches of participles or the devils invention Subjunctive and its clauses.

liber mihi dat aut mortem mihi dat. thats one way to say it.

The translation you gave fits the meaning. Latin has many words that mean the same thing but in different instances, pulcher is good for your purpose. And bellum does mean war, but confusingly bellus, an adjective, means beautiful.

vita pulchra est is the correct translation as vita is the subject so is in the nomitive case, with pulchra acting as an adjective so it is in nomitive also, and est is the verb so it commonly goes last. their are other ways to say it also using different nouns and adjectives too.

Also the concept of nationality is a modern term referring to the 20th century when nations were being formed. The Romans were a mixture of races as well, if you refer to the modern definiton of it. When they conquered a people they mixed with them creating a mess of genetics. This is seen in another instance with African soldiers, who were not Roman but part of the military system, which evidence shows were patrolling Hadrians wall and mixed with the native population, so many of the British today have African ancestors and viceversa, there were Africans who had characteristics of Europeans from soldiers from Germania and Gaul being sent down to Africa and mixing with population. In the end though, I must agree with Ursus, to be a Roman, was to belong to an elite culture, which latter many others would join.

Listen Segestan, I do not get angry very easily but you are getting very close to getting that. A democracy is not and I repeat NOT CONTROLLED BY A KING. There is no way around that, no matter how nice, or great the king was, he still ruled a kingdom. Alexander was a KING of Macedon, a great one at that. Rome was not a KINGDOM, IT WAS RULED BY KINGS AT FIRST, BUT FOR THE MOST PART WAS RULED BY THE SENATE AND LATER AN EMPEROR. Now that is not dicking around the word at all, it is simple knowledge. You can try to modify the concept of a democracy all day to fit your argument if you want, but Macedon was still a kingdom, Alexander a king who went on a conquering expedition with aspirations of brigning Greek culture to far reached of Persian empire and of bringing himself on an equal level with his ancestor Achilles. Here is a definition of a democracy in case you missed your history classes in schol it is from the Oxford Dictionary:

by hitting reply and typing words from keys on the keyboard.

Like P. Clodius said he was an absolute monarch, there was no senate, no sharing of power. You can dick around the term all you want but what Macedon had was not a democracy it was a kingdom, monarchy applies better to midieval kingdoms. Phillip was the king of Macedon so was Alexander. Alexander was not on a diplomatic mission for democracy any more than the United States is on now, sorry to bring in political views but it helps to prove a point. Alexander went over there for little more than revenge as he thought of himself as a Greek, and he then strove to spread Greek culture throughout Persia and India.

Pompeius problem was that he was too easily manipulated and was molded to fit the needs of the Boni after he and Caesar no longer had the bond through Pompeius being married to Caesar's daughter. Pompey should have retired before the civil war, but he did not, the same can be said of Marius who didn't leave the political sphere early enough and went insane, kind of, slaughtering Romans who opposed him after his last election as council.

Actually Alexander ruled the kingdom of Macedon and democracy was dead or near to death in Athens only because after the Spartan victory in the Peloponesian war one of the agreed terms was that Athens would no longer be a democracy. Alexander advaced into Persia because his father had planned on doing so and the death of his father made Alexander the king and he went into Persia after he had quelled a couple of Rebellious Greek city-states. He was not furthering democracy as much as he was freeing people from tyranny, or so he thought.

Everyone stumbled on to this site someway or another and I am just curious how. I was looking for Roman coins and found this site back when there were only 80 members here and have been here ever since.

I have to agree with Ursus here. Time for the coffin I think.

It upsets me that my namesake is not mentioned. I realize there are a lot of other great generals, but Pompeius was one of the top 5. Heres my list Caesar Scipio Marius Sulla Pompeius

I am not making fun of your writing, I was 12 once too, but you made it sound like you were disregarding the importance of writting well which is very important.

now future historian dont take this the wrong way, but i think most kids have theories they think are right, but most of the time it is their imagination, and you sound like you are boasting to be super intelligent, especially in history, but please remember there are many things to learn, especially about the Romans, and their are people who have been studying history since they were your age as well, me included, so be carefull that you are not being too cocky or you will cause people to disregard your posts.

future historian, writing is a huge part of history and if you dont have good writing techniques and habits, then you will not be taken seriously as a historian. You still have a lot of time to correct this, but please do not disregard the importance of good writing. And I side with PP here in getting a bit iritated when people do not bother to use different languages correctly and pay no attention to its various areas.