WotWotius

I am a Coritanian at heart; though recently, the Dumnonii has adopted me. As for my interests, I am absolutely fascinated by Roman attitudes towards the native Britons

Oh, does you disertation involve the antics of Clodia?

...and Finland for their involvement in the siege of Leningrad.

That's my interpretation. I think Aemilianus was perhaps the finest Cornelian in Roman history. Cicero views him as the greatest Roman statesman

Where exactly did Aemilianus stand politically during the fateful years of 133 BC to his death in 129 BC? My view is that he was a moderate; he could not bring himself to condone the actions of Tiberius Gracchus, but he was sympathetic to the woes of Rome's Italian allies. Your thoughts?

Yes, that is the man. From what I remember, it seems that the remains of the canines illustrate evidence for skinning (various slice marks have been found on bones etc.); therefore, they may well have been served, in one form or another, in a ritualistic meal.

Thank you, but already have a costume: a sign round my neck that reads 'I'm Spartacus!' If I am aloud, I shall publish the photos in the gallery.

TOGA!

I cannot see any coherency in this petty little debate. All I can see it MPC pedantically nit-picking a statement said by the Augusta that only vaguely related to Republican History. The Augusta did not say she actively supported the act of Cicero's murder; she merely implied that Cicero's death was not a hardship for Rome. As for your point on Cicero apparently renouncing tyrants: notice that Cicero only launched his full-scale condemnation of Caesarian 'tyranny' after the death of Caesar. This in effect proves what has been frequently stated throughout this thread: Cicero was a contradictory coward.

:shutup: I suppose going dressed like Atia's slave gift to Servillia is not in the picture... :tomato: ...*shudder*.

I have also been invited to a Roman themed party: a 'slaves and masters' pub-crawl (the men have the slave status, and the women are our superiors). Does anybody have an idea for a possible slave costume?

...sorry, I will get back on the point. I find it hard to believe that Cicero's defence of Murena profoundly affected the Republic: the man was effetely a nonentity (a footnote of history if you like). He was acquitted for his bribery change, introduced fairly insignificant legislation during his Consulship and was never mentioned again. Stop me if this thread is starting to be argued round in circles: Though what was is interesting about this defence is the fact that Murena was probably guilty. Were you saying that Cicero was self-promoting at the expense of ideological values? Because that is my basic view of Cicero.

I admit that Cicero's philippics are an excellent example of just how fiery the man could be; however, it could be argued that Cicero's sheer hatred of Antony bumped his ideologies away from the middle ground and into a pit of political vigour. Note that I was also expressing admiration for Caesar due to his upholding of his principles. Do you in any way, shape or form, admire him for this?

I would sell a kidney to go to the places you both describe; however, when you are there, all you can do is violate them...for shame. But as for Cicero, I tend not to like him for the same reason modern politicians admire him: he was prepared to adapt to circumstances and change his policies for the 'greater good'. I chose to study Roman history because it contains men whose policies are so rigidly inflexible, their stubbornness often resulted in hardship - the stubborn ideology of Cato Major, the last-ditch conservative Cato Minor and the shameless seeker of popularity Caesar are three prime examples. However, I am of the impression that these nobiles’ ability to be so stubborn, and stay true to their ideologies (no matter what the situation), is what made Rome both great and remarkable. I am aware of the fact that Cicero's ability to compromise is a positive asset to add to his political portfolio, but let us face it: moderate politics does not make attractive history.

...hehe.

Commius' son (Tincommius?), may well have paid homage to Augustus himself. 'The following kings sought refuge with me as suppliants: Tiridates, King of Parthia, and later Phraates son of King Phraates; Artavasdes, King of the Medes ; Artaxares, King of the Adiabeni; Dumnobellaunus and Tincommius, Kings of the Britons; Maelo, King of the Sugambri; ... rus, King of the Marcomanni and Suebi. 2 Phraates, son of Orodes, King of Parthia, sent all his sons and grandsons to me in Italy, not that he had been overcome in war, but because he sought our friendship by pledging his children.' - Res Gestae, 32 Epigraphy (coins etc.), found in the territory of the British Atrebates, gives the impression that Tincommius was in fact a King of the Atrebates; but whether he was relative of Commius is not clear. However, the fact that a king of the Atrebates sought help from Rome in the time of Augustus indicates that the anti-Roman tribe of the Catuvellauni - a neighbouring tribe to the pro-Roman Atrebates - may well have started to expand into Atrebate land earlier than previously thought. Though this being said, Tincommius' homage could have just as easily have been as a result of civil war in his kingdom.

Didn't Plutarch say that after his fateful attack in the 'senate', Caesar proceeded to collapse at the foot of Pompey's statue? Though this event, rather than being historically accurate, was most probably stated more for dramatic effect; even so, it would have been nice to seen Pompey have the last laugh in HBO's Rome.

Wasn't the Curia being repaired as a result of fire damage (as a result of Clodius' 'fiery' funeral procession) during the period that the program deals with? Caesar was in fact murdered in the Theatre of Pompey. This may have already been mentioned; I have not read the entirety of this forum topic.

Very easy indeed. However, the only question that I was unable to answer was number 4). (edit) ...the answer just dawned on me now: it was Macro.

Sorry about that, I think it must only be available on my intranet (as opposed to the internet).

Below is a journal that you may find interesting: Pytheas of Marseilles by C.F. Angus. In regards to the other references to Pytheas, I do believe that Pliny cites him - though not in a particularly praising manner. It also seems that Tacitus referenced Pytheas' book in the Agricola; a lot of what Tacitus says about Thule corresponds with what Pytheas apparently wrote.

Ekk! You share your birthday with the likes of Kelly Osbourne! Have a good one.

I think it was ever simpler than that. When Octavian arrived in Rome in 44 BC, his main goal was to collect his inheritance: collecting this vast sum would mean he could launch a 'legitimate' political career, without the use of arms. During that time, his political position was weak, and, in order to have a chance of receiving his rightful inheritance, Octavian had to ally himself with the likes of Cicero. He was only aware of the bigger picture when he subsequently met with Marc Anthony and Lepidus directly after Mutina. It was at this point that he realised just how much power he could amass; therefore, with his new found alliances, economic position and imperial command, it was now possible to satisfy his initial ideology: vengeance.

The wine we were using cost

You are implying that Lepidus was merely prey caught in Octavian's well-laid trap; this apparently was not the case. When Lepidus decided to turn on Octavian he was in a very strong position: most of the legions in Sicily were under his control, and Octavian had seemly few troops. The only reason Lepidus did not receive his intended result was because he did not bank on his troops defecting to 'Caesar's heir'.