M. Porcius Cato

Weren't the Spanish armies of the Hannabalic faction 'long-standing'? Being funded by the silver mines of Spain, it seems that Hannibal's family could operate as free agents (i.e., without the ability of the Carthaginian senate to cut off their money).

The only person with sufficient influence and motivation to stop Caesar was Cato, and he did everything in his power to do so, including winning Pompey to the defense of the republic. Had Pompey acted with just a little more gusto at Dyrrachium, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Libius Severus

In the HBO/BBC production of "Rome," the messy transition from republic to principate is dramatized from the point-of-view of the characters Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo. What do the ancient sources have to say about these two characters? The first mention of Vorenus and Pullo comes in Caesar's Commentaries on the Gallic War (5.44), where their personal rivalry for the post of primus pilus is depicted as benefitting the larger republic: In that legion there were two very brave men, centurions, who were now approaching the first ranks, T. Pulfio, and L. Varenus. These used to have continual disputes between them which of them should be preferred, and every year used to contend for promotion with the utmost animosity. When the fight was going on most vigorously before the fortifications, Pulfio, one of them, says, "Why do you hesitate, Varenus? or what [better] opportunity of signalizing your valor do you seek? This very day shall decide our disputes." When he had uttered these words, he proceeds beyond the fortifications, and rushes on that part of the enemy which appeared the thickest. Nor does Varenus remain within the rampart, but respecting the high opinion of all, follows close after. Then, when an inconsiderable space intervened, Pulfio throws his javelin at the enemy, and pierces one of the multitude who was running up, and while the latter was wounded and slain, the enemy cover him with their shields, and all throw their weapons at the other and afford him no opportunity of retreating. The shield of Pulfio is pierced and a javelin is fastened in his belt. This circumstance turns aside his scabbard and obstructs his right hand when attempting to draw his sword: the enemy crowd around him when [thus] embarrassed. His rival runs up to him and succors him in this emergency. Immediately the whole host turn from Pulfio to him, supposing the other to be pierced through by the javelin. Varenus rushes on briskly with his sword and carries on the combat hand to hand, and having slain one man, for a short time drove back the rest: while he urges on too eagerly, slipping into a hollow, he fell. To him, in his turn, when surrounded, Pulfio brings relief; and both having slain a great number, retreat into the fortifications amid the highest applause. Fortune so dealt with both in this rivalry and conflict, that the one competitor was a succor and a safeguard to the other, nor could it be determined which of the two appeared worthy of being preferred to the other This much is true to the spirit of their depiction in the television series, with Vorenus, the 'strict Catonian', playing the foil to the fun-loving if violently impulsive Pullo. In one episode, "Titus Pullo Brings Down the Republic," Pullo starts a riot at a critical juncture because he gets in a fight with Pompey's men. So much has been covered elsewhere in this forum. What I found interesting, however, was Caesar's later mention of Pullo in his Commentaries on the Civil War (3.67). Here, we learn that Pullo has brought his men to the republican cause and fights bravely against Caesar's men! Caesar's scouts brought him word that the standard of a legion was carried to this place. That the same thing was seen he was assured by those in the higher forts. This place was a half a mile distant from Pompey's new camp. Caesar, hoping to surprise this legion, and anxious to repair the loss sustained that day, left two cohorts employed in the works to make an appearance of intrenching himself, and by a different route, as privately as he could, with his other cohorts amounting to thirty-three, among which was the ninth legion, which had lost so many centurions, and whose privates were greatly reduced in number, he marched in two lines against Pompey's legion and his lesser camp. Nor did this first opinion deceive him. For he reached the place before Pompey could have notice of it; and though the works were strong, yet having made the attack with the left wing which he commanded in person, he obliged the Pompeians to quit the rampart in disorder. A barricade had been raised before the gates, at which a short contest was maintained, our men endeavoring to force their way in, and the enemy to defend the camp; Titus Pulcio, by whose means we have related that Caius Antonius's army was betrayed, defending them with singular courage. But the valor of our men prevailed, and having cut down the barricade, they first forced the greater camp, and after that the fort which was inclosed within it; and as the legion on its repulse had retired to this, they slew several defending themselves there. One other discrepancy: both Pullo and Vorenus were centurions in Legio XI and not Legio XIII. In the wars depicted in HBO/BBC Rome, both legions had fought at Dyrrachium (where they were defeated by Pompey) and at Pharsalus (where Pompey was the defeated), but Legio XIII was present at Thapsus, whereas Legio XI was present at Philippi.

I wish I could find that book too! In the meantime, you might enjoy City: A Story of Roman Planning and Construction by David Macaulay. Yes, it's meant for young adults, so it lacks any kind of scholarly apparatus (footnotes, references to source material, etc). Nevertheless, it's a lovely introduction to how Roman cities were conceived and built, nicely illustrated by detailed drawings that won the author a medal from the American Institute of Architects.

I agree with Pertinax. This is a really well-written review, one of the best so far. Thanks, Ursus, for taking the time to write this.

Julia?

Here comes The House of Ptolemy by E. R. Bevan (1927), Chapter XII: In 59 B.C. ... Caesar carried a law, in spite of the opposition of the nobles, by which Ptolemy Auletes was recognized at last as king of Egypt, and, by a new treaty, "ally and friend of the Roman People." Sequitur Interesting. I wonder where Bevan got such a funny idea. See HERE for discussion.

How did Rome come to annex Cyprus? How did the whole thing get started? Elsewhere it has been claimed that a lex Julia had named Ptolemy Auletes 'an ally and friend of the Roman people'. Bevan (1929) would also have it so: In 59 B.C. Julius Caesar, the leader of the democratic party, was one of the consuls. It was believed that the annexation of Egypt was part of his own political programme. Yet Ptolemy contrived, by an enormous payment of 6000 talents, to buy Caesar's support. Caesar carried a law, in spite of the opposition of the nobles, by which Ptolemy Auletes was recognized at last as king of Egypt, and, by a new treaty, "ally and friend of the Roman People." But the treaty said nothing about Cyprus, where the other Ptolemy, the brother of Auletes, had been reigning since 80 B.C. as king. In 58 B.C. the tribune Clodius, a partisan of Caesar's, carried a law by which Cyprus was constituted a Roman province, and Marcus Cato was commissioned to go to Cyprus and induce the king to make over ship island kingdom to Rome. The only accusation against the king of Cyprus which Rome could find to justify this act of high-handed spoliation was that he was very rich and had not been sufficiently free-handed with his riches. Cato offered the king, in exchange for his kingdom, to have him installed by the authority of Rome, as high priest in the temple of Aphrodite at Paphos. But Ptolemy of Cyprus preferred to commit suicide. His treasures

Whoa. Now that was good. /Cato bows. It's true too. Ptolemy committed suicide after Cato told him that Rome wasn't going to prop up his government in Cyprus any longer. Annexing Cyprus as per the lex Clodia (and NOT a lex Julia, as Asclepiades wrongly hinted--tsk tsk), Cato then deposited Ptolemy's treasure of 7000 talents in the Temple of Saturn, thereby cementing Ptolemy's "economic contribution" to Rome. He had been a supporter of Pompey (though not in the Caesarian civil war, as I had mistakenly assumed). Of course, being the father of Cleopatra, he was thereby the grandfather of Caesarion, a child of one of the triumvirs. But what was his musical contribution?

Are you sure you haven't made a mistake in one of your clues? For example, mistaking two people of the same name?

If the notion that it's cowardly to murder unarmed and law-abiding patriots (like Cicero) is a "dogma," I'm more than happy to be a dogmatist.

Exactly my point--Octavian's early career aimed at nothing other than his own power (achieved mostly through the military talents of others and his name), whereas his later career aimed at stabilizing his power by means of re-establishing the rule of law that he spent so much of his early career flouting. Not apparent to me. What contemporaries of Octavian are you talking about?

I think that would be Liberatores.

I don't believe for a minute that while Octavian was slaughtering the family of his future wife at Perusia he had any consitutional reforms in mind. The second settlement of Augusts wasn't animating young Octavian to hide in a swamp whilst his camp was overrun by Brutus' troops. Octavian left Italy in poverty and starving because he didn't know what the heck he was doing.

There's a huge difference between Caesar's civil war and Octavian's. Caesar at least fought against armed men. He didn't slaughter his enemies while they were lying in bed or after they had surrendered (for the most part). And the Liberators too, though they killed Caesar while he was personally unarmed, did not do so in secret, and out of principle, they refrained from killing Antony and from proscribing the whole party of Caesar (though they had the gladiators to do it if they had been so inclined). What Octavian and Antony did went far beyond civil war--'war' is a battle between combatants. Those on the list of the proscribed and the men, women, and children of Perusia were not combatants. This is difference between butchery (which you do to unarmed cattle, not men) and war. It's an elementary distinction, but an important one.

Who was the first plebeian Vestal? How much did they grow in proportion over time?

Thanks so much for quoting this passage Nephele. It's one of my favorites in Ovid--it's such a dramatic contrast to the Judeo-Christian view of man. Rather than created from mud and saddled with Original Sin, Ovid has us created like the statues of Greek athletes--out of stone with uplifted face and proud posture. This is the kind of creature with enough noble pride to expel a king or to rise up after a defeat like Cannae.

Correction: Octavian had others butcher anyone that may have been capable. Octavian himself was too busy hiding in a swamp or behind his friends' petticoats to butcher anyone. Of course, I'm sure there's a legitimate excuse for his gross cowardice at Philippi--maybe he was busy looking for his filial irae. To me, Octaivan's swamp-mucking at Philippi is emblematic of his whole military career. Even as a thug, he was simply a cowardly, short-sighted opportunist, with his successes almost entirely confined to his use of force against the unarmed--the unarmed Senate, the unarmed men whom he proscribed, and the unarmed men at Perusia and Philippi who surrendered to him. That he outlasted his competitors by this disgusting technique is true--but in a civil war, SOMEBODY has to be the last person standing. I take this is to be an achievement of rather dubious quality. If there's a case to be made for any method in all this sneaky madness, it's going to have to be made after Actium. Before that, there's absolutely nothing in Octavian's early career that is even worthy of a Roman name (funny, it should be Caesar's!).

A house on the Palatine, preferably within spitting distance of the Reggia, and a villa in cool, nearby Tusculum.

Happy Birthday Augusta. Hope you find time to enjoy some reading.

That it disagrees with 3 main sources (Cassius Dio, Appian and Suetonius) about the adoption. I don't see the disagreement in chronology. What am I missing? My understanding of Nicolaus is that Caesar named Octavian as his adopted heir in 46, but Caesar hadn't informed Octavian (probably a shrewd move on Caesar's part, as anyone who has seen King Lear could attest). Thus, when Octavian set out for Italy, he was unaware of the adoption. However, once in Italy, Caesar's will had been read, leading Octavian's parents to advise him to renounce the adoption. What exactly in Nicolaus contradicts the other three accounts? EDIT: from your last post, I think we agree.

Aside from Nicolaus' effusive praise for young Octavian's charisma, what's the basis for thinking that Nicolaus has the chronology wrong?

Very interesting. Nicolaus states that Octavian had been adopted by Caesar at the time of Caesar's triumph after the African campaign.