pompeius magnus

I cant allow my name sake to take this kind of abuse. From my readings of Pompeius there are many questions that have been raised to his various techniques. The greatest of the questions on his techniques/ his supposed stealing would definently be the taking away of the command in the Mithradic War from Lucullus. This is a matter of point of view contrary as I have read that citizens of that time viewed it as a great injustice, and others as something that was not his fault. My view on this topic would be that in the world of Roman politics it was every man for himself, there were obviously alliances that were formed, such as Lucullus being a general who was in favor with Sulla, and Pompeius who had the backing of the people and much of the senate. I have recently come up with the notion that the main reason behind Lucullus losing his command was because of this favor of Sulla who had since died and many were still angry with his policies as dictator. Pompeius' main weakness was his drive to be liked by all, with this he fell into many problems and sided himself with the wrong people whom would eventually lead to his downfall at the battle of Pharlasus, or something like that. In another instance Pompey was sent to Spain and in a sense took the command away from the general over there in the war against Marius' cousin and a very talented general Serotorius. Pompey was defeated at first in this war but his great organizational skills and generalship helped the tide to be swung and Sertorius defeated. But in this instance there is no blaming Pompey for attempting to steal the command of Pius. With Lucullus, Pompeius was also in favor with Sulla in his younger years but at a much less extent and more of an aquintance. I await a reply.

Yes I have returned from an extended absense. Among the many reading I have done on Caesar, and also some of the other great men of the late republic, Plutarch does not directly mention anything of the affair, neither does a more modern text that goes into his youth. Assuming that it is true that Caesar was put in this position, it was more than likely to safe guard Marius' position as the Greatest Roman of all time, which he was told by his prophetess that Caesar would overcome his greatness. If Caesar was the Flamen Dialis then he could not be in a position to go into battle, as the FD could not see blood. The paramount reason that I think Sulla would have released Caesar from this restricting position was not because he recognized Caesars great abilities, which may have had something to do with it, but more likely to foil his bitterest enemies' plans and let Caesar become the man, the leader, the general, the god he was destined to be.

Solons laws were not directly involved there, as the formation of the Roman senate was in existence before the Solon Laws came into existence, but its expansion to include others was influenced by these, as well more heavily on the succession of the plebs. Also another important Greek law were those established by Cleisthes and his constitution.

Building off of what Primus wrote, the Senate was made up of the original families and through time it changed to encompass a larger range. The adoption of the Laws of Solon from Athens caused the Romans to be divided into tribes, which towards the middle and end of the republic is where you had some of the senators coming from and also is how the voting was split up.

My picture is of my favorite Roman: Pompeius magnus My signatures are from various sources: first quote was from Livy's War with Hannibal next one is the greek epitaph from the battle of Thermopolae- final one is a poem from my favorite poet Martial

Inside the walls of the roman camp

Favorite book: Historical: Beginnings of Rome by TJ Cornell and Gods and Warriors by some author I cant remember Non Historical: the Hobbit/ Catcher in the Rye/The Sound and the Fury Historical Fiction: First Man in Rome series Favorite Movie: Overall Movie: either Zoolander, Wedding Crashers, or Ghostbusters Historical: Hard to choose a good one, but i would have to cash in my vote for Band of Brothers

Yeah sorry, did post on the run so didnt take the time to look up correct spelling.

Hands down the best outside of Oxford is the University of Michigan, they have a phd program in Greek and Roman history which I will be trying to get into in a few years.

I would have to side with Favonius' translation semper in meo animo as semper is the best way to say forever, and animo is describing not the literal heart as in the thing that pumps blood, but more of the soul as animo can be translated in several ways, such as courage, character, minds, and so on.

Welcome to the board, most of those sketches you see on the history channel are sketches of sculpters from one period or another. to search for an online source just simply type in the name of the Roman or Greek you are looking for, put their latin name in to maybe decrease some junk sources such as: instead of Pompey type Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.

This topic stems from an argument between Cato and I on Roman literature, so I decided to make a topic dedicated to peoples opinions of the best and worst Roman literature and why. Suppose I will start off: Best: Livy: I have always loved Livy and his insight into Roman history, altough biased it is well written and cleverly mixes mythology and actual fact. Martial: I love Martial and his cynic poetry, it matches my personality in many ways Least Favorite: Catullus- even though he is a very clever and intellegent man I just never got into his poetry based on its content and because he seems a little too obsessed with his woman.

NOt surprising of the puppy sarcrafice, to the Romans dogs were known as the lowest of the low, they were scavengers, dirty, and on more than one occassion interferred with the consular sacrafice of the bull right after the elections occured, just seeing a dog near the sacrifice was seen as extremely bad, and the sacrifice was often redone. And for Cato, where abouts in Chicago are you from, I myself am from Wheaton.

If you are interested in Reformation at all then you might want to visit the grave of John Knox the leader of the Scottish Reformation. I think its in Edinburg but I just have Scottish blood, and am not a native of Scotland.

Here you just proved my point, you say here that it wasnt as good as Lucretius, is there an official book on the point values each work got to rate them, if so please send it to me email me and I will send you an address kslice2k2@aol.com. This is my smartmouth way of saying that what you are claiming about Lucretius is your own opinion. We could argue all day long about what Roman work is the best, and get nowhere because we each have our own opinions. Personally I like Martial in terms of poetry and Livy in terms of all other literary work, so if I were to take a page from your book then Martial and Livy are the best, no to me I think they are the best, but to others it may be Horace, Sullust, Catullus, Virgil, or ever Lucretius. Furthermore, my example about Ovid's text was an example, books meanings are not always easily seen by just reading the words, you have to take a step back and examine the book as a whole. And if you want to tell the professor with a phd in Mythology and an expert at latin, then Ill give you his email address and you can tell him yourself. The example I gave was showing that Ovid had another underlying cause for writing this and not to just have his head up the backside of Augustus as you claim they all did. Your theory on the matter of these Golden Age writers is just proposterous in its own respect. And as far as your first comment on my literary talents, I have read many of these texts in both English and Latin and have my own biases about them, I personally dont like Catullus' work, but that does not mean I think he is a terrible poet, I just prefer the Cynisism of Martial because it fits my personality as a bit of a sarcastic person. That is is for now, I look forward to future talks. Good day.