Aurelianus

I'm not sure of the corectness of this, but i belive that IV was a later, Papal invention. But i may be completely wrong.

After a fast rise under caesar, and then part in the triumvirate, he is quickly sidelined by Octavian. Why did he let this happen, and what is everyones perception of him as a man, general and politician?

Metal I suspect. This page contains a pretty encompassing description of everything you asked, V.T.C.

IMO early christians were responsible for the loss of many great philosophical works, and that christian mobs were unbelievably hypocritical. I don

How about Augustus. The guy was useless, but he had the sense to realise it, more than many a bad general could do. I would have to put Scipio and Sertorius at the top though. How about Aurelian, Corbulo, Theodosius I, Scipio Aemilianus and Sulla - just afew that havent been mentioned.

Considering the times he was in, I would presume that his first interest was to beat the Carthaginians, as that, by the time scipio was elected consul seemed to be far more important than the cursus honorum, and aquiring of personal glory. something demonstrated by the multiple elections by the senate of Fabius and Marcellus as consuls, because of their competance. However, rather cynicaly I cant help thinking that all the prestige he was aquiring must have been at the back of his mind, and that during most of his career he would have been very 'happy' about that. I dont think he did fail, he just acieved it all at a younger age, and by the time he gained his second consulship there wasnt realy anything left for him to achieve within the system... In Rome the political rivalrys were huge, it was part of their culture and nature to want to achieve more and better things than anyone else. This had a tendancy to cause mistrust and dislike of all who outshon their peers, and the political shunning of them; this hapened on multiple occasions, but the only one that sprigs to mind imediatly is Pompey. I dont think the idea would ever evan have occered to him, and even if it had he probably would have dismised it. this is not from any favorable opinion of his moral values, but simply because to march on rome was unthinkable for a roman general, and the notion of a single man in power for any great length of time still went against the grain. When Sulla marched against Rome, even his supporters in the senate were shocked, and that was over a hundred years later. And nor do i think he would have been able to, even if he had wished to. Back then, the army was still a levy (mostly) of landed citizens, who would have nothing to gain from installing Scipio as Dictator, and would have been repulsed by the idea anyway. Even his popularity with the citizens wouldnt have held if he had done such a thing; look what hapened to Gracchus. Although his main opposition was in the senate, when it was said he wished to become king, those that belived it turned against him.

i would refer you to this thread

In my opinion it was the Senate who prompted the rise of Imerialism, indirectly anyway. Had the Senate been a little more people friendly, and at least listened to people like Gracchus, then soldiers would not have been indebted to their general, and remained loyal to the state. The Emperors always made a point of making it known that they were the soldiers paymaster, and rewarder, if the Senate had done the same, it would be far less likely that an army would be willing to follow its general to Rome. That coupled with soldiers being drawn from the unlanded poor.

I think that it was more likely internal instability within Rome than anything. there was very rarely an imperial succession that was without doubt, and especialy towards the later empire there was large amounts of civil war. An invasion would have needed huge resources, and would have required internal and external peace every where else in the empire, as this usualy occered after a strong monarch had been ruling for a long time, and if they have been ruling for a long time they are unlikely to want millitary glory, or near death... conditions were never right, but if they had been, then do you think it would have been possible? If Caesar had lived, if Julian had planed better, if Aurelian hadn't been killed... I must just say that im not entirely serious about the curse, and should have put it in inverted commas.

I generaly agree with the notion that Tiberius wasnt all that bad, whilst not particularly inspired or gifted, he was an able, solid ruler who provided stability for the empire. On the subject of birthdays, is their any evidence to suggest how romans celebrated them, or if they did?

Every roman general who planed or led a campaign of conquest beyond the eastern Mediterranean either failed, or had short lived success. I use the word curse rather loosely. Both Caesar and Aurelian (i think there was another, but I cant remember who) were assassinated just before they set off, Crassus and others failed miserably, Pompey and Augustus didn

Christianity was never followed by its founder, christ, and yet it is based on his teachings, so you must draw the conclusion that it came from previous religions (jewdaism). The core of the religion is the bible, and that is half Jewish, and the new testiment was not completed within a life-time of christ. In the original quote the word "invented" is used to describe a personality (i can only understand this as the personality of Jesus, correct me if i'm wrong) but as i undersatnd and belive (although im no christian), Jesus existed and even if he didnt perform miracles, he did have a "winning" personality. Christianity was Judaeism changed by Jesus, and changed again by the writers of the bible, not something invented in a lifetime.

Like I said, its a heroic "ideal". do writers today make stories on commonplace and uninteresting people on a regular basis? I'm not saying this single combat deciding of disputes didn't take place, but they were exagerated and multiplyed in their telling for greater effect. I agree, it is more sensable, and probably did hapen. but I doubt that it would have been fought over an entire teritory. The Albans, once they have lost the single comat would have had a choice - lose everything or fight and possibly lose everything/gain rome. Human nature dictates they would choose the later, which leads to my saying that it is not due to the Horatii brothers that saved Rome.

i suspect that if you asked a roman a similar question in say 350, he would have found it dificult to belive that aqueducts, baths and all other engineering would be lost for centuries...