Caesar CXXXVII

Livy 37.47 - " M. Aemilius Lepidus was a candidate...The other competitors were M. Fulvius Nobilior, Cn. Manlius Volso and M. Valerius Messala. Fulvius was the only one elected, none of the others secured the requisite majority of votes. Fulvius, on the following day, co-opted Cn. Manlius; he had succeeded in getting Lepidus defeated, and Messala was at the bottom of the poll" . As you see, Livy had two versions for the case - 1. Fulvius co-opted Manlius 2. Manlius succeeded in getting Lepidus defeated There is no problem with ver. 2 although some scholars (can't remember) said that Fulvius disqualify Lepidus - how ? The problem is the co-optetion, it means that Fulvius nominated Manlius without a vote ! How could he have done it ?

We are told that for the elections to the consulate of 189 there were 3 Patrician candidates - Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (young, famous and energetic, the leading candidate), Gnaeus Manlius Vulso (his third attempt...) and Marcus Valerius Maximus Mesala (incopetent by all accounts) . Lepidus had problems with the senate so he failed to achive a majority, as Manlius . No Patrician consul was elected, just a Plebeian one - Marcus Fulvius Nobilior . The comitia assembled the next day and Manlius was the victor . Now, there are two versions about how Manlius "won" - 1. Fulvius coducted the elections, disqualified Lepidus (we don't know the excuse) and Manlius achived the majority . 2. Fulvius nominated Manlius directly, with out elections !!! I have found (Develin and others) that there was the possibility to nominate a consul by another consul (elect) , but how ? what was the judicial procedure ?

Interesting, do we have a source ?

So, we have any reference about the book in pagan writings, let say between 120 to 500 ? It seems that they (pagan writers) ignored it .

Peter Richardson, "Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans" says that the Decapolis were "A loose association of Hellenistic cities" . He based his notion on about 15 works and named them in page 88, note 25 . ‏

Coming back to the thraed name - What was the point between emperors-generals like Valentinianus, Valens, Theodosius etc' (until 395) and the transfer of power to the magister militum like Stilicho, Aetius etc' ? It was just the personality of Honorius or a political/social development ?

Saw, the other day, a history channel program about the book etc' . Today scholars tend to regard it as a manifest against the Roman empire . A question rises - What the pagan Romans thought about the book ? did they know about it ? did they refer to the book ? Any ancient pagan source ? ( Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione )

I am convinced. The material is very fragmented but the fact is well recorded . Non the less, it seems that ancient historians have tried not to do with it (bad English, bad) a big issue . Caeser used his case to promote his special personality, the Scipio's did not used it and that is the the whole issue - There is the possibilty that something bad for them went on . But again, we don't know what went on so we can just speculate (maybe Scipio did negotiated with Antiochus about his son, a very shamful thing for a "true" Roman) .

Yes. I agree, It is all very theoretical but who know...

Constantine the great? anyway that event before the Battle of the Milvian bridge, there are differing accounts on if Constantine saw it in a dream or his soldiers also saw it before the battle. The former is far more believable, anyway the symbol that he saw was the greek name for Christ, P = CHI, X = RHO, the P intersects the X. Further more there was other writing that proclaimed that "in this sign you will conquer" anyway primary sources would be Lactantius and the early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea edit: the symbol is my avatar with the addition of the greek letters Alpha and omega signifying that christ is the beginning and the end O.K. I will try to be more specific (and sensitive) - What was the natural phenomena that Constantinus and/or his companions interprated as the "Greek name for Christ" ?

Thanks PP, I agree that the more sketchy the detailes, the more believable they are . So, let say he was captured at sea (Aegean), how come that such an important fact as the capture of the son of the great Scipio, faded (I hope that is the word) ? I mean, did the Roman historians were influenced by the Scipionic circle to erase the fact ?

Off topic (?) - what did Constantinus and his army saw on that day ? Did the soldiers saw it ? How he, Constantinus, convinced his army that "it" relates to Jesus ? Primary sources ? Thanks

Do we know exactly when and how he fell into the hands of Antiochus III ? How the primary sources differ ? What modern historians has to say about it ?

I tend to agree .

I believe the 12th Amendment has that covered: "The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." -- 12th Amendment, U.S. Constitution "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once." -- 22nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution -- Nephele But the Twelfth Amendment concerns qualification for service, while the Twenty-second Amendment concerns qualifications for election (Michael C. Dorf. "Why the Constitution permits a Gore-Clinton ticket", CNN Interactive and Scott E. Gant; Bruce G. Peabody (2006-06-13). "How to bring back Bill", Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved on 12 June 2008)

Can't find an answer to the question - Is there any ban on ex U.S. president (after one term, two terms and/or partial term) to run for vice president ? If there is no ban, he could serve more than the 10 years limit of the 22nd amendment (8 years + maximum two years of the former presidency) ! Just for the sake of clarity .

http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html Is it not just a trend to dismiss him like that ? And the people who throw shoes on the white house ? What do you think ? (I am not an American)

A very good book about the question, with regard to the Punic wars, is this - "Unplanned Wars: The Origins of the First and Second Punic Wars‎", by B. Dexter Hoyos - 1998

Winnie-the-Pooh, 20 minutes ago, until my dearest fell asleep . Bofore that, Ben-Gurion's biography (now on book 4, page 582) . Edit : Here we called it "Pooh the bear"

Yes, I know and agree . Let say one of the best 50 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlWFpdPX45g Nice to hear it in these rough times...

I have thought so too . It would be nice to see some sources about roman activity in the region after 40 or 50

Damn ! The whole idea of forum is to burn some time, no ? Better than that - to burn time at work...

The point is to figure out the identity of Tacitus . And if Tacitus was someone else, let say the son of Nerva (I would say no more than 2% chance) this makes "his" words very problematic . More than that, if Nerva had a son don't you think that it changes history ?