Caesar CXXXVII

Thanks . Just a bit of a correction to your timelime... The M. Claudius Marcellus in question was actually first Consul in 166, then in 155 and 152. The one who was Consul in 183 was actually a different person - Of course !! Several ancillary writings I've read but cannot recall in exact detail have suggested that a law was passed sometime after 152 BC and before the election of Gaius Marius, making it illegal for election to consul twice within 10 years. - It was the Lex Vilia Annalis but of 180 (Livy) . was simply in reaction to the emergency in Hispania (revolt of the Lusitanii and the Celtiberians) and the emergency superseded the law But such an emergency ? It was so far from Rome . And Marcellus ? Regardless, it might seem strange that there is no mention of the election of 152 BC (being either an oddity or unlawful), though unfortunately there are major gaps in the surviving texts for this period. With that in mind, it might not be that the sources are silent, but rather that the evidence is unfortunately lost to us. Damn ! Do you think we will ever know the guy and his actions that led to his popularity and supremacy ?

Marcus Claudius Marcellus Was the son of Marcus Claudius Marcellus (Cos. 196) and grandson of the famous Marcus Claudius Marcellus who fought Hannibal . He became Consul in 183 - So far so good He became Consul for the second time in 155 - One of only 8 people (all of them were great generals and statemens) to achive this honor since 200 ! Why ? The amazing thing comes next - He became Consul for the 3rd time in 152 !!! against the Law (Lex Annalis) , the onlt person to achive it in 105 years ! Why ? What happened there ? What crisis ? Why him ? What he have done ? Why he is the only one in 105 years (until Marius) ? The sources are silent ! Help

I just saw this last night. Oh my God. It's so bad it's actuaLLY FUNNY. Who the hell did Lambert's hair? While he has long been assigned to B movies, I was surprised to see Brandauer and Max von Sydow lend their part. They must have had a new house to paY FOR to accept the roles. Saw that horrible movie too... I remember from "Caesar" only this - "he .....Unleash.....the.....cavalry....u ...." Edit : Remember Timothy Dalton's Caesar in Hollmark's Cleopatra ? He was 6 out of 10

Well , for all who have interest on this important subject (and I see many viewers) - "509" - What happened there ? (try to ignore my English) - Part III Note - My narrative is based on books and articles on early Rome and Latium . One scholar Said X and another said Y , the 3rd said Z and so on . There is no chance in the world that we will ever have a history for "509" as we have for the 2nd Punic war . The chronology is confused , the players are nothing more than traditional names , archaeological evidence is almost 0 . Yet , many scholars managed to construct narratives based on 200 years of research . I tried to combine the sources . It is my opinion that we should adopt the "Optimistic approach" and not Gary Forsythe's and others approach that completely Dismiss the traditions and end up with nothing ! It appears that there was a conspiracy/plot/intrigue , between members of the Tarquinian (led by "Brutus" , Tarquinius "Colatinus" and perhaps "Tricipitinus") family to remove "Superbus" . The leading members of the Patrician families (the Fabii , Papirii , Cornelii , Aemilii and more) saw an opportunity to gain 1 of 2 things - To become Magister Populi/Praetor Maximus themselves or to throw the Tyrani for an Oligarchy that would include them and the anti-tyrant Tarquinians . We will never know the role of the players in the plot . It appears that the poor hated the Tyrant but they had no power . The Hoplite army was the Tyrant best ally , so who would stand agaisnt him in Rome ? Here the Plotters showed their wisdom , they came to an agreement with the Hoplite army ! My words - 1. "We will throw your benefactor" 2. "You will do nothing" 3. "In exchange we will Increase the Power of the Comitia Centuriata . How ? It will elect the holders of Imperium (taken from the Patrician Comitia Curiata) and it will be the court of Appeal against the holders of imperium (the future Lex Valeria Horatia) !" So , one day in c. 505 BCE in a distant corner of the world , the Roman people rased thier arms against their King , it was a firce battle , Rome was on fire (literaly!!!) , "Superbus" lost and escaped (apparently to Gabi) . It was a Revolution ? NO ! They throw their King and the struggle for power just begun . Of course the story does not end here . "509" was a long year (I say some 10)....

Good points . Maybe the controversy emerged because of the unique combination of very short reign and , apparently death of natural causes and not from old age . Let me see , it did not happen ever again until........ WOW

I am waiting for the next scene

So what? That means that Numa or other kings didn`t build that? Or maybe each of them just didn`t rule 50 years? What "so what?" , you asked for evidence other than livy so I gave you . Would you give some refferences about all these things? So , you don't know about the famous painting and "all these" ? Read about it in every book about early rome and Latium ! Claudius? I AD century emperor? Why do you think Tacitus is better than Livius` narratives. An inscription ! Again I say - Inscription that confirms Tacitus words about Claudius (wrote a history on the Etruscans) speech in the Senate on Mastarna and the Vipinas brothers who were painted on a tumb in Vulci ! This paint confirms the Etruscan tradition about them . Now did Livy wrote about them ? No ! Did livy spoke about Porsenna's occupation of Rome ? No . But all scholars do ! But your information about Etruscan exile seems not to be based on any kind of sources. Hanell, Gjerstad, Werner, De Martino, Rosenberg and others , all of them wrote that there was a wholesale expulsion of Etruscan families together with the Tarquins ! About their sources you must read their books . Note - I have said in post no.1 "they" not "Livy" . I actually in opinion that the Roman-Etruscan nobility remained In Rome after the fall of Tarquinius Again I say - I have great respect for Livy but his first books are only an Augustan version for early Rome , no more no less .

indeed . Some examples About the evidence - the Curia Hostilia was attributed (by Livius and Dyonisius) to Tulus Hostilius . The Archeologists dated this building to the Middle of the 6th century . The Regia was attributed (by Livius and other ancients) to Numa Pompilius . the Archeologists dated this building to the beginning of the 6th century or to the last years of the 7th . The famous painting from Vulci about the Vipinas brothers (6 th century) , the Gabii treaty (late 6th century) , the inscription about popilius Valesius (late 6th century) , Emperor Claudius speech about Mastrana (in Tacitus annales and inscription in Leon Gaul) , the leftovers of some kind of wall North of Rome dated by Archeologists to the Middle of the 6th century (the Servian wall) and on and on Livy and Dyon' of Halic' made for us the basis for our knowledge about early Rome , not the history of it . The Method has to be a combination of materials .

Scene 112 - DIESEL-Hannibal : "Oh Emperor Pompey , now that I coquered Egypt from you Greek , surrender to me or die !" M. Gibson-Pompey : "Dear and fool Alexander , I am not Pompey but Henry IX , I am not an Emperor but an Archon and you did not conquered Egypt but Atlantis , so go fish !" DIESEL-Hannibal : "where ? , all is land here in China" CUT

September 81 - Titus is on his way to his father's villa in the Sabine country . he died (Suet. Tit. 10.1.) Plutarch said that Titus was dead because of his illness (De Sanitate Tuenda 3) According to Suetonius , Domitianus left his brother to die from malaria (Suet. Dom. 2.3) According to Dio Cassius , Domitianus actualy submerged his brother in snow and killed him (Dio 66.26.2-3) according to Aurelius Victor (and others) , Domitianus poisoned Titus to death (De Caes. 10.11) Many Scholars are saying that he died of a fever What do you think ? P.S. - According to the Babylonian Talmud a mosquito flew in Titus' nose and picked at his brain (such a punish for the destraction of the temple...) P.S. 2 - "I have made but one mistake.", last words of Titus - what did he meant ?

Thanks . Is there a review ?

Even the experts are not quite sure how much veracity to assign to the 'historical' accounts of Rome's kings. 100 % right ! some of the later kings were supposedly Etruscan but for one, the second supposedly was Sabine. Can you provide some details for the Sabine in "the later kings" ? Edit : You meant the second in the full traditional list ?

That`s why Tarquinius Collatinus abdicated the title of consul and left Rome, and he was replaced by suffectus Valerius. You have so much a confidence in the ancient sources .

the curiata have quasi-sovereign personality as representative of the people of each tribe. they hold the right to conferred the imperium to the elected king... it belong only to them. Yes . which centuriata do not have nor historical records say's they never ever exercise. I did not understand if you are claiming that the plebian do not exist until 550 bce... and only when the comitia tributa was created. then i strongly disagree on that matters. No , I don't . But actualy the Plebeian movement started only in the 490' ! it was a way to aviod being needed to be elected by curiata to become legal king. They ("Servius Tullius" , "Superbus" , The Vibenna brothers , Lars Porsenna) were Tyrants and never got the Imperium from the Comitia Curiata . they use the army or centuriata to hold to kingship without the imperium. Exactly .

Please, go on..... Yesssssssssssssss ! I will .

In the Fasti Consulares - examples - Var. 509 Lucius Iunius Brutus (a son of Tarquinia) and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus Var. 506 Spurius Larcius Rufus (Flavus?) and Titus Herminius Aquilinus Var. 505 Publius Postumius Tubertus and again in 503 Var. 501 Titus Larcius Flavus (Rufus?) Var. 496 Aulus Postumius Albus And on "...between 490 and 463...we have these Etruscan consuls and interrexes...: Aquilius Tuscus (cos. 487) some Verginii..." Etc' Robert E.A. palmer , univercity of Pennsylvania , American Journal of Archeology , 1975 . The notion is generally accepted .

They say that only Patricians could become Consuls (actualy Praetors) in the first years of the Republic . Well , we find consuls with "Plebeian" names ! They say that the Etruscans were expelled from Rome at the end of the tyrany "the end of Etruscan rule in Rome". Well , we find Etruscan and even Tarquinian names ! They say that from the beggining there were 2 Consuls (Praetors) , so what about the "Praetor Maximus" that the sources refer to ? Any thoughts ?

Suetonius was a known person , acting in the Caesar's palace (not the casino) and had access to documents etc' , so his material is considerd solid . We do not know who wrote the S.H.A (a big debate for more than 100 years) so we have doubts about its materials . When H. Dessau began his great work PIR (I) in c. 1890 he saw that many of the S.H.A names (for the 2nd and 3rd centuries) were actualy from the 4th and 5th centuries ! He and many others came to the (right) conclusion that the S.H.A. is not a real history but something else . What exactly ? For answers see "The Historia Augusta: A Call of Clarity" by Ronald Syme , "Ammianus and the Historia Augusta" by Ronald Syme , "Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta" by Ronald Syme and more of the syme We should remember that criticism is O.K. but without the S.H.A. our knowledge about the 2nd and 3rd centuries was very poor .

Carthage had 2 chief administrative officers , the שופטים , Shophtim , Suffetes . The 2 executed policy decisions that a council of about 30 men made . The 30 were the most honorable of a council of 300 men , the "Senate" . Now , if the 30 could not reach a decision they went to the 300 , if the 300 could not reach a decision they went to the "popular assembly" composed of citizens that enjoyed a great deal of freedom of speech in it . The amazing fact is that the 2 , the 30 and the 300 were elected in the "popular assembly" ! Beside these 4 political bodies they had a council of 104 chosen from the 300 by a board of five elected magistrates . The 104 had the judicial authority . The Suffetes were not the commanders of the army , the last were elected in the "popular assembly" and acted under the 30 (or 300 or the "popular assembly" as above) orders .

Just a moment - No objections ? Everybody here accept my Analysis ? Shame on me Should I continue to part III ? Any interest ?

The Life of Belisarius by Philip Henry Stanhope , 460 pages , printed in 1848 and again , now in 2006 ! - A very good one ! The Hero of Byzantium: Based on the Life of General Belisarius (above) by Joseph Lessard , 2005 , 180 pages Edit - Of course - History of the Later Roman Empire, From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian by by John B. Bury , 1958 Enjoy !

The Comitia Curiata was established at the same time when Rome was united , c. 625 BCE . 3 tribes*10=30 Curi's*100=3,000 soldiers . The Comitia Centuriata was the most important part of the "Servian reforms" , the Classis , c. 550 BCE . 60 centuries of Hoplites = 6,000 heavy infantry + 24 centuries of Velites = 2,400 light infantry + 6 centuries of Equites = 600 cavalry . 8,400 / 2 = 4,200 , the historical number of soldiers in a Legion (the 193 centuries belongs to the reform of 406 BCE Var.) Than , you have the Comitia Tributa , c. 550 BCE by Tullius - That is the "Plebeian assembly" . We do not know if this assembly was the same as the Consilium Plebis of c. 490 or another one , based on it .

Of course , our current knowledge on early Rome (c. 1000 BCE to c. 500 BCE and even 300 BCE) is based on some 200 years of scholarship . This knowledge/scholarship is made of Archeological evidence (some 10 %) , Latin sources (some 40 %) , Philology (some 20 %) and speculations (some 30 %) . So , we are left with N theories (N=Number of scholars) . This is , in short (very very very short) the 2 main theories - 1. "Rome" (actually a confederation of villages) was conquered by the "Etruscans" (they never acted as such but as independent cities) in c. 600 BCE and ruled by them until c. 500 BCE . 2. "Rome" (actually a confederation of villages) was by c. 625 BCE an independent city-state that was ruled by foreign Kings nominated by the Patrician Comitia Curiata . In c. 570 an Etruscan King was nominated and Rome was still independent ! But under strong Etruscan influence as the whole of central Italy until c. 500 BCE . IMHO the second theory is the better .

Was there no Senate and senators during this period? I did not find any scholar saying that there was no Senate in those times (Monarchy and Tyrany) . The big question is what kind of a Senate ? Some believe that since the 7th century Rome had a fixed Senate of 300 Patricians with Patres Auctoritas etc' and others (including little me) believe that the early Senate was on a ad hoc basis , that is , the king/Tyrant/magister populi had his relatives , companions and some patricians inserted in the Senate as he pleased . The number of Senators and its structure were not fixed and the Senate had no powers but acted as a advisory body .

early Roman warfare based in warbands I think so too . This type of warfare was common in all of Central Italy until c. 5th century BCE . Maybe that the reforms of "Servius Tullius" and the establishment of the early form of the Comitia Centuriata were in connection with the insertion of Greek style of Hoplite warfare .