Arminius

I have read the Anabasis (English translation). I have watched The Warriors many, many times, and I own it on DVD. I have even played and finished the video game. But I didn't know a new Warriors movie was coming out until I read this thread! If it's going to be about street gangs in LA, then it probably won't reflect history too well. But then again Xenophon's version of events doesn't seem to reflect history too well, either. Ancient historians seemed to believe a different general's account of what happened, if I remember correctly. And the Anabasis did seem to be a work of apologia. It's been a while since I read the book, but I remember the gist of it being that the Greeks had to get by various enemies that stood in the way of their homeland, and usually they quickly took the higher ground, and the enemy backed off, allowing the Greeks to pass. It made me think that 'wow, history is basically the fight for higher ground.'

I don't know of any other books in the same vein. The funny thing about it is everything he finds he ascribes to some sort of religious ceremony. At one point he determines that a toilet seat is ceremonial headdress! He also found a McDonald's sign - I think he figures the golden arches represented salvation, although I can't remember for sure. Everytime I read about something recently unearthed that archaeologists believe has religious signifigance, I think about that book. Especially when it's something from ancient Native American societies from which little or no writing exists today.

Perhaps it will be somethng like this.... http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalo...leNumber=690599 The review gives you a pretty good idea of what the book is like. A great read, although it's mostly illustrations. I was first introduced to it in middle school.

They mention that the tablet memorializes the victory - does that imply that there wasn't a mass suicide? Like many, I am skeptical of the suicide account. Outside of what Jospehus has to say, I don't believe you can find any examples of Jews committing mass suicide anywhere. I know of one example of a Jew committing suicide in their written history, where a certain Saul, about to be captured by the hated Philistines, took his own life instead. I believe he'd been injured in battle but I'm not certain of the details. Jospehus seems to be a Jewish traitor of the highest order. I've wondered if he maybe didn't feel guilty about this and wrote about Masada as a mass-suicide to cover up the massacre (although I'm not sure Romans around the empire would have really been botherd by it) and to make the Jews look more honorable in the eyes of Romans, who I understand generally held the Jews in very low esteem following the revolt. I wonder if any of you have had similar thoughts?

I'm new to the forum and just read this. I have to say, it takes a lot of courage to do what you've done. I've seen it first-hand in my family. My parents were kind of stunned when my sister came out to them. It definitely changed the interactions between them; it wasn't easy for my parents to hear. I come from a Catholic family as well. I think that for a long time my parents thought it was just a phase. But it is now almost ten years later and they have accepted who she is and there can be no doubt that they love her, and indeed never stopped loving her. I hope your parents are similar in this regard and based on the information here, it sounds to me like they are. Best of luck to you and your family.

Thank you for the welcome and the insights. I appreciate your response! I was unaware of much of what you said about the Grachi and about the restrictions of the priesthood. Through the election of consuls, weren't generals often basically elected anyway? My understanding is that Marius was re-elected so many times primarily because of the repeatedly delayed threat of the Cimbri and Teutones. The people kept electing him because they felt he was the man who could protect Rome. They weren't electing him for any other reason, at least until after they were defeated, were they? I do understand that the Senate engaged in some political trickery (and I use that term loosely) after his initial election and that another vote was required to send Marius after Jugurtha, but did this really seem outlandish to Romans at the time? It evidently did not to the voters. Well Caesar's decision to give clemency to certain Romans seems to have been a miscalculation in any case. I'm not sure I would call it colossal, though. I think Caesar would be fairly satisfied to know that he is still frequently talked about 2,000+ years later and is generally considered one of the greatest (in terms of importance) men of all time, in any culture. Couple that with the fact that we all have to die sometime, and he could have done worse for himself. As for the fall of the republic, I suppose it can be fairly said that it was indeed caused by Caesar, but personally I'm more interested in the factors that allowed him to do what he did. It seems like the stage was set in the time of Sulla and Marius, and that this era of conflict was in turn set up by the actions of the Grachi (justified or not), and my feeling is the republic probably would have fallen even if Caesar had never existed. Of course there is no way of proving that. For whatever reason, it seems a large majority of people became very distrustful of the Senate. Marian reforms had made soldiers beholden to their commanders, allowing those who commanded them to command their almost total loyalty as well. So in hindsight it is no wonder that politically savvy generals would be able to work the people, so to speak, to circumvent the laws and traditions of the republic for their own advantage. I think the million dollar question is what things were the cause of this mistrust between people and Senate, and to what extent those things were real or just perceived. Also, to what extent was the Senate more of an oligarchy than a part of a republican power structure? To what extent were the people cruelly manipulated by people like Marius, Pompey and Caesar, vs. the people getting what they wanted/needed out of those men? I find it difficult to answer those questions, but they seem central to the matter. Edit: I see I will have to work on my quoting skills! I tried to make it somewhat more readable by italicizing things Cato said and eliminating my original quotes altogether. Sorry, I did preview it and thought maybe the quoted parts just didn't look right until the end product. [Edit PP: you were missing a couple of quote tags... added them in]

This is a fascinating forum and I think this is a particularly fascinating time period being discussed here. And in case that first sentence doesn't give it away, this is my first post on this forum. My understanding through reading many of Plutarch's biographies is that it was well-established that the Popular Assembly could enact laws, even if it hadn