Mosquito

What are you talking about?

I dont belive in this possibility. Altough im not an expert in parthian history but i belive that he would first look for someone or even some nation in the parthian empire which he could have support and next come with an army and conquer all, diving and ruling, winning on the battlefields and maybe even reaching India just like Alexander did. I know MPC that you dont like him but Ceasar wasnt Crassus.

Caligula definatelly had bad press. Many modern historians claim that he wasnt mad at all but in opposite - he was very consequent in everything what he was doing.

A bad day for Remus, but a great day for mankind! Iv just noticed that on the board it is still 20th april. But in this case Roman time is more important

This day in 753 BC Rome was founded. Happy birthday Rome and Romans!

XXX - please delete this topic

Here you go. Funny you bothered to cite how populare they were without ever having read them--even stranger for a person with your (self-described) background in Roman law. Leges Regiae - not the 12 Tables. I was expecting from you quotes of Leges Regiae. 12 tables i was quoting myself but you dont read. For the rest I will reply when I come back home.

Yes you did. I saved what you posted, but I'm not going to repeat it here. Both Pantagathus and Pertinax were absolutely right to delete it. (And you Mods may want to delete this, too, and that's okay with me. But justice demanded that I speak up.) -- Nephele I can only notice that your share in this debate is as fruitful as usually. My compliements.

I saw nothing offending in my post. I didnt attack MPC as the person, only conclusions he made. Its a difference. Now back to the topic. MPC - according to you history looked completelly different than it really was - here is what you suggest and somtimes even claim: Plebeians didnt demand to make codification of law. In your opinion it were patricians who wanted to make the code of Twelve Tables to worsen the situation of plebs. It wasnt an existing law gathered together in one act but - in your opinion - quite a new law made against the plebs and against its will. Claudius decemvir - the person who according to existing roman sources played main role in decemvirate was a patrician (thank you for that notice MPC - how strange that Claudius was patrician) but really he was against the plebs and cooperated together with his class to persecuate poor plebeians. The fact that he was main player of decemvirate (the body which become Roman goverment and in fact a dictatorship held together by 10 people) means for you that his role was minimal. Wow - so you know those laws. They exist and you can even quote them? Please go on! I belive that the fact that there are some "letters" doesnt mean at all that it are "laws". Considering the fact that we dont even know those laws it isint strange that: "none of these early laws even mention plebs". Not to mention the fact that in the early Rome plebs didnt even exist as social class. Under Etruscan rules were only two classes - patricians and their clients - like in the etruscan model. No, it was only influenced by Greek laws but its source was local Roman spoken law and traditions - in other words - mos maiorum itself. You really dont understand, dont you? In all the conflicts, law suits - the deciding role had patrician magistrates and priests (especially priests). The law belonged to category "divine" not to category "well known". The knowledge of law was reserved for patricians who were raping it, favouring its own clients, not to mention the fact that in the legal conflict between patrician and plebeian - the second had no chance because the law was used in completelly arbitraty ways. The fact that 12 Tables dont mention plebs is a great victory of plebs, it simply means that it is the one and only law for ALL THE ROMANS! It means that everyone can go and read it and learn it .... and know if he is right or not. The few exceptions didnt matter much and even mixed patrician/plebeian marriages were soon allowed.

Aye but you had to be creazy gladiator to kill 30 ppl. And you wouldnt have chance to kill that many in space of few hours but it would take years instead. So far Iv never seen a bad man with gun. If everyone can have a gun it means that idiots can have it as well.

Well, thanks God consitution of my country dont give the right to have weapon as personal freedom so I can go outside without need to consider if the people walking on the street are armed or not.

Damn! What did he use? Machine gun or handgrenades?

Not only great American writer but one of the world's greatest writers. What a loss!

Im a lawyer and got degree but on my university the studies of law were probably very different than in the countries of common law like USA or GB. It takes here 5 years (10 semseters) and it was always considered here that one cannot be a lawyer without knowing well history of law and everything what influenced the law trough centuries. So we started with the history of philosophy, history of political and legal doctrines, Roman Law (which was always one of the hardest exams), history of political systems - which included all political systems begining with ancient eastern despotic states and ending on modern times (we had to learn 3 French constitutions, US consitution not to mention all 7 Polish constitutions), history of court law (we had to learn basics of common law and the French CC, German BGB, Swiss ZBGB and some other). In fact 3 first semesters we were taught only history and the next 7 we learned this law which we use now. Usually the profesors who thaught us historic subjcets were the most demanding. Profesor of Roman law was even organising Roman law suits and we had to give speeches like Roman advocates. For sure it was good training before we started to learn modern civil or constitutional law.

Livy on Appius Claudius decemvir - who is probably the first well known leader of populares: The direction of the entire government rested with Appius through the favour of the commons, and he had assumed a demeanour so different that, from being a severe and harsh persecutor of the people, he became suddenly a courter of the commons, and strove to catch every breath of popular favour. The fact of their dignity being now laid aside in a contest, at their time of life, and after they had filled such high official positions, stimulated the exertions of Appius Claudius. You would not have known whether to reckon him among the decemvirs or the candidates; he resembled at times more closely one canvassing for office than one invested with it; he aspersed the nobles, extolled all the most unimportant and insignificant candidates; surrounded by the Duellii and Icilii who had been tribunes, he himself bustled about the forum, through their means he recommended himself to the commons; until even his colleagues, who till then had been devoted to him heart and soul, turned their eyes on him, wondering what he was about. It was evident to them that there was no sincerity in it; that such affability amid such pride would surely prove not disinterested. That this excessive lowering of himself, and condescending to familiarity with private citizens, was characteristic not so much of one eager to retire from office, as of one seeking the means of continuing that office.

Such rules like those few here, in the country ruled by aristocracy, made the law of 12 Tables a great victory of plebs and it wasnt an coincidence that almost all patricians were against enacting those laws. More than anything else - they were protecting plebeians from patricians and patrician priests and judges had to obey those laws: "If someone is called to go to court, he is to go. If he doesn't go, a witness should be called. Only then should he be captured." "A person who admits to owing money or has been adjudged to owe money must be given 30 days to pay." "Against an enemy, the right of property is valid forever." "If a patron defrauds his client, let him be outlawed" "Putting to death of any man, whosoever he might be unconvicted, is forbidden."

And why would you put Claudius in the populare category? Claudius, a patrician, forbade intermarriage between patricians and plebeians and suppressed plebeian civil rights. He was a Tarquin or Sulla in the making. How is this populare? Your definition of populare seems to be anyone who would be king. This may well be a coherent category, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the label 'populare'. For me it is simple and obvious. Until the code of 12 Tables was enacted the words of priests and magistrates of patrician origin was the law and what's more, it was arbitrary law used against plebeians. It was first great victory of plebeians and was followed soon by the next victories. It was important and Claudius decemvir was the one who made it possible and who conducted the whole process of making this law. All the senate and patrician class was against him while he had full support of plebs! It wasnt important what was on the tables, important was that patrician could no longer use the law against plebeians in arbitrary ways.

Because in the time period you have described there were no 12 leaders of populares. After the Gracchi it were only: Marius, Cinna, Catiline, Caesar. The rest were just crowd around them. Crassus dont fit to this definition - he was a different type of politician. He represented only the rich. But most of the earlier leaders of populares fits well, for example Flaminius or 2 first Claudians from my list. Claudius decemvir was even more like a king than republican politician. He was acting like someone who belived that his power has no limits. I think that we should look at it in wide spectrum, not just last decades of the Republic.

So, here we have what we found in our debate: Populares - people who are following a leader, strong politician who want to make some new legislations and get popularity and power bigger than the power of senate and to feel at least for a while like the only ruler of Rome. Other people just follow him for many different reasons, the leader is the center of their "movement" and the only factor uniting them all. Optimates - the people who want to keep the balance of power, status quo, usually group of individuals united only by one aim - to not allow the leader of populares to get the power in the Republic or at least to not let him get uncontrolled power. This also explain why so often after "defeating" populares, optimates were enacting reforms which were part of populares legislative program. They were doing it to finish the case and to not let anyone new start everything again under the same banners. In this theory division on populares and optimates dont exists permanently, we cannot talk about parties or even factions, it appears when someone new appears on the politic scene, dissapears with his death (they usually finish in this waym, those poor populares).

So, do we came to thesis that division on populares and optimates existed only (look also on my list) when there was a strong individual who was creating short time populares party or program, who was followed by group of people - which also followed him for many different reasons (like money, power, glory of Rome, personal loyalty)? And the optimates were just people who were against this strong individual, being against changes or considering them only as a tool to get support and full power in the Republic by just one person? Isint it typical for populares that they usually had only one real and true leader while optimates were usually the group of important people. Just look for people like Caesar, Marius, Flaminius, Appius Claudius Crassus or Appius Claudius Caecus - they had no equals in the camp of populares. In fact they were the only and sole leaders having against themselves majority of the senate. All they had were followers but not colleagues or comrades. And you cannot count the trivumvirates as the reign of popular party. It was in fact reign of 3 people but they represented only themselves (well, maybe Crassus was unique - I think he really represented the richest Romans). So tell me MPC - is it the conclusion you wanted us to find out? That division was being ad hoc created by just 1 person and those who followed him in opposition to those who ddint want any strong people to come to power?

My candidates for populares: Appius Claudius Crassus - decemvir - 5th century BC - the one who was making first roman written laws Gaius Marcius Rutilus - first plebeian dictator, censor, consul four times - 4 BC Appius Claudius Caecus - the one who built via Appia 4/3 century BC Appius Claudius Caudex - the one who fought Mamertines on Sicilly 3rd BC Gaius Flaminius Nepos - the one who died at Lake Trasimene - 3rd century BC (anyway there were no others of this name) Both brothers Gracchi - no need to explain why Publius Claudius Pulcher - consul 184 BC Marcus Licinius Crassus - triumvir - as well as the other two but this one was even more "popular" than Caesar for being the leader of Rome's buissnes class which was usually against nobilitas Gaius Marius - no need to explain Clodius - definatelly - he had it in his genes Oh damn, I just noticed that you wanted list only for the last decades of Republic, sorry

Aye, Polentia on Majorca/Mallorca island or in latin - Insula Maior. Special award goes to Bryaxis Hecatee who made it easier for everyone. I think it is a shame that millions of Europeans are visiting this island each year but only few care to see Pollentia. When I was there 10 years ago, at least during an hour I spent there, me and my girlfriend were the only tourist there. Maybe it is not Forum Romanum or Colloseum but spending all the time on the beach i consider a waste of opportunity. Some more pictures and info: http://www.mallorcaweb.com/sonderberichte/...n-of-pollentia/

All are wrong but Bryaxis is very close to give right answer. Another clues: 1. this area is well known also because one of the most famous 19th century composers spent there some time with his lover who was a famous writer and very contreversial woman. 2. In making this area Roman had his part Quintus Caecilius Metellus (I wont say whichone) Now its too easy....

Ok, here is another clue. This place was first occupied by Carthaginians, next by Romans - ruins comes from Roman period, next came Vandals and later Byzantines.