Gladius Hispaniensis

Ave I have a very simple question. When Sulla rebuilt the Senate House after leveling it did he rebuild it on the same location or was it at some nearby location? And how long did this particular structure survive? Thanks in advance for any information.

Why is that, Asclepiades? I thought we were talking about verifiable historical data here. Where does Faith come into it?

If he does then that is a marked departure from the stance taken by the Synoptic Gospels. Mark, and Matthew who copies him, state unequivocally that the entire Sanhedrin were present at the trial (Mark 14: 53 - 65). Another couple of things I stumbled across while I was researching this - the Sanhedrin were supposed to convene in a special meeting place called the Gazith (Chamber of Hewn Stone), not at the High Priest's residence. Another improbability attributed to a body of men that were so particular about following the Law. Also, a period of 24 hours was supposed to transpire before a sentence of death was passed. Mark, however, says that "they all condemned him worthy of death". Further sources: Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...sanhedrin4.html See also Elwood Sanner's Biblical Commentary page 400. There are other sources too but I would have to visit the public library again for that. Anyway the Sanhedrin were not allowed to convene at night and furthermore were not allowed to meet on the eve of a holiday or on a holiday either. How do you know John does not depict a meeting of the whole Sanhedrin?

Actually I'm not pinpointing John or any individual evangelist. I'm talking about the whole idea of it being necessary for Jesus to have been handed over to the Romans. If he was a militant, as both you and I seem to agree, then why was it necessary for him to have been handed over? Could the Romans not have dealt with him themselves? Now that sounds like a story. The gospels were written to a Greco Roman audience with the deification of Jesus in mind. It would not do to deify a rebel against the empire, hence the story of the Sanhedrin handing over Jesus by the wicked Jews to be crucified by a reluctant Pilate. Your contention of the Jews being worried about purification before the Pascha does not sound convincing. If that was the case, then why did the Sanhedrin not just wait till the Passover season went by? After all, meeting at night, meeting in secret, and meeting on the eve of the Passover all contravened Talmudic law. They seemed to have no qualms about that. Oops. I didn't read the last part of your post. My apologies. So you think they wanted to get rid of Jesus in order to have a tranquil holiday. Hmmm.... possibly. But if Jesus was already arrested, they could have kept him in custody until the passover season was over before having him executed.

Salve Regarding Caesar's use of Imperator - would it then be technically correct to date the end of the Republic with Caesar instead of with Octavius as is usually done?

And why would I want to do such a thing? On the basis of a one sided account written by Flavius Josephus? I don't think so. Let us use the WWII analogy again. How would one judge the character of a maquis leader based on an account written by a member of Marshall Petain's staff? This has nothing to do with tribalism. Admiration for Rome or Greece does not make one a traitor just as admiration for Britain didn't make traitors of Gandhi and Nehru. However, changing sides during combat after witnessing your comrades paying the ultimate sacrifice, and on top of everything ingratiating one's self with an enemy commander by an obsequious and absurd interpretation of an ancient prophecy, does indicate a turncoat. If it does not then may I ask what is a turncoat in your vocabulary? Ahh. So we misunderstood each other. Fair enough. Let us talk about seven centuries then. How exactly did they protect the Holy Land from the Arab invasions? By suffering defeat after humiliating defeat and being physically ejected from there? One swallow does not make a summer. Caesarea might not have been a desolation, but Jerusalem, Jotapata, and a series of other towns certainly were. One might also add that Pompey's gratuitously insulting entry into the Holy of Holies and massacre of priests peacefully performing their services has been taken by many as a fulfillment of Daniel's "Abomination of the Desolation". How, in your opinion, was Roman rule any more peaceful than the enlightened rule of kings like David and Solomon? As for the rest of your post, I don't really want to get into a chicken-or-egg discussion about who was there first and what the original inhabitants thought about Hebrew settlement in the area. Suffice it to say that all civilizations and cultures throughout history have resorted to colonization and conquest but the point is that people that resisted such conquest certainly do deserve our admiration, whether they are Philistines of the Old Testament or Jews of the Seleucid and Roman eras. Your resentment at the Deuteronomy laws is certainly understandable, but the Romans evidently did little to ameliorate the situation. The Sanhedrin was still allowed to apply capital punishment in cases of adultery and blasphemy - witness the stoning of Stephen and St. James. Even if they did abolish the right of the Jews to punish their own offenders, what would they have offered as a substitute? Parricides being thrown into the sea with a sack containing a dog around their faces? Rebels being scourged and crucified in their thousands? Prisoners being buried alive or ritually strangled to appease some deity or another? Fathers exercising their right to indiscriminately have their slaves and offspring executed? I await your answer.

I would have to agree with Ingsoc on this issue. MPC's post reminds me uncomfortably of a pro-Imperial Rome apologia, rather similar to what pro-British Indians before 1947 would never tire of reminding us about regarding the benefits of His Majesty's benevolence towards his less enlightened subjects. He seems to uncritically accept a Jewish turncoat's account about the resistance in Judea, I wonder why? If one reads Josephus's account carefully one thing that becomes obvious is that the Zealot movement was hardly monolithic. Their in-fighting and factionalism stand out quite glaringly. Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that there may have been different degrees of militancy among them? Why brand all of them as extremists? That would be rather like viewing an account of the French maquis in the last war through the eyes of a pro-Vichy collaborator. That is a rather hard concept to grasp, not only because the Arabs were not on a conquering spree at that time, but also because the Romans actually installed an Idumean Arab usurper on the throne of David. Well, if you want to call desolation peace I wouldn't disagree with you, but Hellenic enlightenment, especially if brought about at the point of a gladius, can be viewed in different ways by different people. The sight of naked statuary would have been startling to culture in which sexual modesty was considered a high virtue. Also, we are talking about an era in which there was hardly any separation between the secular and the religious, at least as far as Jews were concerned, and this also extended to politics. This is something we have to appreciate and respect. The fact is that foreign rule per se was considered an abomination that clashed jarringly with the ideals of pre- Diaspora Messianic Judaism. It didn't matter in the long run how benevolent the Romans or the Seleucid brutes considered themselves, the fact was they were not wanted there, end of story. I agree the Masada story has been glorified by secular Zionists and completely blown out of proportion, but that hardly justifies painting the entire resistance movement with the same brush either.

I'm not sure you could spread the information on Vercingetorix to 70,000 words, but I'll look into it and make sure one way or another! Sonic Quite a challenge there Sonic. Real dearth of information seeing how history is written by the victors and all that jazz. I wonder how much one could glean from the local folklore in the Auvergne area.

Gladius because of my fascination with Roman military history. Hispaniensis because I married into an Iberian family.

Vercingetorix. Any takers?

Ave I just started reading Christian Meier's biography of Caesar and came upon a very startling statement by the author. He states that "The die is cast" is an incorrect translation of Caesar's famous quote - the correct translation, according to him, is "The die will be cast". IIRC the word "est" in Latin does mean "is", so I was wondering if I could get any clarification from forum members with a knowledge of Latin. BTW MPC if you're reading this I'd like to discuss the book with you when I'm done since you spoke so highly of it.

No doubt Docoflove, especially when you consider red hair usually associated with the Northern Barbarian tribes such as Celts and Germans. Makes me think Roman men might have had a fetish for Northern European women.

It really amazes me that the Romans would not have made a better effort to preserve that particular curia. After all, it was there that the most famous Roman that ever lived breathed his last.

Do you mean mad in the British or the American sense of the word?

Thanks for the useful information and the downloads people. I take it it would be useless speculating on where exactly Pompey's statue would have been located. That would give us an exact spot for Caesar's last moments in this worldly life.

Ave Gaius Julius Caesar was assassinated in the Curia Pompeia in 44 BC as we all know but does the actual structure still survive?. I know that Augustus had inaugurated the Curia Julia in honour of his great uncle but did he actually demolish the former building to do this? If I visit Rome again it would be fascinating to visit the actual place of Caesar's murder. Thanks in advance.

LOL. No. I am aware of both Caesar's expeditions and Claudius's conquest. No confusion there. I'm sure I read it somewhere else.

I checked the source and noticed for the first time that an invasion of Britain is not mentioned directly here, only an intent to invade some unnamed country. I read Suetonius about 22 years ago and now that I think of it I wonder what made me think it was Britain. I must have read that somewhere else and forgotten the source.

Ave Well, granted some of Gaius's behaviour can be put down to other factors besides mental instability (such as insulting other rich men by proclaiming his horse a consul) but how does one explain his assembiling his army on the Channel coast for a proposed invasion of Britain and at the last minute changing his mind and making his soldiers pick sea-shells instead? Or is that just another rumour?

Ave The dividing line between eccentric and crazy is a thin one indeed. Gaius Caligula used to practice making scary faces in front of the mirror and also used to go out and about in Rome disguised at night just to find out what people were saying about him. He reputedly kept a dagger with him with which he used to murder anyone that recognized him in his nocturnal forays. Sure sounds like someone that would qualify for some kind of therapy, even without being classified as clinically insane. Welcome to the forum Claudia Look forward to some enlightening discussions.

I agree. I think they're just a pointless waste of time.

Ave Spartan JKM I just looked through your list again and I think Themistocles and Miltiades should at least qualify for the second tier. All the best. Gladius xx

Salve I actually agree with GPM regarding Trebbia. The Romans never seem to have gotten down to realizing that proper scouting was an indispensable component of warfare in those days. Both Cannae and the sack of Rome by Brennus could have been avoided if proper reconnaisance had been done. As for Josephus and his eulogy - that is just what it is, an eulogy. He was writing in Vespasian's palace and could hardly be expected to point out the weaknesses in his patron's army.