Ingsoc

There is no evidence of an affair between Atia and Caesar and the Atia is allways portray as a virtous woman, thought Antonius blame Octavius that he became Caesar's heir because he had an affair with him but it's most likely slander.

I don't really sure, techniclly Lucius Antonius was of the gens Antonia, however he was also the grandson of Octavia so it's seem he was unofficialy a member of the gens Octavii. And beside I don't see any motive for Tiberius to pay sympathy to Marcus Antonius.

As far as I know, Octavius had minimal contact with Caesar for any possible "tutelage" (C. Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. I-II): According to Cassius Dio his relationship with Caesar were close: "So much for Antony's conduct. Now Gaius Octavius Caepias, as the son of Caesar's niece, Attia, was named, came from Velitrae in the Volscian country; after being bereft of his father Octavius he was brought up in the house of his mother and her husband, Lucius Philippus, but on attaining maturity lived with Caesar. 2 For Caesar, being childless and basing great hopes upon him, loved and cherished him, intending to leave him as successor to his name, authority, and sovereignty." (Cassius Dio, 45.1) And according to Nicolaus of Damescus Atia indeed object to her son joining thr military for fear for his life: "Caesar had by this time completed the wars in Europe, had conquered Pompey in Macedonia, had taken Egypt, had returned from Syria and the Euxine Sea, and was intending to advance in to Libya in order to put down what was left of war over there; and Octavius wanted to take the field with him in order that he night gain experience in the practice of war. But when he found that his mother Atia was opposed he said nothing by way of argument but remained at home." (Nicolaus of Damescus, Life of Augustus, 6)

At the time of Augustus Marcus Antonius was described as a debanchure man who forgot who he, betray Rome, become a slave to Cleopatara and so on, however it's seem that he receive some sympathy from Augustus' heirs. "and not content with this slur on the memory of Augustus, he forbade the celebration of his victories at Actium and off Sicily by annual festivals" (Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Life of Caligula, 23) "He did not leave even Marcus Antonius unhonoured or without grateful mention, declaring once in a proclamation that he requested the more earnestly that the birthday of his father Drusus be celebrated because it was the same as that of his grandfather Antonius." (Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, Life of Claudius, 11) Was this a indication that Antonius reputation was rehabilitate (at least partly)? and if so did it happend because Caligula and Claudius were his decendences? and if so is this rehabilitation survive the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty?

Intresting, is this indication to the real status of Latin in the Catholic Church? I mean it's indeed the official language of the church but what is the actuall extent of it's use in every day affairs in the church?

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa who died in 12 BC, the same year that the Halley's Comet was seen (see ASCLEPIADES post above)

ASCLEPIADES got it right, it's indeed Agrippa.

You are all wrong.

Cassius Dio lists the appearence of a comet as one of the omens which forthhold Agrippa's death "The death of Agrippa, far from being merely a private loss to his own household, was at any rate such a public loss to all the Romans that portents occurred on this occasion in such numbers as are wont to happen to them before the greatest calamities. Owls kept flitting about the city, and lightning struck the house on the Alban Mount where the consuls lodge during the sacred rites. The star called the comet hung for several days over the city and was finally dissolved into flashes resembling torches. Many buildings in the city were destroyed by fire, among them the hut of Romulus, which was set ablaze by crows which dropped upon it burning meat from some altar." (Dio, 54.29) The comet that Dio write of is most likely the Halley's Comet.

Okat here another excellent statue, althought I wasn't able to find a better pic.

Gaius Octavius had it right, it's Atia Balba Caesonia (of course he named almost every women of the early princeps/late republic so he had to get it right... )

You forgetting that in Rome there were no separation of civil and military posts, so any politician would require to command troops in order to advance in cursus honorum. As for Augustus, the fact that he manage to secure the love and loyalty of the army without having any uncanny military merits (in fact at best we could say that he was a mediocare general as evidence from the fact that most of the military campaigns were commanded by Agrippa and later Tiberius and Drusus) and the fact that his rule was base of the army but he himself manage to present himself as the restorer of the republic to appease the public mind while in fact he was in all but name a king is evidence that he was a brilliant politician.

Nope

Okay, I think this one would be a bit hard

It's Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, I think it's the bust from the Altes Museum in Berlin.

In a way they right, Rome did absord many cultural aspects from Greece however it's would be too simple just saying they were nothing more than that. Without Roman influence on the subjected people there be no European culture (at least not as we know of) no Christianity, etc.

Could you give us more details? who are the people who are supposly diminishing the glory of Rome?

Yes, after a service of 25 years the soldiers at the auxiliaries and navy would receive a Roman citizenship, which was highly sought after.

Actually if I remember correct, both Brutus and Cassius receive imperium maius in 43 BC.

Here two caps of his tatoo that I've found on the net

True, however it's unlikely that Rome would left the Cartagians even if they would agree to relocate, this condition was simply a way to provoke Cartago to open hostilities and if they would agree to it the Romans would find another condition that would do that.

I think you refer to an incident that Suetonius tell about emperor Vespasian: "To a mechanical engineer, who promised to transport some heavy columns to the Capitol at small expense, he gave no mean reward for his invention, but refused to make use of it, saying: "You must let me feed my poor commons." (Life of Vespasian, 18)

Sallust doesn't give his name however he write that he was actually his stepson (The War With Catiline, 15.2) so I think he possesed his real father's cognomen rather than that of his stepfather.

Destroying a city wasn't something unusuall for a conquerer to do in ancient times, thought in Carthago case it's seem to be motivated by the memories of the 2nd Punic war.

I think Cicero is the exception rather than the rule about speeches, Thucydides define the use of speeches in ancient texts best: "What particular persons have spoken when they were about to enter into the war or when they were in it, were hard for me to remember exactly; whether they were speeches which I have heard myself, or have received at the second hand. But as any man seemed to me, that knew what was nearest to the sum of the truth of all that had been uttered, to speak most agreeably to the matter still in hand, so I have made it spoken here."(1.22) Of course it's very likely that some historians give way to their own personal view about how the people they wrote about them suppose to say rather than what they actually would say.