Ingsoc

Gaius, The Institutes - Translated by Edward Poste, Translated by Samuel P. Scott

Certainly there is a strong connection between the two subjects: History could be used to explain certain Archaeological finds and Archeology could be used to confirm or refute History. however I think the methodology of the two subjects is just too much different and there are subjects were History could not help explain Archeology and vice versa.

Btw if you want to practice your Latin this site is just great

8 out of 10 I made the mistakes in the last two questions.

Virgilius' Aeneas, translated to Hebrew by Shlomo Dykman, his translation is superb and I find myself enjoying his Hebrew as much as the plot of Virgilius. I've read it, I think it's the most interesting and original depicting of super-heroes in comics books.

The Twelve Tables - S. P. Scott translation, Johnson, Coleman-Norton & Bourne translation, M. H. Crawford translation

I do have a problem with your answer, I think that the "adoption" was intended to court popularity for Severus with the common soldier, who probably didn't care much whatever the senate legitimized this proclamation or not. and I'm not agreeing with the second part of your answer, if the only thing the soldiers cared about was money why to make such a claim in order to gain popularity with them in the first place? There isn't a need to "look deep enough" to see the truth as the adoption happened 15 years after Aurelius death. what I'm interesting is suggestion how Severus has manage to counter this "little" problem with his propaganda and make the "adoption" legit in the eyes of the common soldier.

"He caused us especial dismay by constantly styling himself the son of Marcus and the brother of Commodus and by bestowing divine honours upon the latter, whom but recently he had been abusing." (Cassius Dio, 76.7) Obviously Severus "adoption" by Marcus Aurelius wasn't legit as Aurelius was dead since 180... and this move was made to give his dynasty legitimacy and popularity among the soldiers. however the thing I wondering about is how he manage to persuade the soldiers that he really was adopted by the divine Marcus?

That's very interesting, Sylla. Nazis, eh? I wonder how many people made that assessment after a careful comparative study, as opposed to how many think that because it seemed a trendy thing to say. It did seem the fashion of the many post-modernist and post-colonialist to see every empire as pure evil that only wants to destroy the innocent and peaceful natives I'm not from Britain but I think there are general decline in the important of classic era have on the west today and Britain is no diffrent. see for example this thread.

To make "a full list" of all biographies would seem to me pointless as there always plenty of new books published with usually little advancement to the research with new views.

Isn't it's a bit pointless? at least for the most famous emperors (like Augustus) there is piles of biographies that keep coming every year.

You do have some errors in your options: The tribunes just like others magisters where part of the Roman Nobilitas, I hardly think you could consider people like the Gracchii or Publius Clodius Pulcher to be "from the people". I actually see the two options as one and the same. consider this: initially the Roman Rex enjoy full Imperium. after the fall of the monarchy this imperium was divided between the magisters of them their were at least two to every office and they enjoy equal power and veto right over each other actions. however the Romans understand that sometimes the situation require a single man at the helm and thus created the Dictatura whose holder was without the colleague and enjoy the king's imperium for a limited time (until his task was completed or six months had passed). Now when Caesar declare himself to be a dictator for life and abolished the time limit on holding the office he actually declare that he was king in anything but name.

One of the suggestion for the base of the Arthurian legend is Lucius Artorius Castus who serve as dux in Roman Britain in the second century.

Author = scriptor Publisher = qui librum edendum curat I'm not sure how to translated the other ones.

I think we need to distinguish between literacy sources like Tacitus and Cassius Dio and official records like the fasti. while it's possible that a divorce wife would still be called a wife in the former (it's really depend on the style of the author) I think it's unlikely to happened in the later since they are considered public records and as such would probably record the legal marital status of a person. In our case Apicatia was divorced from Sejanus for a few years and there wasn't any doubt about her marital status.

Here are a few jokes translated into English: http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/quinn_jokes.shtml http://www.curculio.org/Ioci/december.pdf

There is an article by Jane Bellemore dealing with Livillia death, base on an inscription that mention that the wife of Sejanus committed suicide eight days after his execution Bellemore identify this wife as Livilla and claim that Sejanus married her against Tiberius wishes as a mean to counter Caligula growing influence and when the emperor learn of this union he moved against Sejanus and had the couple eliminated.

Festus, Brevarium of the Accomplishments of the Roman People

What you mean why?didn't you read "Pride and Prejudice" and though 'this book would kick ass if only Austen added some zombies'?

Can't you take languages and focus on Latin and/or Greek? that way you could still stay more or less at the ancient study field.

It's more weird than amazing.

He was 25! Augustus started his career at 18 and became 'fully fledged' as the Princeps at 32, if you count it from Actium. Now if you'd chosen Nero as an example of youth thrust into supreme power I might have agreed with you. A Roman in this age would have been fully mature at 25. He wasn't too young, he was just unsuitable Augustus achieved his position due to a long and hard struggle with his many enemies (S. Pompius, Antonius, Brutus and Cassius) if he didn't have sharp political instincts he would never survive to his 20th birthday. while Caligula and Nero owned everything they were to the fact they were blood related to the imperial family, they were just spoiled "kids". in respect to his personalty Caligula weren't fit to rule the pseudo-republican system that the empire was. It's actually interesting but it's seem that most of the emperor who were destined to greatness from birth or younger age turn to be bad emperors while the good emperors actually had to struggle for their position before they came to the throne.

It's hard to answer without a reference to the exact location in Josephus writing this incident appear, however Jews in the Hellenistic era were known as soldiers and we know that they serve the Ptolemean and Seleucean armies and I suppose that in the Roman era they still preserve some military knowledge.

I would also go with Simon Woods, his Octavianus was a cold blooded killer that would stop at nowhere to achieve supreme rule. Brian Blessed is a good actor and his Augustus is much more "soft" and that would fit with his style since he became princeps however I couldn't accept him to be such political naive which was anything but the real Augustus.

Try to find it in here, they sometime have pictures as well.