Cassius Loginus

Sometimes I wonder comparing Ancient Rome politics to nowadays politics, it seems that Roman used to conduct their government in barbaric way. Praetors, Quaestors and Consuls used to be elected through bribery, murder etc. Even Tiberius Gracchus murder seems barbaric to nowadays. Am I correct to think that in those days (the Republic days) Rome was barbaric compared to today however the way the Romans conduct their ways of Government was civil compared to their world (the Goths and Vandals were even more barbaric).

During the Roman Republic, the Senate (the aristrocracy) and the Tribunes with the Plebeian Assembly were always confrontational. The Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus murder was a case in point. Am I correct to say that this tension in politics has always been even to our own age: the Senate (right-wing parties) and the Tribunes/Plebeian Assembly (left-wing parties).

During the Republican era, both two Consuls represented the Aristrocracy of the Senate or one of them represented the interests of the Plebeians apart of the Tribunes?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely it would seem. The emperor's ego was not bound by the constraints of law that most everyone else was. It's civilization led by autonomous power. Such a combination will certainly have it's moments of incredulous behavior, but such behavior does not mean the absence of civilization. Here's the full passage relating to the death of Apollodorus from Cassius Dio Book 69.4. Strangely, the Historia Augusta ignored this particular piece of juicy gossip. I thought that Apollodorus was killed just for fancy sake. I believe Roman Civilization was the best thing that happened to the early history and we owe them our gratitude especially the West.

Here is an excerpt from Simon Baker's book 'Ancient Rome' (the famous BBC Documentary) "His (Hadrian) drive to excel and his inquisitive mind made him, for example, an accomplished, experimenting architect. The building of a temple to Venus would be the very first mark he would make on the city, the first imprint of his reign. He drew up the plans himself. When Apollodorus, the most famous architect of the day, criticized the proportions of the columns on the drafts that, in deference, the emperor had sent to him for approval, the quick-tempered, unforgiving Hadrian promptly had him killed." (Page 296) I cannot understand why Hadrian like other emperors where so brutal in their decisions, killing important people, in this case Apollodorus. We call this 'civilised' Rome?

Map updated. Forgot to include Cumae (Cuma) underground aqueduct. You may download the updated file from this link Aqua Augusta

Thanks. I try to draw them on Google Earth and post the file on this forum.

I have constructed on Google Earth the aqueduct system of Neapolis area. You may download it from this link Aqua Augusta I based the drawings on the following map from www.romanaqueducts.info:

Where can I find a map of Rome's acqueduct system. Thanks.

In Robert Harris's novel POMPEII mentions custom officers at Pompeii. Did they really exist and when did they start?

In the year 165AD two emperors reigned at the same time: Marcus Aurelius (seen in the movie Gladiator) and Lucius Verus. 1) How the power sharing really worked? 2) Was the return of the Republic two consuls system re-vitalised?

What was in 79AD: 1) the annual income of a aqueduct engineer 2) the price of a standard slave Thanks. (At the moment I am reading the novel POMPEII by Robert Harris and I am wondering how much the main character Attilius earned and how much he had to pay for his Greek slave Phylo.)

But this doesn't make any sense either. Plebeians and senators were not mutually exclusive groups. In fact, most senators WERE plebeians. What do you think a plebeian is? Senators always came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero. Plebeians were of the lower class, the mob. When the mob was angry, havoc struck.

I have read some chapters from Josephus's work 'Jewish Wars'. In 67AD Vespasian and Titus initiated a campaign of terror in Galilee by killing men and enslaving women and children. I am trying to understand how the Romans controlled their Empire by slaughter and intimidation. The old Republic's motto of Romans attacking other nations just to 'defend' themselves seems obsolete in the Empire period. The Romans were noble in virtues and in the Pax Romana however they were brutal and 'savage' practically. I am finding it hard to bringing together the two extremes of the Romans. The Romans dealth with the first Jewish revolt with ferocity and amounts almost to genocide. Anyway, the old USSR did the same to Ukrainians and other satellite Soviet nations. History always repeats itself. Please help me understand.

Salve, CL. I'm not sure why do you consider "the plebs had the upper hand in Nero's reign". It would be helpful if you could explain your thesis a little more. Thanks in advance. What I mean is that the plebs were politically superior than the Senate.

At the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire, I am sympathetic with the pleb's power not with the Senate as the Senate always abused its power in order to gain prestige and wealth of the aristrocrats/senators. Nero's dysfunctional reign won and abused the pleb's political power. For the first time I admit that the Senate were right during Nero's reign that he was going too far with his artistic endeavours and the pleb's power proved to be a sham. How can someone put a sound balance between the Senate and the plebs at this period of time? At the late Republic the Senate had the upperhand at the detriment of the plebs but when the plebs had the upper hand in Nero's reign, the Empire was a laughing stock of the whole world. Please comment

Thank you all for your help. Appreciate it

Where can I find genealogy charts of the major families of Rome from 500BC to 300AD. Thanks.

In Appian's, History of Rome, we can read the event when Rome wanted to destroy Carthage completely. The Carthaginians wanted peace and Rome accepted under these conditions: 1. surrender 300 hostages of sons of the noblest families 2. surrender 200,000 set of armour with 2000 catapults 3. the city of Carthage had to be placed 16km inland. (this condition was the most hypocritical of the Romans: stating that Rome is also inland and became prosperous so Carthage has to do likewise. This inland replacement meant the end of Carthage.) I have great regard of the Pax Romana and the Roman values but I think Rome in the last condition of surrender was inhumane and cruel.

If the army was not allowed within Rome's city walls then who provided law and order in the city in the Republic era? A 'police force' in Rome was later introduced in the Empire period.

I have read books about the Romans but never discovered how the Romans tackled citizens with mental health*. * What I mean with mental health? Nowadays people get sick with depression very easily due to stress, grief, tension and other consequences of social disorders. I think in Ancient Rome people suffered from depression as well as they used to have the same life challenges as we have. My real question is that serious mental health problems such as autism, Hutchinson Disease, MS, Psychotic people such as schizophrenia - how the ROmans used to deal with such people - did they have Mental institutions? I doubt.

Yes, HBO ROme use the calendar for all episodes in Season 1 and 2. Unfortunately the calendar is probably burnt by now in the Cinecitta' Studios as fire broke out in August and large portion of the ROME set is destroyed. Unfortunately ROME series is grounded and for that I shall miss the series enormously.

In the UNRV government section there is few information how the Romans ruled themselves. So: 1) who passed legislation and voted for it, the Senate and the Tribunes? , the Senate and the Consuls? 2)What was the relationship between the Senate, the Tribunes and the Consuls? It is a bit confusing.

At the moment I am reading the Founders of the Republic. With Poplicola, Cocles and Coriolanus there were no second consuls sharing the power of Rome?

How close are we of REALLY knowing the Roman civilizaton through archaeological information and text writings - are we close 90%? Is there any important information we do not know of the Romans? My fear is that our knowledge of the Romans can be wholly different from what the Romans really were.