frankq

Aside from that, I believe his greatest flaw was his legendary sex drive which his opponents used against him, and which Cleopatra was able to use to ensnare him. Actually, he snared her. He was nobody's fool. She needed him more than he needed her, she followed him to Rome and he never altered his will in her behalf. This is not to say that, had he lived, and gone East, he might not have fallen as an amused old man under her sway.

He placed his laws above the veto power of the tribunes, thereby abolishing the ultimate tribunician power. In doing this (among his many other crimes against freedom and humanity), Caesar put the lie to the claim that he was a friend of the people. Caesar loved only two things--power and the sound of slaves singing his praise. Though he unforgivably placed his law above the tribunes, this was not a permanent and legal abolition of tribunician power. That it set a bad precedent for the future is undeniable and (I'm sorry to say this, I'm very pro-Caesar) the act justifiably sealed his doom. In so doing he had to be removed and his mistakes were fortunately used as a lesson when Octavian climbed to power. But had he gone so far as to abolish it as Sulla had done would have been too bold a move even for his position as dictator. Indeed, it was this callous act that signaled Cassius and crew that the time to act was ripe. The question is, would he have gone as far as Sulla had he survived? Actually, Caesar was far too smart to have Cato whacked--by murdering Cato, Caesar would have consigned himself to the dustbin of history. I dunno about the dustbin but yes, he was too smart for that. If I had been in Caesar's place, I would have had Cato whacked.

Abolished the power of the tribunes? Caesar stripped Gaius Epidius Marcellus and Lucius Caesetius Flavius of their power as tribunes but I recall no law that he officially abolished the tribunes' powers like Sulla did. If you argue that his act was tantamount to the same thing, true. As someone pro-Caesar, this one act was something I can never forgive him for and it sadly sealed his own doom. It was a bad move and it showed he was losing it. But a complete abolition would have turned Rome upside down. A note to Puduc: stay with this thread you started. You can learn much by what I'm sure will follow. Some help, do a little research on Cato the Younger, one of Caesar's prime enemies. If Caesar had been smart he would have Cato whacked.

How to rate destruction of a city? Corinth got more press because Corinth was bigger and a lot more prestigious. The message sent by Rome was more poignant, too. RE Dionysus' above post and Pergamum, it brought Rome nearer Seleucid turf, and once Rome got embroiled in Greece it got embroiled in all kinds of Hellenistic intrigue. It gets so sticky you need a scorecard. The Greeks thought they could pit wits and exploit Rome to their advantage. Ha. Fat chance. Also note that the Carthaginian Wars and the Macedonians Wars always ran parallel or slightly in tandem with one another.

Sacked the same year as Carthage, part of Roman decision to get brutal with their foreign policy and, in the case of Corinth, the culmination of Roman wrath in dealing with the Greeks and their back-biting politicking. Corinth was the leading player in supporting a revolt against Roman hegemony and when the Romans sent envoys to try and talk things over, they were hissed, booed, and had garbage thrown on them on their way through the streets. During the sack, the commander in charge, Mummius, was a novus homo who had little appreciation for the city's wealth. When priceless art treasures were being loaded onto the ships, he told his soldiers: ''Whatever you break you have to replace.'' Maritime-mercantile interests in Rome also wanted the city out of the way, it was a strong competitor. The above is a rather general nut shell. I'll have to get my info out on this to fill you in more.

Interesting to note two items on this, one factual, one fictional but, since it comes from BBC writers adapting Graves, perhaps not too wildly improbable. First, Tiberius disliked the games. He thought they were gross and silly, and his attitude might well have been similar in a way to those of us today who react to the antics of pro-wrestling. RE the fictional connection. In ''I,Claudius'' Livia (Graves' Livia, true) tells some gladiators she's hired for a show that she wants realism, and that ''I know all your usual tricks and your bags of hidden cow blood,'' etc. Well room for thought. What's amusing is that Hollywood assumes that the Empire had an unlimited supply of trained gladiators produced on an assembly line and ready to die each day.

I have read elsewhere that Julia was sent away because of Tiberius' disgust and protests. And interesting your mention of Hitler's government. He made it a policy of having all those under him hating each other so that their natural order of course was to turn to him for their support. The so called effective Nazi machine was in effect a system working on bloated credit. They had no recourse but to go to war, had they not done so their creditors would have called their ruin. About your conspiracy list. I am in the dark about two: The two Julias - the first involving a son of Antonius and The elder sons of Germanicus By the by, I just ran into this at wikipedia, I have never heard it before, Tiberius' brother Drusus is suspected as actually being Augustus' natural son. It might be a wild theory. Go check it out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Claudius_Drusus

Caesar's Julia died young but in childbirth. Of course, back then, longevity was no guaranteed thing. As I stated earlier, Marcellus dying was a sad thing. Drusus dying next was a coincidence. Lucius following ten years later set a trend, and Gaius two years later confirms the trend. But of what? JUst a spooky streak of bad luck? Just the wild way life works out? Sickly and no-military-expereince Octavian having been able to climb to power is a miracle or bizarre working in and of itself. I personally want to agree with you 100% and see Livia in shining light. But something Primus commented has haunted me, the fact that she probably had her hand in a dark deed or two. Why wouldnt she? She had the power to do so. By the by, I've been digging deeper on this Gaius business and its seems while en route east he had a meeting with Tiberius, still in exile. Although there's no record of what really went down, it is ironic that after Gaius was wounded he suddenly wished to retreat from public life the same as Tiberius.

here is a peice of what I wrote...

You mention in your section Antiochus III, didnt you mean Antiochus IV? I think his reasoning for not swooping down into Judea first was that, since he was dealing with a guerilla war, it would have proved too time consuming. And Antiochus IV's priorities, like his predecessors' were always the eastern territories. Your assessment of taxation on troop strength left behind seems right. How it was employed and how much of it was sent south into Judea is where I'm still in question. See what figures you have for the Battle of Emmaus. Here I pulled two entirely different counts, Syrian strength rated at either 20,000 or 5,000! About the numbers. I found the figures in The Book of M. so ridiculous that I delved deeper, studied Josephus' figures, then cross-referenced them. Some scholars use his figures, others side step them by simply citing a ''large force''.

hour later... I did a search on the book you mentioned, found some coverage at Amazon. It looks like a reassessment of the battle figures entirely, which is cool, I never believed The Book of M.'s numbers at all and so therefore cross-referenced based on Josephus with other recent scholars who pretty much either back or go along with his figures to good degree. I would like to see how Bar-Kochva (prophetic name) justifies his assessments and what numbers he comes up with. As in the case with most revisionary works, he has a lot of digging to do but if he has ample proof then he does history a service.

I am basing my comments on the work by Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). The book completely covers the war, now I never said they did not send large forces, they did, but only on those two occasions. The reasonings for smaller efforts on the previous engagements I will cite and give reasonings for, allow me to dig up the information, check back in 2 hours after my post now. The Seleukids could muster only 41,000 infantry and 4500 cavalry in the Judean region, now if you beleive the Maccabee books, they claim they fielded 100-200,000 which is a great exateration. They sent out large forces several times numbering as high as 21,000 each time, as stated in my above post. They mustered 41,000 for the Battle of Beth-Zecheriah, Lysias' biggest engagement against Judas. The war effort that lasted for years seriously drained the Seleucid treasury. Each time the Judean rebels bested them with inferior numbers, the Seleucids found themselves pressed to up the stakes.

On what are you basing your info about the Seleucid armies sent against the Maccabees? They sent several. I can think of four major engagements alone. Far more than two. And sent out armies of 20,000 heavy infantry at minimum each time. At one point their expeditions were even followed by slave traders from all over the Levant eager to sell captives. The battle of Beth-Zecheriah alone they sent out everything including the ''kitchen sink''. Chariots. War elephants. The works. The Maccabees, though primarily a guerilla force, even committed to open and major engagements in the field. To name but a few: Battle of El-Haramiah, Judean victory Battle of Beit Horon, Judean victory Battle of Emmaus, Judean victory Battle of Beth-Zecheriah, Judean defeat Battle of Elasa, Judean defeat and the death of Judas Maccabee.

The Seleucids are an amazing part of history and an interesting dynasty and realm. One that started out as a vast territory and was finally reduced after two and a half centuries into nothing more than a buffer state that Rome needed to absorb and digest into a province. High points in its history are, of course, Antiochus the Great, and the one who gets the most bad press because of his abuse of Judea, Antiochus IV. Interesting stuff. Especially the fact that after spending tons of talents and sending several armies against the Jews, the later contenders to the throne use the armed Jewish militia as a tool to seat themselves in power.

See my above post.

Correction, I did use it and I see why there might be a misunderstanding. I should have worded it ''his duties'' not ''destiny''. Still, in the mindset of the times, he may well have seen things as his destiny even if he didnt like it.

By the way, I checked my initial above posts and there's no where that I can see that I used the word ''destiny''.

Indeed, and on that note and this topic, one might cite Agrippa Posthumous, Gaius' youngest brother.

"Destiny" is a load of mystical BS; so, yes, you might as well argue that fishing was Gaius' "destiny" and Augustus stupidly stood in the way of Gaius fulfilling his birth-right--catching a really big bass. You hair splitting semantics here, Cato, and once again seeing things in post-modernist terms. Let me reword it and state that Gaius was SLATED for great things. When one refers to the term ''destined'' they should usually reword it and say ''seemed destined'', which is to say the general course of events seemed to be guiding one in a set direction. And to return to the original argument, in a society that was as duty bound as the Roman, and where people were often expected to marry and procreate as early as 15 years of age, Gaius, by this time a good 24 years old, was not your modern college school boy wondering what he was going to be doing with himself. Already he had served as consul, and was high enough in esteem for Augustus to send him East to make a settlement with Parthia over Armenia. Suddenly there is this breakdown of character, possibly induced by wounds, or poison, or possible an innate sense of dislike for the whole power process. But duty bound he was. And fishing? the luxury of a private life with his credentials in the lineage? Ha! he could wait for the bass to bite and the assassins to arrive and chuck his head into the pond for the fish to feed upon. As for ''destiny'' being mystical rubbish, destiny is known by many other terms. Providence. Karma. We could entertain hours of debate on the topic, but certainly not in this particular forum. Elsewhere, Hora Postilla or Romana Humanitas.... Far be it for me to turn down an exchange of swords on the subject of free will vs. determinism, which what it all boils sown to.

Maybe that's just it--he didn't want to go to war in the first place but for Augustus' expectations, and he was looking for the first way out. Who says what his 'destiny' was? Maybe his 'destiny' was to go fishing. Here I disagree. How cavalier to assume that anyone groomed the way he was for power was going to just retire away. Indeed, Tiberius' exile in Rhodes was initiated in part to stir and rile Augustus up. What Tiberius hadn't counted on was that Augustus would play the game and keep him there to stew. Still, Tiberius wanting to ''retire'' caused waves. Fishing? Come on...

Alot of people died back then from relatively trivial causes in todays terms. True but still, look at the odds; Marcellus, Drusus, Lucius, and finally Gaius. It's like a Kennedy bad streak.

Did Livia have Gaius Caesar poisoned? I am not big on jumping on conspiracy bandwagons, and I'm actually pretty much in the revisionist camp and strongly behind re-editing false notions we have about political figures, the Romans prime among them. I take a very firm ''Oh, this yet another a la Robert Graves slant'' on many of the things I read about the imperial family. This, of course, includes Livia. Yet the rumors about her Xing opponents were up and running even way back then. In any case, whether true or not, you can't help but marvel at how all the other candidates to the throne conveniently died. While researching about Gaius Caesar, Augustus' grandson by Julia's union with M. Agrippa, I dug into the histories by Paterculus, who was actually on hand as a legionary while Gaius was on his mission in the East to negotiate with the Parthians. He saw the treaty-banquet on the Euphrates and then: ''Then Gaius entered Armenia and at first conducted his campaign with success; but later, in a parley near Artagera, to which he rashly entrusted his person, he was seriously wounded by a man named Adduus, so that, in consequence, his body became less active, and his mind of less service to the state. Nor was there lacking the companionship of persons who encouraged his defects by flattery - for flattery always goes hand in hand with high position - as a result of which he wished to spend his life in a remote and distant corner of the world rather than return to Rome. Then, in the act of returning to Italy, after long resistance and still against his will, he died in a city of Lycia which...'' Now read this from Dio Cassius: ''Gaius became ill from his wound, and since he was not robust to begin with and the condition of his health had impaired his mind, this illness blunted his faculties still more. At last he begged leave to retire to private life..'' OK, call in raw instinct, but something struck me here. Especially the line ''the condition of his health had impaired his mind, this illness blunted his faculties still more.'' Now, although I've never been stuck with a spear or arrow, I can well guess that any Roman like Gaius, trained early to serve, and to fight, is not going to let a wound deter him from his destiny. Nor the expectations of a man as overriding and domineering as Augustus. But poison, carefully administered and riding on the coattails of a combat wound could very well alter one's mind. The devious of antiquity were well versed in all kinds of poisons. If we are to set any stock in Graves' notions, Livia was a master at the art. Again, I'm not a conspiracy fan by rule. But when I read a line like that about a retreating mindset suddenly altering a young imperator (or being permitted to finally surface), I can't help but think something's going on here. Dio Cassius goes on to lay suspicion at Livia's feet, especially since Tiberius shortly thereafter returned from exile in Rhodes. Paterculus, of course, writing with Tiberius as patron, didn't dare.

I never really messed with that. Just go to the article you want to add to, click the 'edit' link above the particular paragraph you want to ammend or the 'edit this page' link if you want to add a section. Then make sure you click the preview to make sure it looks like what you want it to look like. I also add a comment on the discussion page for justification. Make sure to click on the history of this page link to see previous changes and if any of them reflect the one you are trying to make and were re-edited. Wikipedia's a two-edged sword, if you get a page that some wiki-nanny is babysitting and they have a particular POV that's different from your it can get ugly with counter-editing and so on. There's a lot of 'consensus' articles that make for lowest common denominator reading and I find the discussion pages almost as interesting. I've had no problem there as you describe, adding and subtracting false data, it's the pages that I myself have created that are stymieing me. I think you're right, it might be a wiki-nanny. I have no idea what I'm suppose to do to ''wikify'' something, etc.

Is it just me, or is editing at Wikipedia next to impossible, with directions they offer almost incomprehensible? They have all these layout references and subsections which leave me more confused than before. I'm told to wikify my article, but how? They say ''see references'' and I'm dizzy and can't figure anything out.

Your scenario is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The roots of arrogant jest were written in later as the roots of madness. Probably the biggest deal was Caligula's insistence of putting a statue of himself into the Temple in Jerusalem. The Jews went into a frenzy and panic. But there is no record of any statue ever being commissioned. And his comment about the statue was in retaliation for the Jews desecrating an idol of the emperor in Apamea. Caligula may well have fumed: ''Well, if they wanna get testy, I'll see to it I put a statue of myself in...etc'' In this instance, and dealing with the Jews of Palestine, it didnt matter. The comment was fuel enough. Later detractors and Claudius' spin doctors went to work with wild fervor exaggerating the material.