Divi Filius

I disagree. Unless there was some major military uprising that sought the re-establishment of the republic(which, as later revolts were to prove, was ridiculous) there was relitively little anyone could do to overturn his rule. The senate was thoroughly cowed by the events of the late republic, to the frustration of Augustus, and the people seemed to grow indifferent. Augustus' position was secure so long as he maintained full control of the army. The fact that Augustus was moderate does not mean that he was afraid of his position(thats not to say that he wasnt either, the fact that he "corrected" many of his uncles mistakes means that he did worry about assassination) but has to do more with the fact that he was actually moderate. The "good" emperor's followed the same path and they had even less to fear, a fact that gives Tacitus the need to write his histories of a time when you could not say what you wanted.

And how long do you think this would have lasted? How can a constitution work if the main power of the state(army) is in the hands of one man? Look at what happened with Diocletian: So long as he was there to guide his caesars and augustuses then the system worked, once he stepped out of the limelight all hell broke loose. Whatever measure Augustus made would have surely been temporary, unless he wanted to distribute power to other bodies, thereby creating a balance. But by doing that he would be jepardizing his own position. In the end, Augustus had little to no power in the course of the Roman empire, no matter what he could have enacted. Like Sulla, all his work could have gone to the shredder by the next powermonger.

Oh god, this is going to be like that Seinfeld episode...

Doco, Not my favorite source, but it will do: Caucasian Iberia They are mentioned very often, here is one thats right off the top of my head: War between Armenia and Iberia: --Tacitus, Annals XII.37

For those interested in the development/look of Constantinople, you might find this book interesting: The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople. Review can be found Here.

As Christianity eradicated the old traditions of Rome, the old buildings went with it. However the hippodrome did not start its complete decay until after 1204 I believe. The decline of aqueducts has more to do with the fact that Constantinople was a city that was constantly under siege from some kind of force. The city always felt threatened. Therefore it learned not to rely on external sources of water (this was ultimately one of the reasons why Rome had to submit to invading armies: they destroyed the aqueducts and choked the city). This lead to it placing its trust on massive cisterns. This ultimately came as the city's population declined, but I guess its another staple of a city that is fearful of subsistance on outside forces.

They must of had a relationship comparable to that of Medes and Persians.

I have heard that extensive Roman coinage has been discovered in these areas. Ill look for the source.

Its not your fault, there is a great amount of ambiguity when trying to locate the Scythians. One of the main reasons is because of the generalization of ancient historians. Practically anything located around the steppes is associated with Scythians. This was used even for the Goths. Often times it is difficult to determine whether the tribes were infact "scythian" or some other group( such as Turanic)

I still think the style of the movie would have been better suited for a different interpretation of the Iliad. Imagine Achilles Rage... That would have worked out great.

I have ran into the book on several occasions but turned off by the "general" character of the book. Usually, and I dont know why, Im opposed to survey books unless I want to inform myself of a time period which is not in my particular interest. Your stance on this book has grabbed my interest though.

Dicaying. Numerous primary sources lament at the desolation and decay which overtook the city after its fall(Pope Gregory I is among them). We can assume that this must have started significantly during the later 4th century and especially after the sack of 410. By Gregory's time old structures were crumbling at an alarming pace. By the time Belisarius entered the city the level of decay horrified the east Roman conquerors. But we should also remember that the traditional Roman games in the circus continued until rather late*, so the significance of these structures did not vanish until conciderably deep into the middle ages. *We have descriptions of races in Sidonius Apollinaris correspondences.

Happy Birthday MPC!

Happy B-day.

Happy Birthday oh great Triumvir...

That stung Ursus. Then why did I even go through the trouble of underlining the book title?????

Most likely the garbage was heaped into the Tiber. Rome was a tough city to live in, even during the empirial highpoints. Humid, smelly and hot. People not accustumed to it became sick very shortly after entering it, especially so during the summer months. Tacitus mentions how quickly the quartered Germans became sick, even more so after they drank water from the Tiber when they became dehydrated...

Fabius Maximus Cunctator leaving control to his magister equitum, Minucius, in order to attend to his religious duties in Rome, albeit with orders not to attack Hannibal. He did this even though he was aware of Minucius' disagreement to the Fabian tactic and for his wish to attack Hannibal...

TE ET DE E Guess what my name is... lol

The the first site I refer people to when they need some quick knowledge of ancient Rome. I too have to give credit to PP for his writing. Everytime I write something I have to make 300 footnotes because of just how much my mind wonders... lol

Would we have Achilles if not for the for the fictionalizing of what most likely was a real war? What about Romulus, Brutus, Scaevola etc. etc. Fictionalizing characters and events (or even making it up entirely) is not something new in history. It is a great thing for us to know what we know about the events, but I think in the end entertainment is entertainment... My persona view...

*sneazes*

I dont see the proposal ever making its way through; if it does it will be nothing but an embarrassment to Congress: they have little to no way of fully enforcing it. On a side note: Turkey's recent court decision.. sure enough people can still access it there. No surprise here. The govt has been doing this since Bush stepped into power. They inch and inch closer and closer to us and we do little but complain...

One of the things that struck me in the movie Gladiator(just saw it again recently) was a comment by one of the senators (the one Derek Jacobi). I don't remember the exact line so to paraphrase he said something in along the lines of Commodus getting so much power based on the favor of the people of Rome. My reply was a snicker and the mental comment: "nobody really gives a hoots about what the citizen likes". I reconsidered the comment since then and now think that it was a little out of line. But nevertheless, I still cannot picture the emperor really having much power based on the favor of the populous of Rome. If it were so then the fate of Vitellius might have been different, since the citizen body clearly favored him over Vespasian. Also, when we look at Tacitus' account*, we find that the people's "favor" was really one of the weakest things of all, since it swayed with the favor of fortune. So this then begs the question: To what extent was the favor of the people helpful, if at all, in holding the throne? *"The acclamations and cries which habitual flattery prompted in the people were at once extravagant and false" (TH.1.90)

All of the events are questionable. The story of Superbus and Brutus stinks of hellenistic influence. You have the recycling of the Greek theory of government: the inheritor degenerates(Superbus is the only one of the kings who inherits the throne). You also have the common association degeneracy and rape. In likelihood the story was adapted from the Athenian tale of their own rise to Democracy. The factor of Brutus could have very well come in through the tradition of the Fasti: Brutus was the first name on the scroll, therefore some kind of tale has to be told of the man. I think that constructing a detailed history of the events is next to impossible. Early Roman history is like one of those stories we wrote when we were younger: you are given a sentence and have to construct an entire tale around it.