M. Porcius Cato

To quote Vorenus, "I'll not deny it friend, I have a Gallic look about me, but I'm as solid a Roman as anyone!"

I haven't, but I'd love to read the comparison between Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the Aeneid (Aeneas, the Rutuli-Slayer?)

The remains of the Forma also include the plan of the Theatre of Pompey, the first permanent theatre in Rome (and where you-know-who met his end).

An alternative to Pompey's solution was developed in response to the German U-Boat attacks: convoys. Here's an argument for reviving that tactic.

He was 25! Augustus started his career at 18 and became 'fully fledged' as the Princeps at 32, if you count it from Actium. I think the example of Octavian supports the idea that imperium shouldn't be given to anyone under the age of 30. Just look at what a blood-thirsty little snot he was! Before the age of 30, Octavian was galavanting around Italy with a private army, horse-trading the lives of his own friends and allies with Antony, heroically hiding out in swamps while the fighting got rough, starving Italy with his mismanagement, and slaughtering the family of his future wife. If that doesn't sound like another young, blonde Imperator who took the name of Caesar (see thread title), what does?

According to this story, the script is in full development, with an eye to a 2010 release date. My hopes are for a prequel to the first series. Otherwise, they can't bring back Vorenus and Cato, my two favorite characters.

I don't follow the logic here. Doesn't the success of the Aurelius/Verus team illustrate that two man rule can work? In any case, the model of having two consuls shouldn't be compared to having two emperors or two bosses. For most of the history of the republic, the role of the consul was far more limited than that of an emperor or CEO. An emperor, for example, was not bound by the decisions of his praetors, whereas a consul was. A consul couldn't even call the assemblies to vote on some legislation, at least not without the cooperation of a tribune -- who didn't need the cooperation of the consul. Thus, in both the judicial and legislative spheres, consuls were not autonomous executives, as were the emperors.

It does sound a little British, but it's the Old New York accent, which also drops r's. If you watch old movies (like His Girl Friday) or cartoons (like Loony Tunes), you can hear it pretty often.

Interesting article, but it's much more valuable for its analysis of Obama's powerful speeches than for its chief thesis. The argument for the comparison with Cicero is actually somewhat weak: It is not just in the intricacies of speechifying that Obama recalls Cicero. Like Cicero, Obama is a lawyer. Like Cicero, Obama is a writer of enormous accomplishment - Dreams From My Father, Obama's first book, will surely enter the American literary canon. Like Cicero, Obama is a "novus homo" - the Latin phrase means "new man" in the sense of self-made. Like Cicero, Obama entered politics without family backing (compare Clinton) or a military record (compare John McCain). Roman tradition dictated you had both. The compensatory talent Obama shares with Cicero, says Catherine Steel, professor of classics at the University of Glasgow, is a skill at "setting up a genealogy of forebears - not biological forebears but intellectual forebears. For Cicero it was Licinius Crassus, Scipio Aemilianus and Cato the Elder. For Obama it is Lincoln, Roosevelt and King." In actuality, most US Presidents have been "new men" -- i.e., without family members serving in office. The rarer attribute is being without any military record, which only includes J. Adams, Jefferson, J.Q. Adams, VanBuren, Fillmore, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Clinton. Of these, Obama--with his idealism, intelligence, and academic background-- reminds me most of Woodrow Wilson, whose 'idealism' dragged the US into its most costly war to date, established the (previously unconstitutional) progressive income tax, laid the legal groundwork most responsible for the crash of '29 (which he later regretted, "I have unwittingly ruined my country"), sponsored a new round of alien and sedition acts, spearheaded the League of Nations and its disastrous Treaty of Versailles, and campaigned passionately against the checks-and-balances of the US Constitution.

Just to keep our site Roman-minded, here's the novel text that was found (in Latin, btw): Circa h[ec] temp[or]a vulg[us] opinat[ur] que[n]da[m] exlegatu[m] dict[um] Robyn hode cu[m] suis co[m]plicib[us] assiduis latrocinijs apud shirwode & alibi regios fideles Anglie infestasse. Around this time, according to popular opinion, a certain outlaw named Robin Hood, with his accomplices, infested Sherwood and other law-abiding areas of England with continuous robberies.

Just to look at the whole bendy pila controversy from a different perspective: Is it possible that the Romans didn't care one way or the other about whether the pilum bent, and the purpose of using soft metal for the shaft was simply that it made it easier to refashion into a new pilum?

During the republic, the governor of Sicily -- Gaius Verres -- also had some Roman citizens crucified. The difference, however, between the Empire and Republic was that Verres was hauled up on charges in a public trial in the forum, whereas Imperial governors could practice their banditry while hiding behind the petticoats of the emperor. BTW, if you haven't had a chance to check out Cicero's case against Verres, it's a great read.

There was no Gallic threat to Rome that justified Caesar's illegal war. There is, by the way, a long thread on this somewhere.

Try picking up a copy of Nathan Rosenstein's Rome at War: Farms, Families, and Death in the Middle Republic. It addresses all your major questions, and it provides an overview of how these questions have been addressed by previous generations of scholars.

At around 70 km, the qanat near Kerman is pretty close in length, perhaps the second longest underground aqueduct.

Thanks socii. Had a great birthday, including a few additions to the library (Roman Remains in Southern France for now, Blood in the Forum on order) Sorry I haven't been as active recently -- personal and professional demands have been more intense in the last year, but my interest in ancient Rome is as high as ever.

With an eye on the Taliban-like sensitivities of the new Christians, I wonder: When was the last classical, heroic nude sculpted?

Well, let's not go overboard. His assent was remarkable for a number of reasons, including rampant and flagrant bribery (yes, Bibulus too), attempting to stand for office in absentia (maybe twice), gaining provinces and proconsular armies that had not been delegated to him by the senate, and so on. Now we can just say he was old enough to know better...

This thread seems to be a grab bag of random topics about Caesar, so just a few thoughts: (1) Parenti's book is terrible. He really doesn't have much of any background on ancient Rome, and the book is Michael Moore-ish in its cartoonish treatment of historical events. Clodius mentioned the socialist tone of the bio, but I don't even think Parenti is even competent at that. Presumably a consistent Marxist would celebrate Spartacus rather than the guy who bragged he enslaved a million Gallic men, women, and children... but then Marxists have always had a funny way of tolerating real slavery while shaking their fists at capitalist 'exploiters' ... (2) PP and I had a long discussion of Caesar's birth date in a previous thread (HERE and HERE), and we came to the conclusion that 102 is more likely. Specialists on the late republic who wrote on the topic came to a similar conclusion as well. (3) On the ides itself, I still highly recommend Nicolaus of Damascus' treatment. Of all the ancient historians, he comes closest to providing an eyewitness account. (EDIT: included links to previous discussions.)

Certainly not unknown to the Romans, but unknown to most is the pivotal plebeian hero who defeated the Samnites and expelled Pyrrhus: M Curius Dentatus

Many thanks for the review Nephele! I wonder, who commissioned the autopsy? Did they depict the wax effigy of Caesar, marked by the dagger wounds? Any other famous Romans make an appearance?

Thanks to Augusta for reviewing Roma. The key to appreciating it, I think, is to recognize it as an attempt to fill in the pieces that are missing from the historical record -- e.g., the origins of the Lupercalia, how Romulus and Remus had it out, how exactly they were raised by a she-wolf, where "Roma" got her name, what gave rise to patricii, and so forth. On these topics, Saylor was imaginative, interesting, and might just change the way you think about early Roman history. Unfortunately, as the source material gets more dense, Saylor's approach ceases to work, and so the quality of the novel ends up being inversely proportional to the quality of the historical record. This, I think, explains why the last 2/3 of the novel ends up being just dreadful.

Options can't be redeemed until a much later date, typically years. That's why the figure being trotted about is meaningless, populist rhetoric.

This is an interesting topic, and I'd like to add more later. Just to add one point to what PP said--Marius' later career was largely a destructive one because he placed trust in a total rascal who hasn't been mentioned: Lucius Cornelius Cinna.

A figure like this is trotted out every year, and the figure is misleading. Rather than investment bankers walking home with $19 billion in cash, these employees are typically hired with contracts that specify a certain number of stock options to be paid out as non-regular (i.e., non-taxable) compensation. If the value of the stock falls below the stock option price, then the options are totally worthless. Paying out stock options is a cheap way to provide incentives for employees to do whatever they can to keep the stock prices up -- which is why shareholders (i.e., the owners of these companies) approve of these arrangements.