As far as I know, Julius Caesar and Augustus named the fifth and the sixth months, respectively, after themselves, but why didn't Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero do the same while there were enough unnamed months left?
Was there a change in thinking or were Caesar and Augustus just really more "self-aware"?
Suetonius has this to report about Tiberius, the second emperor and the third Caesar:
[H]e at first played a most unassuming part, almost humbler than that of a private citizen. Of many high honours he accepted only a few of the more modest. He barely consented to allow his birthday, which came at the time of the Plebeian games in the Circus, to be recognized by the addition of a single two-horse chariot. He forbade the voting of temples, flamens, and priests in his honour, and even the setting up of statues and busts without his permission; and this he gave only with the understanding that they were not to be placed among the likenesses of the gods, but among the adornments of the temples. (2) He would not allow an oath to be taken ratifying his acts, nor the name Tiberius to be given to the month of September, or that of Livia to October.
This seems to have stopped the renaming of months fad.
Actually several did:
Caligula renamed September to Germanicus (Suetonius, Caligula, 15) in memory of his father.
Nero renamed April to Neronium (Suetonius, Nero, 55).
Despite Lives of the Twelve Caesars there were far more emperors than months to name after them.
it is not certain to me that Gaius Julius Caesar and Augustus ordered months named after themselves. It is possible that those honors ere decreed posthumously by the senate (allegedly without being prodded by the heir) - you should look it up. The senate was only likely to name a month after an emperor they liked, usually when posthumously decreeing him a god. If an emperor just arbitrarily named a month after himself without going though the senate the next reign might have that action reversed to gain favor with the senate.
A lot of unpopular emperors were posthumously punished with Damnato Memoria when their decrees were nullified and all inscriptions and monuments honoring them were erased and destroyed. If that was done, nothing, especially part of the calendar, would be left named after that emperor.
Curiously, the ins and out of imperial politics meant that the list of Emperors decreed to be gods, likely to have months named after them, and the list of emperors punished with Damnato Memoria and having everything named after them renamed, largely overlapped and did include some of the same emperors.
And the renaming of months seems more like a custom of the early empire and Commodus was probably the last emperor to rename a month after himself.
And after the Emperors became Christians in the 4th century AD they stopped being decreed gods after death and that probably made it very unlikely that months would be renamed after them.
The 5 Worst Roman Emperors
The term “Roman Emperor” is a modern one. There was no job description, no selection process and no agreed title for the men who ruled Imperial Rome. Emperors could be elevated with high political, legal and eventually religious offices, but control of the army and the senate was what really mattered.
Julius Caesar, the last republican ruler, and Gaius Octavius or Augustus, the first emperor, threw a long shadow over the office. The adoption of either of their names might signal a man’s rise to ultimate power.
With the imperial throne a passport to enormous power and wealth and little to stop the strongest from seizing it or the weakest being propelled into it, it’s no wonder Rome has some spectacularly bad emperors.
August?History of the Month's Origin
By Borgna Brunner
'July' is for Julius
The Roman Senate named the month of July after Julius Caesar to honor him for reforming their calendar, which had degenerated into a chaotic embarrassment. Bad calculations caused the months to drift wildly across the seasons?January, for example, had begun to fall in the autumn.
The high priest in charge of the calendar, the pontifex maximus, had become so corrupt that he sometimes lengthened the year to keep certain officials in office or abbreviated it to shorten an enemy's tenure.
Effective January 1, 45 B.C.
The new calendar went into effect on the first day of January 709 A.U.C. (ab urbe condita?"from the founding of the city [Rome]")?January 1, 45 B.C.?and put an end to the arbitrary and inaccurate nature of the early Roman system. The Julian calendar became the predominant calendar throughout Europe for the next 1600 years until Pope Gregory made further reforms in 1582.
Certain countries and institutions in fact adhered to this ancient system until well into the twentieth century: the Julian calendar was used in Russia until 1917 and in China until 1949, and to this day the Eastern Orthodox church adheres to Caesar's calendar.
The month Julius replaced Quintilis (quintus = five)?the fifth month in the early Roman calendar, which began with March before the Julian calendar instituted January as the start of the year. Unfortunately, Caesar himself was only able to enjoy one July during his life?the very first July, in 45 B.C. The following year he was murdered on the Ides of March.
Augustus for 'August'
After Julius's grandnephew Augustus defeated Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and became emperor of Rome, the Roman Senate decided that he too should have a month named after him. The month Sextillus (sex = six) was chosen for Augustus, and the senate justified its actions in the following resolution:
Whereas the Emperor Augustus Caesar, in the month of Sextillis . . . thrice entered the city in triumph . . . and in the same month Egypt was brought under the authority of the Roman people, and in the same month an end was put to the civil wars and whereas for these reasons the said month is, and has been, most fortunate to this empire, it is hereby decreed by the senate that the said month shall be called Augustus.
Not only did the Senate name a month after Augustus, but it decided that since Julius's month, July, had 31 days, Augustus's month should equal it: under the Julian calendar, the months alternated evenly between 30 and 31 days (with the exception of February), which made August 30 days long. So, instead of August having a mere 30 days, it was lengthened to 31, preventing anyone from claiming that Emperor Augustus was saddled with an inferior month.
To accommodate this change two other calendrical adjustments were necessary:
- The extra day needed to inflate the importance of August was taken from February, which originally had 29 days (30 in a leap year), and was now reduced to 28 days (29 in a leap year).
- Since the months evenly alternated between 30 and 31 days, adding the extra day to August meant that July, August, and September would all have 31 days. So to avoid three long months in a row, the lengths of the last four months were switched around, giving us 30 days in September, April, June, and November.
Among Roman rulers, only Julius and Augustus permanently had months named after them?though this wasn't for lack of trying on the part of later emperors. For a time, May was changed to Claudius and the infamous Nero instituted Neronius for April. But these changes were ephemeral, and only Julius and Augustus have had two-millenia-worth of staying power.
For further reading:
Calendar: Humanity's Epic Struggle to Determine a True and Accurate Year, David Ewing Duncan (New York: Avon, 1998).
With the abolition of the Roman monarchy in 509 BC, the imperium, or executive power, of the king was divided between two annually-elected magistrates, known as praetors. In time they would come to be known as consuls, although probably not until the creation of a third, junior praetor in 367 BC.  Neither consul was superior to the other, and the decisions of one could be appealed to the other (provocatio). Their insignia were the toga praetexta and the sella curulis, and each was attended by an escort of twelve lictors, each of whom bore the fasces, a bundle of rods topped by an axe but by custom the lictors had to remove the axes from their fasces within the pomerium, the sacred boundary of Rome, to signify that the people, and not the consuls, were sovereign. 
After several years, [i] the fear of impending war with both the Sabines and the Latin League, combined with widespread suspicion that one or both of the consuls favoured the restoration of the monarchy, led to the call for a praetor maximus, or dictator ("one who gives orders"), akin to the supreme magistrate of other Latin towns.   According to most authorities, the first dictator was Titus Lartius in 501 BC, who appointed Spurius Cassius his magister equitum.  [ii]
Although there are indications that the term praetor maximus may have been used in the earliest period, [iii] the official title of the dictator throughout the history of the Republic was magister populi, or "master of the infantry". His lieutenant, the magister equitum, was the "master of the horse" (that is, of the cavalry [iv] ). However, the use of dictator to refer to the magister populi seems to have been widespread from a very early period.  
The appointment of a dictator involved three steps: first, the Senate would issue a decree known as a senatus consultum, authorizing one of the consuls to nominate a dictator. Technically, a senatus consultum was advisory, and did not have the force of law, but in practice it was nearly always followed. [v] Either consul could nominate a dictator. If both consuls were available, the dictator was chosen by agreement if they could not agree, the consuls would draw lots for the responsibility.  Finally, the Comitia Curiata would be called upon to confer imperium on the dictator through the passage of a law known as a lex curiata de imperio.   
A dictator could be nominated for different reasons, or causa. The three most common were rei gerundae causa, "for the matter to be done", used in the case of dictators appointed to hold a military command against a specific enemy comitiorum habendorum causa, for holding the comitia, or elections, when the consuls were unable to do so and clavi figendi causa, an important religious rite involving the driving of a nail into the wall of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as a protection against pestilence. [vi]   Other reasons included seditionis sedandae causa ("to quell sedition") ferarium constituendarum causa (to establish a religious holiday in response to a dreadful portent [vii] ) ludorum faciendorum causa (to hold the Ludi Romani, or "Roman Games", an ancient religious festival) quaestionibus exercendis, (to investigate certain actions)  and in one extraordinary case, senatus legendi causa, to fill up the ranks of the Senate after the Battle of Cannae.   These reasons could be combined (seditionis sedandae et rei gerundae causa), but are not always recorded or clearly stated in ancient authorities, and must instead be inferred. 
In the earlier period it was customary to nominate someone whom the consul considered the best available military commander often this was a former consul, but this was never required. However, from 360 BC onward, the dictators were usually consulares.  [viii] Normally there was only one dictator at a time, although a new dictator could be appointed following the resignation of another. [ix] A dictator could be compelled to resign his office without accomplishing his task or serving out his term if there were found to be a fault in the auspices under which he had been nominated.  
Like other curule magistrates, the dictator was entitled to the toga praetexta and the sella curulis. He received a ceremonial bodyguard that was unique in Roman tradition: "[t]wenty-four lictors indicated his quasi-regal power, which, however, was rather a concentration of the consular authority than a limited revival of the kingship."  [x]
In a notable exception to the Roman reluctance to reconstitute the symbols of the kings, the lictors of the dictator never removed the axes from their fasces, even within the pomerium. Symbolizing their power over life and death, the axes of a dictator's lictors set him apart from all other magistrates.  In an extraordinary sign of deference, the lictors of other magistrates could not bear fasces at all when appearing before the dictator. 
As the kings had been accustomed to appear on horseback, this right was forbidden to the dictator unless he first received permission from the comitia.   
In addition to holding a military command and carrying out the actions decreed by the Senate, a dictator could summon the Senate or convene one of the legislative assemblies of the Roman people. The full extent of the dictatorial power was considerable, but not unlimited. It was circumscribed by the conditions of a dictator's appointment, as well as by the evolving traditions of Roman law, and to a considerable degree depended on the dictator's ability to work together with other magistrates. The precise limitations of this power were not sharply defined, but subject to debate, contention, and speculation throughout Roman history. 
In the pursuit of his causa, the dictator's authority was nearly absolute. However, as a rule he could not exceed the mandate for which he was appointed a dictator nominated to hold the comitia could not then take up a military command against the wishes of the Senate. [xi] [xii] Some dictators appointed to a military command also performed other duties, such as holding the comitia, or driving a nail into the wall of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus but presumably they did so with the Senate's consent.  
The imperium of the other magistrates was not vacated by the nomination of a dictator. They continued to perform the duties of their office, although subject to the dictator's authority, and continued in office until the expiration of their year, by which time the dictator had typically resigned.   It is uncertain whether a dictator's imperium could extend beyond that of the consul by whom he was nominated Mommsen believed that his imperium would cease together with that of the nominating magistrate, but others have suggested that it could continue beyond the end of the civil year. While the Capitoline Fasti contain four instances in which a dictator appears to have remained in office in the subsequent year without any consuls at all—in 333, 324, 309, and 301 BC—most scholars reject the authenticity of these dictator years.    
Initially a dictator's power was not subject to either provocatio, the right to appeal from the decision of a magistrate, or intercessio, the veto of the tribunes of the plebs.      However, the lex Valeria, establishing the right of appeal, was not abrogated by the appointment of a dictator, and by 300 BC even the dictator was subject to provocatio, at least within the city of Rome.    There is also evidence that the power of the plebeian tribunes was not vitiated by the dictator's commands, and 210 BC, the tribunes threatened to prevent elections held by the dictator, Quintus Fulvius Flaccus, unless he agreed to withdraw his name from the list of candidates for the consulship.    [xiii]
A dictator was expected to resign his office upon the successful completion of the task for which he was appointed, or at the expiration of six months.   These sharp limitations were intended to prevent the dictatorship from too closely resembling the absolute power of the Roman kings. 
Most authorities hold that a dictator could not be held to account for his actions after resigning his office, the prosecution of Marcus Furius Camillus for misappropriating the spoils of Veii being exceptional, as perhaps was that of Lucius Manlius Capitolinus in 362, [xiv] which was dropped only because his son, Titus, [xv] threatened the life of the tribune who had undertaken the prosecution.   However, some scholars suggest that the dictator was only immune from prosecution during his term of office, and could theoretically be called to answer charges of corruption. 
The dictator's lieutenant was the magister equitum, or "master of the horse". He would be nominated by the dictator immediately upon his own appointment, and unless the senatus consultum specified the name of the person to be appointed, the dictator was free to choose whomever he wished.   It was customary for the dictator to nominate a magister equitum even if he were appointed for a non-military reason. Before the time of Caesar, the only dictator who refused to nominate a magister equitum was Marcus Fabius Buteo in 216 BC, and he strenuously objected to his own nomination, because there was already a dictator in the field. 
Like the dictator, the magister equitum was a curule magistrate, entitled to the toga praetexta and the sella curulis. His imperium was equivalent to that of a praetor (in the later use of the term), in that he was accompanied by six lictors, half the number accorded to the consuls. But like the dictator, he could summon the Senate, and probably also the popular assemblies. His authority was not subject to recall, although if the dictator were compelled to resign due to a fault in the auspices, the magister equitum was also expected to resign, and when the dictator laid down his imperium, so would the magister equitum. 
In theory, the magister equitum was commander of the cavalry, but he was not limited to that role. The dictator and magister equitum did not always take the field together in some instances the magister equitum was assigned the defense of the city while the dictator took an army into the field, while on other occasions the dictator remained at Rome to see to some important duty, and entrusted the magister equitum with an army in the field.  The magister equitum was necessarily subordinate to the dictator, although this did not always prevent the two from disagreeing.  [xvi]
During the first two centuries of the Republic, the dictatorship served as an expedient means by which a powerful magistracy could be created quickly in order to deal with extraordinary situations.  Created for military emergencies, the office could also be used to suppress sedition and prevent the growing number of plebeians from obtaining greater political power.  In the Conflict of the Orders, the dictator could generally be counted upon to support the patrician aristocracy, since he was always a patrician, and was nominated by consuls who were exclusively patrician. After the lex Licinia Sextia gave plebeians the right to hold one of the annual consulships, a series of dictators were appointed in order to hold elections, with the apparent goal of electing two patrician consuls, in violation of the Licinian law.  [xvii]
After the Second Samnite War, the dictatorship was relegated almost exclusively to domestic activities. No dictator was nominated during the Third Samnite War, and the six-month limitation on its powers made the dictatorship impractical for campaigns beyond the Italian peninsula.   In 249 BC, Aulus Atilius Calatinus became the only dictator to lead an army outside Italy, when he invaded Sicily, and he was the only dictator to hold a military command during the First Punic War.  The last dictators to lead an army in the field were Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus in 217, and Marcus Junius Pera the following year, during the early stages of the Second Punic War.  All of the other dictators appointed during that conflict remained at Rome in order to hold the comitia [xviii] the last dictator named in the traditional manner was Gaius Servilius Geminus, in 202 BC.   [xix]
Dictatorship revived Edit
For the next century, Rome's ordinary magistrates and promagistrates successfully carried on all Roman campaigns, without the need for a dictator, and the office fell into abeyance. Then, in 82 BC, the dictatorship was suddenly revived by Sulla. Sulla, already a successful general, had previously marched on Rome and taken the city from his political opponents six years earlier but after he permitted the election of magistrates for 87, and departed to campaign in the east, his enemies returned. In 83 he turned his attention to regaining Rome, and after defeating his opponents decisively the next year, the Senate and the people named him dictator "for reforming the laws and the constitution" (Latin dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae), giving Sulla the power to rewrite the Roman constitution, without any time limit.  [xx]
Sulla's reforms of the constitution doubled the size of the Senate from 300 to 600, filling its ranks with his supporters. He then placed severe limits on the tribunician power, limiting the veto and forbidding ex-tribunes from holding higher magistracies. Although he resigned the dictatorship in 81, and held the consulship in 80, before returning to private life, Sulla's actions had weakened the Roman state and set a precedent for the concentration of power without effective limitation. 
The dictatorial power was then granted to Caesar in 49 BC, when he returned to Rome from his campaigns in Gaul, and put the forces of Pompeius ("Pompey the Great") to flight. He resigned the dictatorship after only eleven days, having held the comitia at which he himself was elected consul for the following year. Late in 48, Caesar was named dictator "for the sake of accomplishing the task" (Latin rei gerundae causa) with a term of one year, and granted the tribunician power for an indefinite period. He saw to the impeachment of two tribunes who had tried to obstruct him, and having been granted censorial powers, he filled the depleted numbers of the Senate with his supporters, raising the number of senators to 900. In 47, he was named dictator for a term of ten years. Shortly before his assassination in BC 44, Caesar was named dictator "in perpetuity for reforming the constitution" (Latin dictator perpetuo rei publicae constituendae), and given the power to appoint magistrates at will.   
Caesar's murder came at the hands of conspirators who presented themselves as saviours of the Republic. In order to maintain popular support, Caesar's followers took great care to show their own commitment to preserving the Roman state. The month after the assassination, Mark Antony, who had been Caesar's magister equitum in BC 47, proposed a series of laws, confirming Caesar's actions, but allowing appeals and formally abolishing the dictatorship. These were passed, as the leges Antoniae. 
In 23 BC, when Caesar's nephew and heir Augustus had attained full control of the state, the Senate offered to appoint him dictator, but he declined, while at the same time accepting proconsular imperium and the tribunician power for life. Thus, Augustus preserved the appearance of respecting Republican forms, even as he arrogated most of the powers of the Roman state.  Following his example, none of the emperors who succeeded him ever adopted the title of dictator. When Constantine chose to revive the ancient concept of the infantry commander, he pointedly gave the office the name of magister peditum, "master of the foot", rather than magister populi, the official style of a dictator. 
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
Caracalla, also spelled Caracallus, byname of Marcus Aurelius Severus Antoninus Augustus, original name (until 196 ce ) Septimius Bassianus, also called (196–198 ce ) Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caesar, (born April 4, 188 ce , Lugdunum [Lyon], Gaul—died April 8, 217, near Carrhae, Mesopotamia), Roman emperor, ruling jointly with his father, Septimius Severus, from 198 to 211 and then alone from 211 until his assassination in 217. His principal achievements were his colossal baths in Rome and his edict of 212, giving Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire. Caracalla, whose reign contributed to the decay of the empire, has often been regarded as one of the most bloodthirsty tyrants in Roman history.
Caracalla was the elder son of the future emperor Lucius Septimius Severus, a North African, and Julia Domna, a Syrian. He was originally named Bassianus, after his maternal grandfather, who had been high priest of the Syrian sun god Elagabalus. He assumed the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and added the title Caesar because his father wanted to connect his family with the famous dynasty of the Antonines. In 198 he was given the title of Augustus, which nominally meant he had equal rank with his father. The byname Caracalla was based on his alleged designing of a new cloak of that name. Another of his nicknames, Tarautas, was that of an ugly, insolent, and bloodthirsty gladiator whom he was thought to resemble.
The ancient sources concerning his life and character are by no means reliable. One of them, for example, recounts that as a boy he was amiable, generous, and sensitive and only later became insufferable but the same source reports in another context that he was fierce by nature. Modern treatments emphasize Caracalla’s Syrian heritage as one of the most important elements in his character, although here, too, due caution must be applied, since Eastern origin was in no way incompatible with a high degree of Romanization. Julia herself was well acquainted with Greco-Roman culture and hired excellent teachers to give her son the best education available. It is reported that he studied the Greek orators and tragedians and was able to quote long passages from the Greek playwright Euripides but also that he strongly despised education and educated people. This may have been the result of his passion for military life, which probably developed when he accompanied his father on his many military expeditions.
At the age of 14 he was married to Fulvia Plautilla, the daughter of the influential and ambitious commander of the imperial guard, Fulvius Plautianus he is said to have hated Plautianus and played an important role in having him executed on the charge of a conspiracy against the imperial dynasty. He also exiled his own wife to an island and later killed her.
A significant development was the growing rivalry between Caracalla and his younger brother Geta, a rivalry that was aggravated when Severus died during a campaign in Britain (211), and Caracalla, nearing his 23rd birthday, passed from the second to the first position in the empire. All attempts by their mother to bring about a reconciliation were in vain, and Caracalla finally killed Geta, in the arms of Julia herself, it is said. There can be no doubt about the savage brutality of Caracalla’s act, but a solution that would have been at once moral and practicable was not in sight.
Caracalla next showed considerable cruelty in ordering many of Geta’s friends and associates put to death. Probably in order to regain goodwill, he granted an amnesty to exiles, a move denounced as hypocritical in ancient sources, which also slander Caracalla’s most famous measure, the so-called Constitutio Antoniniana de Civitate, as a device designed solely to collect more taxes.
His expeditions against the German tribes in 212/213, when he senselessly massacred an allied German force, and against the Parthians in 216–217 are ascribed by ancient sources to his love of military glory. Just before the Parthian campaign, he is said to have perpetrated a “massacre” among the population of Alexandria, probably in response to a disturbance there.
Caracalla’s unpredictable behaviour is said to have prompted Macrinus, the commander of the imperial guard and his successor on the throne, to plot against him: Caracalla was assassinated at the beginning of a second campaign against the Parthians.
Important for the understanding of his character and behaviour is his identification with Alexander the Great. Admiration of the great Macedonian was not unusual among Roman emperors, but, in the case of Caracalla, Alexander became an obsession that proved to be ludicrous and grotesque. He adopted clothing, weapons, behaviour, travel routes, portraits, perhaps even an alleged plan to conquer the Parthian empire, all in imitation of Alexander. He assumed the surname Magnus, the Great, organized a Macedonian phalanx and an elephant division, and had himself represented as godlike on coins.
Another important trait was Caracalla’s deeply rooted superstition he followed magical practices and carefully observed all ritual obligations. He was tolerant of the Jewish and Christian faiths, but his favourite deity was the Egyptian god Serapis, whose son or brother he pretended to be. He adopted the Egyptian practice of identifying the ruler with god and is the only Roman emperor who is portrayed as a pharaoh in a statue.
In the many portraits of him, the expression of vehemence and cruelty is obvious, and some sources say that he intentionally reinforced this impression, perhaps because it flattered his vanity to spread fear and terror. It is also said that he was of small size but excelled in bodily exercises, that he shared the toils of the rank and file but also weakened his virility by a dissolute life and was not even able to bear the weight of a cuirass.
A similar inconsistency characterizes the judgments about his mental state. He was said to be mad but also sharp minded and ready witted. His predilection for gods of health, as documented by numerous dedicatory inscriptions, may support the theory of mental illness.
If Caracalla was a madman or a tyrant, the fact had no great consequences for his administration of the empire, which may or may not have been vitally influenced by Julia Domna and the great jurists who surrounded him. He was venerated by his soldiers, who forced the Senate to deify him after his death, and there is no indication that he was especially disliked among the general population. In any case, the Roman Empire at that time was still strong enough to bear a ruler who certainly lacked the qualities of an outstanding emperor.
Augustus died in 14 CE. His last words became famous: “I found Rome a city of clay, but left it a city of marble.” However, his wife Livia and adopted son Tiberius, who became the second emperor in the history of Roman Empire, his last words were: “Have I played the part well? The applaud as I exit.” The body of emperor was buried in Rome.
During his reign, the emperor expanded Roman Forum and today, you can visit remainings of Forum of Augustus in the center of Rome
Fall of Roman Empire caused by widespread homosexuality
A prominent Italian historian has claimed that the Roman Empire collapsed because a “contagion of homosexuality and effeminacy” made it easy pickings for barbarian hordes, sparking a furious row.
The Conservative Catholic historians Roberto De Mattei explains the danger of acceptance of Homosexuality.
Roberto De Mattei, 63, the deputy head of the country’s National Research Council, claimed that the empire was fatally weakened after conquering Carthage, which he described as “a paradise for homosexuals”.
The remarks prompted angry calls for his resignation, with critics saying his comments were homophobic, offensive and unbecoming of his position.
The fall of the Roman Empire was a result of “the effeminacy of a few in Carthage, a paradise for homosexuals, who infected the many.
An act of sodomy was prepared for the original movie “Sparktakus”.
“The abhorrent presence of a few gays infected a good part of the (Roman) people,” Prof Mattei told Radio Maria, a Catholic radio station.
The Roman Republic achieved domination over Carthage, in present-day Tunisia, during the Punic Wars of the third and second centuries BC, during which Hannibal made his ultimately abortive crossing of the Alps with war elephants.
After the third and final Punic War, Carthage fell into Roman hands, followed by most of the other dependencies of the Carthaginian Empire.
Prof Mattei claimed that it was as the capital of Rome’s North African provinces that Cartagena became a hotbed of sexual perversion, gradually influencing Rome itself, which eventually fell to barbarian tribes in 410AD.
The corruption and decadence of some Roman emperors has been a staple of the cinema for decades, from humorous pastiches such as Frankie Howerd’s 1970s television series Up Pompeii! to the 1960 Hollywood film Spartacus.
A homoerotic scene in Spartacus in which Laurence Olivier’s character, the Roman General Crassus, attempts to seduce a young slave played by Tony Curtis was cut from the original film but restored in the 1990s.
Prof Mattei, a conservative Catholic and a former adviser on international affairs to the government, drew a parallel between the supposed moral degeneracy of imperial Rome and that of contemporary Italy.
“Today we live in an era in which the worst vices are inscribed in law as human rights. “Every evil must have its punishment, either in our times or in the afterlife.” Politicians and academics were left aghast by his remarks and more than 7,000 have signed a petition calling for his immediate resignation.
His homophobic and extreme views are offensive to the organisation he leads,” said Massimo Donadi, a senior member of an opposition party, Italy of Values, adding that he would refer the affair to parliament.
Anna Paola Concia, an MP from the main opposition Democratic Party, said: “A fanatic such as him cannot remain vice-president of the council in a country that has at its heart culture, human rights and respect for diversity. He is nothing other than a homophobic fundamentalist on a par with Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad.” P
Prof De Mattei, who was awarded an order of knighthood by the Vatican in recognition for his service to the Catholic Church, has previously caused controversy by speaking out about gay rights, the contraceptive pill and the alleged persecution of Christians by Muslims in Kosovo and Lebanon.
Last month he said that the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan were punishments from God and “a way of purifying human sin”.
Again the liberal gay lobby tries to catch a whistle blower.
Even as confused a Roman Catholic historian can be in regards to salvation, he will still be able to bring forth some interesting historical facts.
The fall of the twin city of Sodom and Gomorrah is well know, to all who have read, and continue to read their Bible. The reason for the fall, were sexual perversion, cities taken over by homosexual offenders.
When Lot entertained two angles, the sexual perverts tried to break into Lots house, to have sex with the men sent from God. Lot’s offer to give them his two daughters, were declined.
Abraham was not able to find 10 righteous people in the city of Sodom. All of them, less than possible nine, had either turned homosexuals of were supporters of these evil doers.
Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded the house. They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.’
The fall of Rome, is a complicated matter. It was not caused by a single event, or only one moral issue. But is is widely accepted that Rome fell because of immorality and decay, the people turning to hedonism, parties and outright sexual orgies. Not so different from the post-Christian western civilization today.
‘It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulphur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
‘It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed.
Jesus the Messiah warns us, that this will be the state of affairs in the World, at His second coming. So true believers in the Messiah must rejoice, and not loose heart because of the widespread international acceptance of sodomy.
Just count your self lucky, that you will not be thrown into Hell when the final judgment comes to your local neighborhood, ran by perverts and their puppies.
Collecting Ancient Roman Coins Part II: Issuer
Ancient Roman Imperial Coins
It is very important for a collector of ancient coins to properly identify the piece that he has. A good and fast identification can help him when he buys that coin and can protect him from possible frauds or misunderstandings.
Of course, it is impossible to know all the coins. But knowing a few little things can be very useful.
First of all, when you take in your hand a coin, it is very important to know who issued it. For the Roman imperial coins, that person is always the emperor or one of his family members.
As every Roman, the emperor has a name that must follow certain rules. The name is made up of 3 parts.
Let’s take Caesar for example. His name is Caius Iulius Caesar. Caius is the praenomen, or first name. Iulius is the nomen or nomen gentile, his family’s name, and Caesar is the cognomen or nick name, in this case meaning either the bald or that he was born by caesarean section. The poet’s name, Publius Ovidius Naso follows the same rule, Naso being the cognomen and meaning “big nose”. Sometimes the first name can be abbreviated as C for Caius, P for Publius, Ti for Titus Cn for Cnaeus and so on. Also, the name can carry more then one cognomen.
In legal matters, the name also contains another part, the father’s name. This part appears between the nomen and the cognomen and it is accompanied by the formula filius, “the son of…” For example, Caesar’s father was also Caius, so his full name is Caius Iulius Caii filius Caesar. Translated: Caius Julius Caesar, son of Caius.
The emperor’s name is basically the same.
When Octavian took the supreme power in the Roman State, he changed his name. His official name was from this moment on Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus.
Imperator was his first name. It was the name of the function that he had. In modern times it can be assimilated as fieldmarschal althrough in all the modern languages it gave the word “emperor”. This name conferred to a person a high military authority.
Caesar was his adoptive father’s cognomen but for Octavian it is his family name, to suggest his close connection with him.
Divi Filius means “the son of the divine (Caesar)” and gives him religious authority, as son of a god.
Augustus was his cognomen and means at the same time, sacred and authority.
All the emperors that came after Augustus kept this formula of the name, adding some more cognomens, usually representing some functions and of course changing the father’s name. In time, the names became more and more complex. For example, an aureus of Trajan has the following legend around the emperor’s head: IMP CAES NERVA TRAIAN AVG GERM. On the other side, the next part is PONT MAX TR POT COS II.
CAES is the abbreviation for Caesar.
The next part of the name is missing but it can be understood as NERVAE FILIUS, the son of Nerva, his adoptive imperial father.
NERVA TRAIAN is Nerva Traianus. The presence of the Traian formula shows that it cannot be only the emperor Nerva.
GERM stands for Germanicus, the winner of the German population. These triumphant names are given in the honor of the great imperial victories over barbarian populations. These titles were used by an emperor for imperial propaganda and played the role of cognomen. Also, the abbreviation can appear as DAC, PARTH, SARM, GOTH and so on, for Dacicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus, Gothicus …. In some cases the formula MAX is added at the end, and means MAXIMUS. For example, Germanicus Maximus means the supreme winner over the Germans. Because this title was given after important battles which were won, their presence or the absence is an important clue in dating the coin more precisely.
PONT MAX or sometimes only P M means Pontifex Maximus, supreme priest, an important function. It can only be given to the emperor himself at the beginning of the reign. Even if there are two emperors simultaneously on the throne, only one can be Pontifex Maximus.
TR POT is the abbreviation for Tribunicia Potestatis, a function that means tribune of the people. This is the most important dating detail. Every year, on the 10th of December, the emperor and only he took this function. It is represented on the coin as the first (number I=1 is omitted yet from II=2 onward).
COS II means Consulus 2 or Consul bis, that is “consul for the second time” and it means that he was or is consul for the second time. It is also a dating clue, because Trajan was consul 7 times. This function is one of the most important, being assimilated with the modern prime minister function.
Other 2 names and abbreviations are missing from this coin.
The first one is P P or pater patriae, the father of the country. It always appears at the end of the name and it must not be taken by mistake as P M.
Another important function is CENS or Censor, responsible with the morales. Every 5 years, the censor ordered a population numbering and also studied the structure of the Senate. If he considered necessary he appointed new members or put out old ones for morality problems. Because it was a function that gave great power, it was almost exclusively used by the emperor. Sometimes the word PERPETUUS is added, this meaning that he is “forever Censor”.
In time, the legend became more complex or more simplified. Also, the letters were changed. For example, in the third century the form IMP was sometimes written IIIIIP because of the method of writing the M. Moreover, almost all the emperors were using the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus with the imperial names and confusion can happen.
Olympic Games in the Roman Empire
The ancient Olympic Games (Ancient Greek: τὰ Ὀλύμπια – ta Olympia) were a series of athletic competitions among representatives of various city-states of ancient Greece. They were held in honor of Zeus, and the Greeks gave them a mythological origin. Historical records indicate that they began in 776 BC in Olympia. They continued to be celebrated when Greece came under Roman rule, until the emperor Theodosius I suppressed them in 394 AD as part of the campaign to impose Christianity as the state religion of Rome. The games were usually held every four years, or Olympiad, which became a unit of time in historical chronologies.
The Roman Empire was in many ways the heyday of the ancient Olympic festival. The prominence it enjoyed was part of a wider pattern of the flourishing of Greek culture, and especially Greek athletics, under Roman rule. Nearly every Greek city had its own athletic festival, and prominent athletes were international stars, travelling far and wide across the Mediterranean world in pursuit of successive victories. The gymnasium continued to be one of the key institutions of higher education for young men in Greek cities. The Greek art and literature of the Roman Empire return again and again to the subject of athletic competition and training, idealising it and satirising it. Olympia was at the heart of those developments: It was supported by successive emperors and it continued to draw athletes and spectators from across the Roman world.
From 776 BC, when the Olympic Games were first established by the Greeks, until the 4th century BC this sacred institution managed to remain unaffected by historical circumstance, but after the death of Alexander the Great, the prestige of the Olympic Games began to fade. The Romans, who had already taken over Greece in 146 BC, were considered to be Greek descendants and were allowed to take part in all of the national sports events. That’s when the first professional athletes made their appearance. We now know that they had formed their own trade unions and held considerable political power. They were paid to take part in the most significant sporting events (Olympia, Pithia, Nemea, Isthmia etc) and they literally offered their services to the city that was willing to pay the most money, trading on victories and defeats in the exact same fashion.
The institution of the Olympic Games had taken a very severe blow because it used to be a competition that relied exclusively on the efforts of amateur athletes. The appearance of the professionals raised the standards so high that amateurs no longer stood a chance. Sports competitions had become a professional affair and all Greek citizens could do now was attend. That’s what brought on the decline that soon followed. The prestige of the temple of Olympia after long years of honorable religious, cultural and political activities was now tarnished.
During the Mithridatic Wars, L. Cornelius Sulla sacked the sanctuary and moved the 175th Olympiad to Rome (80 BC). For the next few years the Olympic Games were diminished to a local sports event.
But after these years of decline, the Olympic Games had a second heyday during the Roman Empire. After the political and social conditions went back to normal during the reign of Emperor Augustus, the temple of Olympia, and the Olympic Games, started flourishing again - both financially and culturally. There are records of M. Vipsanius Agrippa, the Emperor’s general and son-in-law, visiting the area while extended restoration works were carried out at the sanctuary that was to play such an important part in the newfound international appeal of the Games. The chariot races that were once banned were now back in the Olympic schedule with several members of the imperial family taking part, e.g. Emperor Tiberius, who won the 194th Olympiad (4 BC).
According to the numerous pedestals and inscriptions bearing the names of members of the imperial family, Olympia continued to enjoy the emperors’ favor, even when Augustus’s successors ascended the throne. Tiberius’s adoptive son Germanicus continued in the same fashion, winning the chariot races in the 199th Olympiad (17 BC). Unfortunately not all Roman interest in the Olympic Games had positive results. Emperor Nero’s morbid love of Greece resulted in a chronological disruption, something that had never happened before. The 211th Olympiad not only took place two years too late but it also included a musical contest and a chariot race with ten-horse chariots, so that Nero could obtain all of six victories and become the most successful Olympic champion of all time, even though historical sources revealed that his voice was horribly off key. After he passed away that particular Olympiad was stricken off record and was thereafter referred to as the Unolympiad.
About three centuries later the Olympic Games came to an end. Varasdates, an Armenian prince, who won the boxing championships in 385 AD, was the last known Olympic champion. The last Olympic Games took place in 393 AD. The following year they were abolished by Theodore the Great, while the gold and ivory statue of Zeus made by Phidias was transported to Constantinople. In 420 AD the temple of Zeus was burned down, following the orders of Theodosius II and Olympia was deserted. The sanctuary was finally wiped out in two earthquakes, one in 522 and one in 551 AD.
Seven Heads and Ten Horns
Now what about the 7 heads and 10 horns of the dragon? What do they represent? There are many people who believe the heads represent the various kingdoms that ruled the world before Rome, like Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, etc. Others believe the 7 heads to be various leaders or even various popes, but all of these interpretations are wrong, and I will show you why. Remember where the crowns are on the dragon, as apposed to the crowns on the beast of Revelation 13? The crowns on the dragon are on the heads. The crowns on the heads mean that these heads are the ruling powers of the dragon - Pagan Rome. Now was Babylon, Medo Persia, Greece, etc, ruling powers of the Roman Empire? No, these past nations had fallen long before and were no longer ruling. So the heads cannot represent any other nations in the past, as they are ruling heads of the Roman Empire.
"The head of a kingdom is its king or government. The seven heads, of the dragon naturally denote, therefore, the seven heads, or governments, which at different times have ruled over Rome to wit, kings, consuls, decemvirs, dictators, triumvirs, emperors, and popes. The ten horns represent the ten kingdoms which arose from the division of Rome . The crowns being placed on the heads and not on the horns, shows that the kingdom had not yet been divided" (J.G.Matteson, Review and Herald, Vol.64, No.22, May 31, 1887)
"The seven forms of government that have existed in the Roman empire are usually enumerated as follows: (1) kingly (2) consular (3) decemvirate (4) dictatorial (5) triumvirate (6) imperial and (7) papal." (Uriah Smith, Daniel and the Revelation, 1897, p.660)
So the seven heads of the dragon must denote the various forms of government that ruled the Roman Empire, as shown above. And the fact that the 'head' that was mortally wounded in Revelation 13:3 is the Papacy (which we will show further down), proves again that the 7 heads are not other kingdoms of the past, or even popes, but the ruling governments of the Roman Empire.
So what about the 10 horns? Revelation 17:12 tells us that they are 'ten kings'. Kings can also be interpreted in prophecy as 'kingdoms'. Now if we take a look at the fourth beast of Daniel 7, which again is the Roman Empire, we also see 10 horns coming up out of that beast, and Daniel 7:24 says that the ten horns are 'ten kings that shall arise.' So these ten horns naturally must denote the 10 kingdoms that the Roman Empire originally split into when it fell. Which matches also the prophecy in Daniel 2 of Nebuchadnezzar's image with the 10 toes.
So it is clear that the 7 heads represent the 7 forms of government of the Roman Empire. And the 10 horns are the original 10 kingdoms of Europe that the Roman Empire split into.
1 He Tried To Kill The Woman He Loved Most
Commodus&rsquos mistress Marcia, the woman who&rsquod told him to kill Cleander, seems to have been his one true love. He treated her like a wife, took her advice, and respected her more than any other person on Earth&mdashuntil she disagreed with him, at least. Then, because love only goes so far, he tried to kill her.
Commodus was planning on declaring himself the sole supreme dictator of Rome. He was going to wipe out the Senate and start ruling on his own from inside the gladiators&rsquo barracks. He was also going to announce it at a gladiatorial arena, dressed like a gladiator and flanked by gladiators. 
Marcia begged him not to do it, believing he was about to ruin an entire country, so he sent out an order to have the love of his life murdered. The only reason Marcia survived was that Commodus&rsquos boy sex slave, The Boy Who Loves Commodus, warned her. Apparently, he didn&rsquot really live up to his name.
Marcia, working with others who wanted him dead, poisoned Commodus, but he vomited the poison up. While he was cleaning off the vomit in the bath, a wrestler named Narcissus was sent in to strangle him to death. That&rsquos how Commodus really met his end&mdashchoked by a naked man while he washed vomit off of himself.