WoVCon ]I[ Date

Bump.

Pompey brings to mind the First Triumvirate, an alliance between Pompey Magnus, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Julius Caesar. Crassus (the richest man in Roman history and possibly of all time, depending on how you argue) died in pursuit of military glory against the Parthians. Pompey and Caesar found themselves on opposite sides of a civil war. Ultimately Pompey was killed in Egypt, where he sought refuge after losing the war to Caesar. And Caesar was murdered by die-hard Republican Optimates.

Although all men met a rather bad ending, the First Triumvirate is notable in that neither man killed any of his allies. In most latter high-level Roman alliances, one man killed or betrayed at least one of his partners. This includes the Second Triumvirate, made up of Octavian, Mark Anthony (Marcus Antonius if you prefer) and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Lepidus could be discounted, and was, but Octavian and Anthony fought a bitter war for control of Rome. It ended with Anthony and Cleopatra dead, and Octavian as the first emperor of the Roman Empire.

The only other very notable alliance that did not end in mutual betrayal and blood lust, up to a point at least, was the Tetrarchy created by Diocletian in the Third Century AD. Diocletian realized the Empire had grown too large for one man to rule from one place. So he set up a co-emperor, Maximian, and two junior emperors, Galerius ad Constantius. Diocletian and Maximinian styled themselves "Augustus," while the junior partners were known as "Caesar."

This worked very well, and there were no power plays, much less betrayals, at any point in Diocletians' 20-year reign.

Then he abdicated. He also forced Maximian to abdicate at the same time.

This was a rather good idea, but shortly after the Augusti stepped down everything slowly but surely went all to hell. Culminating in, you guessed it, a series of civil wars for control of the whole Empire. The final victor was Constantine I, who woud up fighting his ally Licinius in the end.

Think about that when you consider today's uncivil, back-stabbing politics.

Bump.

Good news, everyone! Though I'm near the ending of the History of Rome podcasts, I just found a follow-up, by a different author, concerning the history of the Eastern Roman Empire from the mid 400s AD to the mid 1400s AD (that's a really loooooooooong stretch!) So it looks as though I'll have more Rome facts and tidbits to throw around from now til woVCon ]I[, which is actually the purpose of this thread.

On that, I will seriously start staking out a venue for lunch soon.

As to gambling, the only choices really are craps and poker. Since we'll be on the Strip, where good craps is found only at the Casino Royale, I'm more inclined towards poker for now.

Bump.

There were three ways to become emperor in Rome: 1) be named successor or co-emperor by a ruling emperor, 2) be acclaimed as emperor by some person or group who could make it stick (more on that another time), 3) rise in revolt and seize the throne.

Surprisingly there were upsides and downsides to all methods. The most downsides were on the third one, however, which left few survivors. And even if you succeeded, chances were someone else would rise in revolt against you.

In the Year of Four Emperors, methods two and three were much on display. After Nero committed suicide, Galba was hailed as Augustus by the Praetorian Guard. Then Galba proceeded to make the journey from Hispania to italia, alienating everyone along the way. To cap it all off, he then refused to pay off the Guard for its support. It's true he never promised any payment, but such things were commonplace even when the Guard played only an indirect role.

All this let Ottho (weird name for a Roman), who'd expected to be named Galba's successor but was snubbed, deftly take over with a quick revolt. Unfortunately for him, Vitelius was coming down from the northeast of Europe with plans of his own. Plans which wound up quite successful. As I recall, Ottho killed himself rather than submit to capture and execution.

Unfortunately for Vitelius, he was a lousy emperor, more intent in plundering the treasury and partying than in governing. And all these time Vespasian had been amrching west from Judea, with the backing of the Legions stationed in Egypt and Syria.

You'd think that naming a successor or co-emperor would have been easy. But that wasn't always the case. Augustus saw several potential successors die young. And in the end he left the Empire to the least qualified of his extended family: Tiberius.

Hadrian, may his bones be crushed (more on that on request), as conscentious and competent as he was, had to jump through hoops and adopt two men in order to leave the Empire to a third man: Marcus Aurelius.

Honorius, whose signal achievement was dying of natural causes, saw his designation of Constantius III as co-emperor of the Western Empire challenged by Theodosius II of the Eastern Empire, and they were related. Civil war was averted only by the (un)timely death of Constantius.

Quote: Nareed

As to gambling, the only choices really are craps and poker. Since we'll be on the Strip, where good craps is found only at the Casino Royale, I'm more inclined towards poker for now.

Firstly, I am a little bit curious on why "good craps" can only be found at the Casino Royale on the strip. I am aware that they offer better odds multipliers than most strip properties, but are there members of the group who would not play craps at the 3-4-5x level? I would be willing to play at a slightly "nicer" property and forgo the the 10x odds at CR, but that's just me.

Secondly, I'm not really opposed to playing at CR at all (fast drink service!), if that is also an issue.

Poker seems less appealing, but just because I am unfamiliar with it I suppose.

I did vote for "Strip" when we took the poll a while back on the location of the get-together, but if getting together downtown would allow for craps instead of poker...well I'd be a fan of that :)

Quote: AcesAndEights

Firstly, I am a little bit curious on why "good craps" can only be found at the Casino Royale on the strip.

Well, it's 100X odds on $5 and higher line bets, and 20X on $3. And there's the $3 minimum, too.

Quote:

Poker seems less appealing, but just because I am unfamiliar with it I suppose.

Oh, then we must play poker! ;)

Quote:

I did vote for "Strip" when we took the poll a while back on the location of the get-together, but if getting together downtown would allow for craps instead of poker...well I'd be a fan of that :)

I'd prefer Downtown, too. It would be traditin, for one thing, and the Brew pub at the MSS can easily acommodate large parties. Not to mention later there's craps at MSS. All the Strip has going is novelty and variety, but I'm ok with that as well. A second poll is not out of the question, given only those likley to attend would vote anyway. We'll see.

Quote: Nareed

Well, it's 100X odds on $5 and higher line bets, and 20X on $3. And there's the $3 minimum, too.

Ah, I forgot it was actually 100X odds on $5 or higher line bets. Yeah, I can see the appeal of that. I might even throw in a few $500 odds bets if we do end up playing there :)

Quote:

I'd prefer Downtown, too. It would be traditin, for one thing, and the Brew pub at the MSS can easily acommodate large parties. Not to mention later there's craps at MSS. All the Strip has going is novelty and variety, but I'm ok with that as well. A second poll is not out of the question, given only those likley to attend would vote anyway. We'll see.

I vote for a re-vote! Now that we're closer, hopefully only those who are planning on attending would vote. FWIW, I voted "Strip" last time only because that is what I was familiar with at the time, and I try to focus my play at certain properties/chains so as to maximize comps. In the past that has been Total Rewards casinos, but as I have mentioned before, I'm trying to establish a "rapport" with some Downtown properties, looking to the future.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Ah, I forgot it was actually 100X odds on $5 or higher line bets. Yeah, I can see the appeal of that. I might even throw in a few $500 odds bets if we do end up playing there :)

I wouldn't. But if there's a hot shooter and I feel like it, I'd be willing to bet a whoping $60 on a 6 or 8.

Quote:

I vote for a re-vote!

Something has to be wrong with that sentence...

Quote:

In the past that has been Total Rewards casinos, but as I have mentioned before, I'm trying to establish a "rapport" with some Downtown properties, looking to the future.

Downtown's where it's at, whatever the hell that means. There's good VP and Craps, and what more can anyone want? These days I go to the Strip mostly to sight-see.