#vawacademy

[termpapr]

one of my biggest issues is that while i am an honest researcher at heart which means i am always up to changing my mind if presented with sufficient evidence (moreover i will seek out alternative points of view myself to see how my current opinions hold against them) i also a) am easily triggered by Certain subjects which makes it hard for me to research the topic altogether and b) just unironically loathe that guy named l. cornelius sulla felix. it's hard for me to read anything positive on him because i am afraid of finding out that maybe i have greatly overestimated the traumatic effect his reforms had on rome and underestimated the positive influence saud reforms had and then everything i have ever said on the subject was stupid and futile and so is my hatred but i cannot get it out of my system at this point so it makes me a stupid hypocrite. genuinely free me

[termpapr]

requested an article from academia edu for the first time and had an actual well-known scholar address me by name in an email which was Scary. but hey i have the article now

[termpapr]

saw people who studied under morstein-marx on tumblr. puella dats crazy

[termpapr]

tbh sullamarius shippers are so lucky because sullamarius is a presupposition of the entire prosopographical bulk of scholarship. well. their famed enmity that has something to do with anything is at least

[termpapr]

i have hit gabba badian and gruen with my blast

[termpapr]

but like okay. i will concur with lintott for now about what exactly were the grounds for annulment because his version kind of only affirms my bigger point of the way drusus went about his legislation wasn't considered to be straight-up illegal but a case could still be made since it was dubious

[termpapr]

girl who does prosopography for shits and giggles meets scholar who does it with utmost seriousness. scary

[termpapr]

genuinely insane to me that absolutely no one with the exception of millar even dared to ask the question what did the people think about drusus' rogatio de sociis civitate danda. like you'll be reading keaveney's book on social war (a rather good one actually) and he'll ask the question of the senate's opinion on the rogatio yet the people will NEVER cross his mind even though may i remind you that philippus went to complain about drusus in a CONTIO + the people didn't elect cotta yet elected varius as tribune for the year 90 + one of the only surviving examples of anti-drusan rhetoric is literally CONTIONAL. and because no one takes popular pressure into consideration everyone is trying to explain the rather easy repeal of drusus' laws by the senate with issues regarding the integration of equestrians into the senate (actually it's debatable whether it was even a proposal but i am not the kind of guy who reads against the text so i will let it be) or something of the sort even though it's how imperial authors who no longer actually understood the workings of roman republic see it while our one and only cicero never implies that at all??? my personal take is that philippus has amassed such support the senate *had* to accept philippus' version of the earlier events which had drusus pass his laws per vim et contra auspicia (because that's seemingly what lex caecilia didia is also about. i surely don't believe leges liviae could have been leges saturae and i also don't believe he could have somehow messed up in regards to promulgation periods since he literally had THE crassus on his side). and like. this is probably the first time i see a consul who fights the senate's pet tribune with CONTIONES. which is wow overall