Thank you for answering our questions. During Caesar's Civil War, there was a lot of Romans fighting Romans. Yet Caesar celebrated a triumph for his victory. How was that received by the Romans? How did it influence how the civil war was remembered by the Romans?

Hey Dr. Omissi. We've chatted before (but I'll avoid outing myself too much) because of my interest in imperial accessions.

In your appendix/methods section, you mention that you avoid scrutinizing subordinate augusti because of the (understandably practical) threat of having a chain-reaction of usurpatory claims that would be too difficult to unpack.

But isn't this a practical resolution to a theoretical problem that only we modern scholars have in an attempt to untangle an idealized legitimacy chain? One which would not exist if we were following alternate theories of power and legitimacy (Flaig/Pfeilschifter come to mind), or if we were viewing it from the perspective of a Roman imperial political faction itself (presuming that every faction's candidate during a civil war was going to win, and was thus legitimate at that moment in time)?

I raise this because I too encountered similar technical problems in establishing such an "objective legitimacy chain" and opted to go with a purely acceptance system route and just say all challengers to the throne are legitimate, but we only note those who win or make an impact.

EDIT: In essence, I'm worried that we are trying to create a technical definition for "usurper" that may not exist because of the label's pejorative connotation and usage, similar to the problems we have in trying to create technical definitions for "magician."

Hi! Thank you for coming and answering our questions. How were panegyrics recorded and disseminated? Were students expected to study them as part of learning rhetoric?

Hello Dr Omissi, this looks like a really cool topic. I'd be very interested to hear more about how these speeches and propaganda would go on to influence later history.

Is there a case where not destroying a statue seems to have been a political mistake for some faction in retrospect?

Were there any major changes in how panegyrics were done when we compare the time of Augustus to the Crisis of the Third Century or the empire after Christianity? If so, what were they?

This is a broader question because of my specialization, but how do you approach memory, memory-scapes, and how we as historians challenge popular memory? I just know that Rome has been alluded to and used throughout "Western tradition" for different things depending on the culture and society.

Just to clarify, while my flair is "Rural Russia and the Soviet Union" I have since moved more into memory of the Cold War and of the Soviet Union and how it affects international policy then and now.

What are some of the most espoused myths of the Roman Empire, and how did they come about? (just one or two that you find interesting).

What principles of legitimacy did panegyrists appeal to in praising the leading figures of Roman Empire and to what audiences were different principles and ideas addressed to? Do we have a sense of what these audiences themselves valued in these leaders?

Hi Dr Omissi! I’ve read about the career of the poet Claudian who served at the court of the Emperor Honorius and how he used primarily traditional mythological imagery to honour his patrons and revile their enemies. Given that the Empire was already strongly Christian by around his time (400AD) was there any unease about the use of pagan tropes to describe the elite and furthermore with the elite becoming much less military, was there much public mirth at martial virtues being ascribed to the effete aristocracy by panegyrists?

Good evening! I blame the third century (or specifically, doing a paper on a coin of Gordian III my first year in university) for sucking me into history, eventually resulting in a PhD 13 years later--but as a medievalist. So, having an abiding fascination for the "crisis of the 3rd century", I'm curious how deep the crisis reached for the average citizen of the Empire? It always seemed to me that in many important ways, Rome emerged feeling fundamentally different once you reach the Tetrarchy --much more defensive, less "classical" (some art history roots showing here)--or maybe it's just confirming the drift away from an empire centred solely on Rome into something where the power was much more likely now to come from the frontiers and provinces. Also, any good recent books to suggest on the period? It's been many years since I've looked at this period in any depth but it remains fascinating to me.

Thanks for doing this, Dr Omissi

So I understand that there's a lot of debate about the extent to which Romans understood the Republic to have 'fallen,' but from our late perspective it seems clear that the late Empire was a very different polity from, say, the middle-to-late Republic.

That's also where much of the most celebrated Roman oratory seems to come from. How were the defences of Republican virtue by Cicero, or the Catos or so on taught and understood in a monarchy?

Claudian's panegyrics of Stilicho seem to clearly recognize his de facto power as the military leader of the Western Roman Empire despite him not being emperor; was this the first time in surviving panegyrics where someone other than the emperor was honored in this manner, or was there a gradual process where the recognition of accomplishments of those under the emperor slowly increased over time through this point?