Sorry, been out of town, so must now post my reply to Strabo's post of a few days ago in somewhat belated fashion. Thus:

Ok, not sure where to begin in replying, so will go through your points in orderly fashion.

1) There *is* a difference between "official" and "unofficial" triumvirates. You seem to denegrate this - make sarcastic comments like "Big difference" and about "schoolboy essays", but what then is the point of history? Do we accept a close enough, good enough approach? Do we say "yeah, that's not exactly what really happened, but who gives a d-?" My answer would be that any person *truely* interested in history is also interested in gaining the facts.
2) Death of Germanicus - any proof beyond the popular rumours reported in Tacitus and Suetonius? Actually think about this for a second, and do some source analysis: Germanicus' friends claim he's been poisoned, but don't let any actual Roman officials see his body - they burn it publically, and *after driving the legitimate 2iC out of the province* so they can take control using public anger as a weapon. Hmm. Also, in the SC de Cn. Pisone, we can see he's being tried for the treasonous act of invading the province, *not* for poisoning - and don't you think that given public anger and the widespread belief that Piso *did* poison him, they would have got him if they could?
3) Um, check Tacitus for how many were actually murdered while "the streets of Rome ran red with blood" - 18 senators. Woo hoo. Soooo much worse than Sulla's 200-or-so, and the proscritions of the *First* triumvirate. Yes, can see how that is a psychotic overeaction to a conspiricy - after all, we all know that 18 is way to large a number to be involved in that. Look beyond the hyperbole, Strabo, and count that actual number of people. It'll give you a good idea of Tacitus' MO as an "historian"
4) "Since she manipulated the empire by poison"? Do you have *any* evidence to suggest this is actually true? And the claim she procured young girls for Augustus? Any evidence for that? Or can you *possibily* believe that two men, writing over 80 years after the facts, with therefore no access to eyewitnesses among the Imperial court (given ancient life expectancies), and the intervening events of a regieme change and the negative impact of Gaius and Nero's reigns (as well as that of Domitian) on public memory of the Julio-Claudians, could really know exactly what went on in a *private* domus? It's like saying you can tell me what Lenin was wearing when he lost his virginity.

And as for your attitude to her - she has to be a poisoning bitch or useless? Dear god, get into the twentieth century - how mysogynist can you get? Is it so hard to believe that a *women* could be a statesman and have a political role to play as well? I can tell you now, the Romans gave women alot more credit than you do (and yes, I can reference you research for that - but some of it's done by women, so you may not believe it)

Sorry Strabo, if you were at any University in the world, you would have failed even your first year subjects. I suggest you get yourself some history books written after 1945 and catch up with waht the academic world is actually doing. I suggest Barbera Levick's "Tiberius the Politician" and Eck's "Augustus" to start. And also Dixon's "Readin Roman Women" - that might help.

Strabo