Andrew Dalby

I never said silver! Gold, yes, at Dolaucothi in south Wales. Needless to say there was a Roman road nearby and Roman mineworkings. If you Google on gold and Wales, or maybe Dolaucothi, you will find that the mine is just about to close down, probably for the very last time -- recently thay have been picking over the 'slagheaps' (as coalminers call them) and still finding useful quantities. Tin, too, of course: Cornish tin was a draw for long distance trade well before Roman times.

That is indeed the case, for the troops that remained. In 407 Magnus Maximus or ConstantineIII (I forget which one) withdrew most British troops to carve out his own mini empire. Once that had been dealt with, Rome then had more need of troops close at hand than to replenish dwindling Garrisons in Britain. I believe that the Rhine/Danube angle was abandoned about the same time as Dacia, and the frontier of Egypt was brought back to the first cataract also. These withdrawels were, of course, some 150 years before the abandonment of Britain. Yes, there were several smaller regions abandoned in that way -- southern Scotland, between the Antonine and Hadrian's walls, is another example. But I think Britain and Dacia are the two big ones. The frontiers of both were under constant threat (which must have contributed to the decision) but in neither case were the Romans driven out by a conqueror. As Neil says, "Rome then had more need of troops close at hand". But we never know enough about whether ancient peoples did economic and political calculations. Did someone in Italy work out mathematically that it would be more cost-effective to run an empire that didn't have Britain (or Dacia) in it? Or did it just, sort of, happen?

In Latin, 'de' is a preposition to be followed by the ablative case: it may be translated 'from', 'down from' or 'about' depending on the context. 'Re' is the ablative case of the noun 'res'. The noun may be translated 'thing', 'matter', 'topic', 'subject' -- and many other potential meanings. In modern Latin legal jargon, 'in re' (followed by the name of disputants in a case) means 'in the matter of', 'with respect to the case of'. Linked with this, in business jargon 're' is used as if it were a preposition, meaning 'about', 'on the subject of'. In that strange and roundabout way, 're' (as a Latin word used in English) has come to have a similar meaning to the real Latin preposition 'de'. At least, that's how it seems to me.

Very interesting discussion. Am I right in thinking that Britannia and Dacia are the only large regions that the Romans simply decided to abandon -- i.e. without being conclusively defeated militarily? This in spite of the fact there was some gold and other mineral wealth in Britain, and a lot of it in Dacia too.

I take it they really mean either a seal (the engraved stone that makes the picture) or or a seal-impression (the resulting picture, impressed in clay). The translator on the Turkish Daily News didn't quite choose correctly.

Interesting if true -- about the Egyptians -- but is it true? It sounds like a version of the old chestnut (if I may call it that) "peaches are poisonous when grown in Egypt". I think Pliny was the first to say that. I think that's a Pacific fish, isn't it? Too far off for Romans to eat, anyway. Good question about the pelicans ...

I understand that if you accept this criteria, it's relevant to include that criteria, but there was nothing in your response that even mentioned clientela. Moreover, there are some important distinctions being blurred in the criteria that you propose (e.g., the union of solider and client is probably a much smaller set than either of its two parent sets), and--most importantly--no ancient sources make the claim that Octavian simply inherited the chits owed to Caesar by his troops. On the contrary, Octavian had to compete vigorously with Antony for the loyalty of the Caesarian faction. There's simply no precedent for this sort of competition in an ordinary client-patron relationship--but there is in ordinary politics. This is why I make the claim that the system of clientele is not the key to understanding the legal and practical basis of the principate. But political office wasn't inherited; property was passed on by testament; so why did Romans adopt other Romans if not to pass on their clientela? And, yes, all serving soldiers became their commanders' clients to some extent, because it was the leader who enabled them to acquire all that booty and those bounties; and all retiring legionaries without any doubt at all, because the commander arranged some land for them to settle on. Much of Suetonius's life of Julius is about how he built up his clientela; Suetonius hardly mentions the word, but he doesn't have to because he's describing a social system that underlies politics and is familiar to all of his audience.

Actually 'Divo Tito' is dative, 'Divi Vespasiani' is genitive. The 'f' is an abbreviation of filius, son. Divus does mean divine, most emperors were deified after their death (never before). So the sentence means "The people and Senate of Rome, to deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of deified Vespasian". From this you can infer that the arch was dedicated after Titus' death. One reason this sort of thing was not too difficult for Romans (if they could read at all that is) is that you encountered the same words and abbreviations all the time. You knew what to expect. It's difficult for us because we're not in the culture. Just the same abbreviations occurred on coinage, which you handled every day. And in fact my first encounter with Latin was on the then British coinage, which continued the Latin tradition and had a very similar type of abbreviation. ELIZABETH.II.D.G.BR.REG.F.D. I soon learned what that meant, and then looking at earlier coins I could see that VICTORIA claimed to be IND.IMP. as well as queen, and down to Napoleon's time the English kings claimed to be kings of France as well (not a hope). If anyone wants the translations, just ask!

Hmm. I could very happily sacrifice :2guns: my next door neighbour's canaries. Roasted, I think ...

You forgot that important first sentence, Pertinax: First catch your flamingo.

It's actually a more internally-consistent usage, isn't it? In NBC English, "Are you going to school?" and "Are you going to the hospital?"; in BBC English, "Are you going to school?" and "Are you going to hospital?" In BBC English (or at least in mine!) you can say "Are you going to hospital?" (because you're ill, but we don't know where that ambulance is going to drop you off) or "Are you going to the hospital?" (because we're talking about a particular hospital and you're moving in that direction). As for the school thing, I've got three: "Are you going to school?" (because it's 8 am but you don't know whether the child is about to play truant); "Are you going to the school?" (a particular school that we know well, and you're walking that way) or "Do you go to school?" (i. e. habitually; because the kid is about 5 years old, or about 17, and we don't know whether they go to any school). But if we're talking about university, then in BBC English you don't call it a "school". "Are you at university?" "Do you go to university?" Also, the word "college" isn't much used in a general sense in British English (I think), although lots of particular institutions of various kinds have the name "College". I expect I'll be sent to Tartarus for this: it seems to be a long way from the thread!

Writing from 'Bucharestdava', Kosmo, you are well placed to know about recent Romanian re- (mis-) interpretations of ancient and medieval history! But indeed there's a lot of this from many countries: a while ago I visited Thailand, having previously studied Thai history, and was shocked by the nationalistic propaganda that seemed to inspire the exhibits in the National Museum etc. I didn't know about the statue. Thanks to your posting I have just found a photo of it here and seen the Latin inscription attached, which names Dragan just under Decebal! [Can you tell me the name of that university? I like to keep track of these things ...] Later edit: It's OK, thanks, I've found the university now.

Or you might say that lasagne was a type of pasta! I'm sure the Marco Polo story is wrong: there's very good evidence that forms of pasta were known in Italy (especially Sicily) and north Africa long before Marco Polo's time. It seems most likely that Romans were familiar with pasta -- at least three of the names for types of pasta have Roman or Greek origins -- but they weren't very common back then, not much talked about in literature, certainly not as widespread in the diet as they are in Italy now.

Ah, yes, I see now. Good title.

Nothing to be concerned over... I just don't think anyone is aware of such a list. I for one would find such a compilation interesting, but I'm afraid I can't offer you much in the way of support beyond the obvious research choices. As you probably know, Thracianus, if the emperor has the title Porphyrogenitus we know exactly where he was born: not just which city, but which room! But I expect you're more interested in the ones who weren't born there. No, unfortunately, I don't know of any list. If you make a list -- I suppose you could get a lot of it from the online biographies, e.g. via this list and some of them via this one -- I'd be interested to see it: it would provide some really useful data.

Yes, Schliemann is an excellent example. In his time, most people thought the Trojan War and the power of Mycenae were pure myth.

I think there's also a constitutional reason. If you had any political ambition, then in the course of your progress through Roman politics you necessarily spent some time as a general/commander, and you would need to demonstrate success in this role as well as others. Success is most easily demonstrated by conquest (just keeping a province peaceful is not nearly as impressive).

Yes, that's the best that could be done, I reckon. Congratulations, FVC. But I want to add that one can't translate something one doesn't understand. Translation really involves meanings, not words. I don't understand "green amplification island" and therefore I don't think I would even have tried to translate it!

The trouble is, you can't ever say "I'll ignore pseudohistory totally" because, until it's argued out and the counter-evidence is cited, you don't know how pseudo it is. But I agree that some of it is very pseudo indeed ... I recently helped to write the Wikipedia article Geography of the Odyssey, and one of the problems with that article is continual little additions about Odysseus's explorations in the North Atlantic, his discovery of America, and even his voyage up the Amazon. All these theories are in print, but how much space do they deserve?

Yes, I agree. It was the first time, I think, that I had seen George Baker on television. The development or misdevelopment of the character was extremely well done, mirrored in his ever-more-gloomy facial expression. If we accept at least some of Graves's diagnosis (and I think I do accept some of it, while setting Livia on one side) Tiberius was a well-meaning, introspective, intellectual, type, capable but not much loved or admired, with an unsuitable wife forced on him by dynastic concerns (he continued to pine after the woman he was really in love with) and it all soured him ... Why, one might see a parallel in the British royal family right now, though I hope the outcome is not as disastrous!

I agree with all of that except that it is possible, if you're really motivated, to learn a language on your own. I know people who have. I knew one who learned several ancient languages on his own, while growing up in a remote district of Australia, and ended up as a professor of Central Asian languages at Cambridge. But having a teacher, and being part of a class, certainly do help to provide the continuing motivation that is essential to the learning process. Admittedly, if the language is in fact currently spoken, you do need to interact with others to learn the pronunciation. If it isn't (and that's the case with Latin) your pronunciation doesn't honestly matter very much.

I might as well answer your question now that I'm back on line. I'm a member and I do Latin. At school I was taught to write it (as well as read it) and I never really saw the point in that. But now I'm even writing entries on the Latin Wikipedia, so there was a good reason for it after all!

Thanks for that reference, MPC. I want to read that now. I have always felt that the patron-client system explained two big questions: why it mattered that Caesar adopted Octavius (because he would then inherit Caesar's clientela) and how it was that Augustus became a de facto monarch ("emperor", as we call him) in a still-functioning republic (because patron-client functioned in parallel to the consul-senate system, and he became the universal patron). So I must see how Brunt explains those two things.

Thanks, GO, an interesting article. It's one of my favourite pieces of music. Some of the lyrics are a bit sexy, but I wouldn't say "lewd" as this author does. In spite of what she implies, "venio" in Latin means "come" in the everyday sense, not in the sexual sense!

As MPC said to me today on a different thread: evidence? But I want to say something more searching about this issue. While puzzling over "privacy" in other societies, we have to be honest about our own. We are very ambivalent about this issue. If I may take US society for a moment (and I'll be corrected if I've got this wrong, but comparable examples could be given from any Western society) a bare female breast on television causes national scandal and prolonged debate, yet nudity, sexual acts of all kinds, sexual violence are all quite OK on websites and in videos/DVDs. And in people's actual behaviour, young/old, drunk/sober, public/private, you can find a whole spectrum from extreme sensitivity over any hint of sexuality to total nonchalance. And then, public bathing. It's quite difficult to get the Roman facts clear, but the proper thing was for those of the same sex but different generations not to bathe together. Sons didn't bathe with fathers: it was considered indecent. In public bathing establishments, the two sexes didn't bathe together, they bathed on separate days, it is thought (but at the beach there was no such rule). Now, how does that compare with our behaviour? With us, all sexes and ages bathe together, but we wear something that conceals our most obvious sexual features from view (but at some beaches there is no such rule). So who's more concerned about privacy, the Romans or us?