Andrew Dalby

Linguists, so far as I can find, don't believe in a connection between Greek marmaros "sparkling stone, marble" and Sanskrit Meru "name of a mountain". The Greek word seems to be connected with Indo-European words meaning "shine" etc., but the Sanskrit name is thought to be local to India (cf. Kannada meruve "pyramid), not Indo-European in origin. This isn't conclusive -- there may be other theories I haven't encountered, and anyway linguists can be wrong. The real difficulty with your suggestion, it seems to me, is that the early location from which Indo-European peoples and languages are thought to have spread -- the Russian steppe -- doesn't have any mountains and these early peoples didn't do any building in stone (except maybe burial chambers). By the time the speakers of Sanskrit were interested in Mount Meru and the Greeks were building their temples, they were thousands of miles apart and had no links with one another. I would have said that Greeks built in marble because it was there, and that Romans afterwards built in Greek marble because the Greeks had made it fashionable. But what do others think?

Of how many others could the same words be used?!

A while ago I had a look at one episode in Caesar's supply problems -- the business of the roots at Dyrrachium, when Caesar was besieging Pompey in 48 BC. What struck me was the different spins that even ancient historians could put on this. 1. Caesar himself (Civil War, 3.48). He's praising the resourcefulness of his men and the way they kept up morale under difficulty. Incidentally, he doesn't seem to care that the supply problems might put him in a bad light. Why? Silently, I think, he wants to convey his own superior skill in the only arena that really matters -- victory at the end of the campaign. 2. Pliny (NH 19.144) alludes to the same episode because he's interested in the vegetable concerned. He says that the soldiers sang about the incident in one of their satirical songs at Caesar's subsequent triumph, complaining that he paid them so little they had to eat 'lapsana'. 3. Plutarch (Life of Caesar 39) treats this as a character issue for Pompey and his men, who are losing heart in spite of being well supplied. Pompey (says Plutarch) will not let his soldiers see the food Caesar's men are using, because it will depress them. In choosing this angle Plutarch seems to take a hint from Caesar's narrative and develop it using his imagination. 4. Suetonius (Divus Julius 68) treats it as an example of how Caesar's men remained faithful to him in adversity. Pompey's reaction is described -- Suetonius gets this out of Plutarch, I think, and develops it further in his own style -- but in general, Suetonius's angle is that Caesar's legionaries put up with difficulties but got extremely generous rewards from him and thus remained devoted to him: it's an aspect of the way Caesar built up his patronage.

I avoided looking at this thread till now because I thought "not another racial discussion". Having observed that there have been so many serious contributors participating, I began to read and soon realised that there must really be something of interest here. But, Virgil, your first link doesn't work any more (at least, not for me). Have I missed the bus? To the rescue!!!. The link seems to have changed. Go HERE and click on 'Le 101 finaliste...' in the upper right hand corner. Here it is on this LINK in a different format. Or use this for a different perspective on the theory. Yes, these new links were just what I needed. I should add that the map (the second link in Virgil's original post) is very pretty too, but in this subject area the salient points seem to stand out more clearly as one studies the raw data. To which I am now giving my best attention.

It's a very interesting point. Did the Epirots themselves worship Zeus and the rest of the Olympians? To what extent did divine worship, oracles, etc., correspond with ethnic or linguistic boundaries? This reminds me that Lydian kings consulted the Delphic oracle; other non-Greeks did also.

Oh dear.... Andrew, it does unfortunately seem to be the case. :nopity: Thanks for the musical sympathy, Pantagathus. I've learned my lesson ...

I avoided looking at this thread till now because I thought "not another racial discussion". Having observed that there have been so many serious contributors participating, I began to read and soon realised that there must really be something of interest here. But, Virgil, your first link doesn't work any more (at least, not for me). Have I missed the bus?

If you conquer widely, as the Celts did -- all the way from the Iberian peninsula to Galatia (central Turkey now) -- your "racial" characteristics get splattered, even if they weren't before. Linguistically, some Indo-European specialists say that Celtic languages were a bit closer to Italic languages (Latin, Oscan, Umbrian etc.) than to any others. But Celtic also had some similarities with Germanic and perhaps with Greek. These similarities might say something about early dialects at the time when Indo-European was more or less a single language (a couple of thousand years or more before the Celts we know of came in contact with the Greeks and Romans).

Ha ha. That's funny. You're perspective of my post gave me a good laugh. Yes, you're right. It's somewhat rediculous because supplies was always a burden and nothing went smoothly in uncharted lands. If he physically could have he would have tried, that is certain. But Clearly, I didn't take into account this was before mechanized infantry. Hmm, Now that I think of it, I don't think Alexander would have attempted Africa at all. The Romans had all the time in the world and they didn't. I am certain however that he could have conquered all the land of the later Roman Empire but the IF's are massive and the research involved for accurate probability is immense but my opinion is if he wasn't killed, murdered or died of disease, he could have conquered all of Europe. Yes, Krackalackin, to be serious now, I agree with you that Europe might well have fallen to him (if he could have persuaded his troops to go on fighting). I mean, roughly, the future Roman Empire. Viewing Alexander as potential conqueror of sub-Saharan Africa on the one side, and northern Europe on the other, makes me doubtful for exactly the same reasons you have now stated: no supplies, no infrastructure, all sorts of other logistical problems. And, at the end of the day, relatively little to be gained (which is surely one reason why the Romans eventually drew the line on northern Europe).

The verb is percutio, percutere, percutissi, percutissus The noun for smiter would be percutissor. A slightly shorter form actually exists (in my dictionary): percussor. Pliny uses it in talking about clever animals: leo vulneratus percussorem novit, A wounded lion recognises the 'smiter', i.e. the one who hit him (Pliny NH 8.51).

Yes, Olympias must surely have been involved. My thinking is along these lines: Olympias must have had a purpose. The purpose must have been to clear the way for Alexander, her own son by Philip, to succeed, and remove in advance the possibility of another son to Philip, by any other mother, being conceived. So, given that that was her purpose, isn't it rather likely that she would have told Alexander to make preparations? There's a lot of work to do, in an absolute royal court, when you take over from the previous incumbent. People to promote, people to kill, advisers to select. You can't just leave it to chance. And the succession was, apparently, perfectly efficient. But I quite agree with Krackalackin that there is compelling argument on both sides and we can't ever know.

Well, that would have created a United Nations rather quicker than anyone expected. But don't stop there. Alexander's coastal exploration of Arabia would surely not have satisfied him for long. I guess the next maritime step would have been to set out across the Pacific ... probably ending up in California.

It's my hunch too. Power was corrupting Alexander, and his men had had it. Who else thinks, as I do, that Alexander knew in advance about the killing of Philip II? (Maybe this should be another thread, but 'How the Macedonians managed the succession' is all one topic really)

As things stand I could manage any of those dates and will certainly aim to be there.

I have heard Americans, otherwise well-informed, claim that their country makes the running in international aid. I think the media in each Western country tend to underestimate aid contributions made by other Western countries and overemphasise their own; whether this is particularly true in the US I don't know. What statistics I've seen suggest that the US is not among the biggest donors if you calculate aid as a percentage of national income or of average personal income; am I wrong there? It's also a fact that a lot of aid comes with strings attached, visible or invisible. And, yes, it's also a fact that many African countries are much poorer than they 'ought' to be because of mis-government.

Sorry, folks. Check the flow of saliva if you can. I know I promised, but I can't see myself having time to fulfil the promise before departing for Lusitania at the weekend. In return for your forbearance, I promise to return with a report of good food and wine consumed in this distant province of our Empire.

#I love that word adlected. I can't wait to use it.

When putting together a brief sketch of Cato's life for my translation of his /On Farming/, I got the impression that Cato was likely to be anything but loyal to his former superiors. Not just Scipio, but also M'. Acilius Glabrio, his commander in 191 BC, and M. Fulvius Nobilior, whom he served in 189. He also went for Scipio's brother Lucius. I noted a quotation that seemed to sum up his enjoyment of Roman political infighting. His censorship in 184 aroused political feuds that "occupied Cato for the rest of his life" (Livy, History of Rome 39.44.9).

A fascinating quote, Pantagathus. We read that section of Thucydides in Greek classes at school, but I had completely forgotten about it. Unfortunately I don't have Gomme's commentary on Thucydides. I would like to hear what Pertinax says about this. It seems to me that both poppy and linseed must be required for some medicinal effect, the poppy perhaps as analgesic for any who were wounded or sick?

As for the cinnamon tree, that's quite correct. It is Galen who says it, and he was Imperial physician. The cinnamon tree had apparently been dried, packed and sent in a crate from the 'country where it grows' (unfortunately he doesn't say where that was, and it's controversial where the Romans were getting their cinnamon from, whether Sri Lanka or southeast Asia). Whether this was a really useful thing to do, heaven knows, but it must have been the showpiece of the Imperial pharmacy. I don't remember if Galen's reference tells us that it was taken on campaign. How much of the pharmacy followed the Emperor on his travels? that would be nice to know. As for the opium in wine, I haven't seen sources on that. In what form would you mix it into wine?

I knew I'd get into deep water over this. Personally I think it all depends (1) whether you count Texas or not, (2) whether you can count at all. According to non-Texans I have spoken to, the US is still working on bringing civilization to Texas. Britain will have to wait. And I can't count. It's well known.

I think there was a denarius in it, wasn't there? I wondered why the sows and truffle-bitches (is that the term?) were so interested. So it all comes back to sex (subterranean symbiotic sex, as Pertinax pertinently puts it). I might have known. I've never done much on truffles, I must admit. I'll look into it ...

If I may ask, Kosmo, how do you feel about the coming accession of Romania to the EU? (I'm interested because I know Romania a little myself, though I haven't visited for some years now.) Will it be better or worse for Romania overall? There are some British people who dream of Britain skipping out of the EU and becoming the 51st (or is it 52nd?) state of the US. Not me, though.

#2 is not a bad idea...although PP's mention of the 'location' information is a good start. But for example: AD is in France (I believe?), but I don't think his native language is French How right you are, doc. It's not a bad idea, but I'm just slightly against it, because I think, having named some other language in that space, you might then feel slightly aware of being an outsider posting in an English language forum. But maybe others disagree with me there. Also, of course, people can have more than one native language (but I suppose the format could deal with that); and, as some posters on this site demonstrate, people can become fluent-as-a-native (or even more so!) in languages that they didn't learn from infancy.

How right the Doc is. And face up to the alphabet at the beginning, and be prepared to put in several days practising it. It is hard work, but it's worth it, because it's the most beautiful alphabet in the world ... Well, all right, the Tibetan alphabet is beautiful as well. But Arabic is also very fast and smooth to write. For Tibetan, you must take all the time in the world.