Pompieus

Is there a tradition that the Greeks sacked the city and caused "cultural" damage? I understood that relations between the Greeks and the Mauryas were friendly, including marriage pacts. Tarn's theory was that the Greek "invasion" was an attack on the usurper who murdered and supplanted the last Maurya king who was an ally and relative by marriage to Demetrius, king of the Bactrians. Tarn adds the possibility that the usurper (Pushyamitra - a Brahman and native (possibly king) of Sunga in the South) persecuted Buddhists so that the Greeks could pose as "liberators".

Tarn dates the occupation of Patalaputra (Patna on the Ganges) by Menander (general of king Demetrius of Bactria) around 175-167BCE, others date it 156-153; still others (modern ethnocentricity?) deny the Bactrian Greeks occupied the city at all. As you mentioned, the Greeks withdrew to the area of Mathura (Muttra on the Jumna) due to the invasion of Bactria from the West by Eucratides (a cousin and general of Antiochus IV?). There are several Indian primary sources, but the only known Hellenic (Greek) sources are, apparently, Appolodorus of Artemita (~130-87BCE) who wrote a history of Parthia and Trogus Pompieus who was a contemporary of Livy. Niether has survived except in fragments, references in Strabo etc. or epitomes, and both post date Scipio's death in 129 BCE. Tarn proposed some other unknown Hellenic source used by Trogus and there may have been others but there is no hard evidence. Tarn's "Greeks in Bactria and India" and Narain's "Indo-Greeks" (1950s) and F L Holt are the most accessible "modern" works. There was lots of stuff on the coins, and the archaeology of Ai Kamun (till the site was destroyed in the current troubles) but a connected history of the Bactrian Greeks is difficult due to the lack of sources.

Air strikes have long been seen as a cheap, relatively low-risk way to use technology to punish people who annoy you while avoiding commitment of major resources, embarrassing "collateral damage" and the political price of "boots on the ground". All these "advantages" are questionable, but they are, and have been, a tempting option for democracies. It has been used since the British invented in it the 1920's (the new RAF finding a peacetime role bombing annoying Pathans - also a poke in the eye of the Navy when a gunboat and marines couldn't do the job). The decision to implement air strikes without any follow-up is usually political don't you think?

I have a minor problem with these types of announcements (they seem to be popular just now). Do they reflect current political or academic agendas? (whatever they may be? - I hesitate to even speculate on the current politics in Catholic Universities in the Northeastern US). How can they have statistically significant data on diet or life expectancy in the 4th or 5th century? how many graves? How do they date them? how do they know how old the people were or what they ate? Can the Britons really have had a longer life expectancy and higher standard of living when being ruled by dozens of petty warlords engaged in endemic warfare? Do people normally live longer in rural environments without urban centers? How do they know what tax rates were under the Romans and Saxons, did Saxons even collect taxes or just steal whatever they wanted? If things were so swell under the Germanic invaders why did the Welsh and Cornish resist and the Bretons emigrate? In the 60's and 70s there was a revisionist trend that claimed that the Germanic invaders were not such bad guys (proto-hippies?) relative to the authoritarian Romans (the "establishment"), Is this a resurgence?

In the interests of accuracy, Caepio's conviction was not, apparently, over the "Gold of Tolosa" business (probably a prosecution for peculatio (embezzlement) which he evidently escaped), but due to a later conviction for perduellio (treason) because of his part in the disaster at Arausio. He had already been stripped of his imperium and expelled from the senate by direct votes of the people. There was a legend that the "Gold of Tolosa" included booty stolen by the Gauls when they sacked the sacred precincts of Delphi in 279BC. And since it was gold stolen from the gods, it was cursed, and anyone who possessed it was sure to come to a bad end - like the 'Hope Diamond or King Tut's Treasure.

Not particularly surprising. The British often used mercenaries in the 19th century, as did the other European powers. And the British army had a pretty heavy commitment in Spain at the time. Obviously they used them in the revolution (Hessians & Brunswickers) and Swiss colonel Bouquet (a relative?) commanded in Pennsylvania in the French and Indian War. Do Irish count ? Many "British" regiments were actually recruited from Catholic Irish.

The great disaster at Arausio is mentioned above, and Quintus Servilius Caepio surely deserves consideration as worst commander. Apparently, because they were political enemies, Caepio willfully refused to cooperate with Gnaeus Mallius Maximus who was consul in 105 and legally his superior officer (Caepio was only proconsul); allowing both armies to be destroyed in detail by the Cimbri and Teutones. Caepio was recalled, stripped of his proconsular imperium (I believe the only Roman commander so punished) and convicted by the people in the sensational "Gold of Tolosa" trial. He was stripped of his priesthood, exiled and his property confiscated to the ruination of his family according to Livy.

The Cambridge Ancient History Vol X gives the following list of provinces "at the end of the Julio-Claudian period": Sicily, Sardinia. Hispania Tarraconensis, Baetica, Lusitania, Narbonensis, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica Germania Inferior, Germania Superior, Alpes Maritimae, Alpes Cottiae, Alpes Poeninae, Britannia, Raetia, Noricum, Dalmatia, Moesia, Thrace, Achaea, Macedonia, Asia, Bithynia-Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Lycia-Pamphylia, Cyprus, Syria, Judaea, Aegyptus, Crete-Cyrene Africa, Numidia, Mauretania Caesarensis, Mauritania Tingitana. It's not on the CAH list, but I thought Pannonia had been separated from Dalmatia in 10. However, the name "Pannonia" is apparently Flavian so there may have been an "Upper" and a "Lower" Dalmatia under Claudius. The two Germanias were military commands rather than formal provinces. Raetia was coupled with Alpes-Poeninae until 47, and Syria included part of Eastern Cilicia. Claudius probably organized Moesia, Thrace, Noricum, Raetia, the two Mauritanias and Lycia-Pamphylia as provinces, re-absorbed Judea after 4 years of rule by Herod Agrippa (40-44) and conquered Britain to the Humber-Severn line (excluding Wales). There were a number of client kingdoms, tetrarchies and dynasts more or less under Roman influence including Eastern Pontus plus parts of Western Cilicia, Commagene, Armenia Minor, the Nabateans in Petra, Palmyra, Emesa and Chalcis in Syria, Galilee and the Trans-Jordan under various Herods, and the Bosporian Kingdom. The Romans also had a say in the succession to the Armenian Kingdom.

Undoubtedly there are probably revisionists out there who denigrate Alexander's generalship (like the ones who claim Robert E Lee somehow caused the defeat of the South), but Alexander was probably the greatest commander in ALL history. He was successful in every sort of warfare from pitched battles with armies of Greek hoplites, Persian and Indian hosts; siege and assault of fortified cities and inaccessible, remote strongholds; guerilla warfare against mountain tribesmen and steppe horsemen. He overcame them all, not to mention the logistical challenges of operating in Anatolia, Syria Iran, Pakistan et al. Besides Arrian Plutarch,Curtius etc. some "modern" biographies weighted to the military side are: N G L Hammond, WW Tarn, R L Fox and T A Dodge and J F C Fuller (the last two retired US and British soldiers)

Dyrrachium. Broke the siege, forced Caesar to retire into the interior, had Caesar over a barrel as regards supplies. Had his partisans not forced him to do battle at Pharsalus he might have used the "Fabian" strategy to some effect. (a weak attempt at irony) Caesar admitted (Civil War III.70) "In the midst of these troubles certain circumstances saved us from the destruction of our entire army."

I vote for Fabius "Maximus". A commander who (like J E Johnston, Benedek, Bazaine and MacMahon) believed in taking up a defensive position and hoping for the best. This strategy works if you have all the strategic, economic and political advantages, no public opinion to worry about, and time is on your side (like Wellesley). But only the offensive leads to decisive results. I thought Sulla named Pompieus "Great". And isn't it incumbent on a general to create and exploit the strategic advantage if he can rather than risk all on the throw of the dice ? Also he was the only commander who ever bested Caesar. Of course I'm biased.

There were a few instances of a consul succeeding himself viz: M Valerius Poplicola (509-508-507), L Parpirius Cursor (320-319), M" Curius Dentatus (275-274), Q Fabius Maximus (215-214), but these were rare instances usually due to military requirements (the consul being allowed to finish a campaign). There was also a law passed after the battle of Lake Trasimene (217) which specifically allowed the election of any ex-consul to the consulship regardless of any other restrictions during the military emergency of Hannibal's invasion. .The prevailing attitude (whether or not there was an actual law) seems to have been that unless there were special circumstances there should be a ten year hiatus between successive consulships. The repeated consulships of Marius, Cinna et al were revolutionary.

Mommsen believed that a law passed around 342-330 BC required a 10 year interval between re-election of a consul, but this is highly questionable. There is no specific mention of such a law in the sources, and the number of exceptions between 366 and 217 BC is awfully high to be explained simply by military necessity. After 200 BC a 10 year interval between iterations does seem to have become the norm. Again there were exceptions (M Claudius Marcellus cos 166,155,152). But these were rare and seem to have actually been cases of military necessity. According to Livy periocha 56, a lex of 135 BC did legally preclude any iteration of the consulship, but the centuriate assembly could and did overrule their own law by re-electing Marius to face a military crisis in 104 BC.

He was invariably successful in every form of warfare... disciplined Greek Armies. Iranian and Indian hosts. mountain tribesmen. steppe horse archers, fortified cities, inaccessible strongholds in remote mountains and deserts, guerrillas in every geographic environment - all were overcome by his genius.

Wasn't the temple of the deified Claudius in Camulodunum (now Colchester in Essex) finished in around 54 AD? Apparently the official name of the town was Colonia Vitricenses and was one of the few Colonia (vice municipia) in Britain. Originally it was the capital of the province but when the capitol was moved to London, the temple of Claudius remained the cult center for emperor worship. Evidently the foundation of the temple was incorporated in the Norman castle and parts can still be seen.

This seems very odd to an American...well...maybe not so odd. I seem to recall that some misguided Americans once...well, twice.. tried something similar, if more radical, and caused a HUGE problem. At least that's not at stake here. But WHY do the Scots want to be independent of the UK? Outside of "Nationalism" and emotional historic memories, are there advantages to independence commensurate with the inevitable costs? Are they feeling somehow oppressed by the English? What happens relative to defense, trade, tariffs, banking, social services etc? Surely people have thought this thru and made a rational Argument for independence. (?)

Septimius Severus granted legal recognition to unions between legionaries and local women around 197, and allowed them to live together in the settlements (canabae) outside the legionary fortresses while on active service. (Herodian iii 8 5).

You're right, of course. And I was wrong...Atius WAS a senator, as he was praetor in 62 BC.

HBO is showing the first season again and and it's hard to resist nit-picking. Aside from calling Servilia a Iunius (her father was a patrician Servilius Caepio - much more important than her husband - a plebian Iunius Brutus) and Atia a Julia (although her mother was Caesar's sister, her father Atius wasn't even a senator. And she married an Octavius who was at least a senator but no big whig, and later a Marcius Phillipus who was at least a consular.) They treated the Augers oddly. These priests were not a separate sect outside the mainstream that had to be influenced by secret negotiations, but were elected from the main players in the state. In fact Antonius and Pompey were Augers, and Caesar, as Pontifex Maximus, was responsible for their supervision.

Well, apparently, the only connected narrative is Cassius Dio who wrote in Greek in the second century. As noted by Aurelia, Nicolaus of Damascus wrote a biography of Augustus, of which fragments survive, but he too wrote in Greek. Tacitus starts with Tiberius (though there is some introductory info) and is also 2nd century, and Livy ends in 9AD, but the last books only survive only in the periochae (a sort of table of contents). There is Suetonius, but he was 2nd century. You seem to be left with Vellius, the "Res Gestae" and allusions in the poets (Horace, Virgil, Propertius).

Yes, books and journals are best but they are disappearing fast. There are some articles on Ventidius (the cognomen "Bassus" is apparenty late and uncertain) in scholarly journals (with references) if you can't wait for the next issue (and if you can find them) viz: Classical Journal Vol 47 No 7 (1952) by J E Seaver "Neglected Roman Military Hero" Acta Classica 36 (1993) by G J Wylie "P Ventidius from Novus Homo to Military Hero" It's tempting to compare Ventidius' career with that of his fellow Picentine Labienus. Labienus was a protégé of Pompey the Great and was already a senator (ex praetor) when he went to Gaul with Caesar as a legate, while Ventidius was handling the mule trains. Is it possible that they represented pro and anti Pompiean factions in Picenum (where the Pompeys were great landowners) and that Labienus' family supported the winning side in the Social War and made it big, while Ventidius' family was among the rebels and lost everything? Then the Civil War turned the wheel of fortune again such that Labienus died fighting against his country, his son a renegade in Parthia; and Ventidius, an ex-consul and triumphator, was given a state funeral.

A fascinating figure. Born in Asculum in Picenum in 91 or 90 BC, during the Bellum Italicum or Social War-possibly during the siege of Asculum by Pompieus Strabo (Pompey the Great's father). Nothing is known about Ventidius' father but he was possibly a prominent man in the region, and the child was carried by his mother in Pompey Strabo's triumph in 89. His family was broken and impoverished by the defeat of the Italian Allies, but Ventidius worked his way back, serving as a common soldier then as an army contractor. He served with Caesar in Gaul, and though he is not mentioned in Caesar's writings, he impressed the dictator enough to be made tribune of the plebs in 45BC. When Caesar was assassinated he went with Antonius and was made praetor in 43BC, played a prominent part in the War of Mutina and was made consul suffectus. In 39 Antonius sent him East against the Parthians (who had taken advantage of the Roman civil war to occupy Syria and Asia Minor) and the renegade Labienus (also a Picentine). In 39 he defeated and killed Labienus and in 38 the Parthian prince Pacorus, and drove them across the Euphrates. Ventidius celebrated the first triumph ever over the Parthians in November 38BC. He was a well known commander in antiquity and is mentioned by Frontinus, Josephus, Cassius Dio, Plutarch et al, though some derided him as a mule driver become consul. His career is indicative of the rise of Italians (as opposed to Latins), humbled in the Social War to high positions in the state under Caesar and Augustus.

The key to "social mobility" was proximity to the Emperor, from whom all benefits flowed.

Traces of trenches on the battlefields of the American Civil War survive 150 years later at Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Petersburg. Carefully preserved by the War and Interior departments of course.

As to the difference in morale effects between the battle of 480BC and 191: 1 480 was glorified as a sort of "National" defense against alien conquerors. There were Greeks on both sides in 191 and the defenders were asiatics and greeks or macedonians from asia. The Gauls were plenty alien, but they were raiders, not really capable of conquering Greece. 2 There was no extended defense. The Romans knew their military history and set out to flank the pass at the outset. Nor was there a fight to the last man as Antiochus retired with what he could save of his force. The comparison to the Alamo is apt. Besides, nobody liked Aetolians.