Number Six

It's likely to be a great discovery, although someone is travelling too much with fantasy, for speculating that it may be a relative of Tarquinius Priscus.

This is an overstatement. For the most part it's just a (poor) development philosophy due to marketing evaluations. I haven't been playing console games since PlayStation 2, so I don't even know if the presence of an internet connection on modern console games makes them patchable; but back then, a console game could not be majorly bugged, no matter how complex it was: it had to reach the market in its perfect and ultimate state. On the other hand, PC games, even way simpler ones than Rome II may be, have since been affected by all sort of bugs and issues for the simple reason that software houses may find it convenient to meet a certain deadline, and continue to patch them later. Of course it doesn't equally affect every software house: some developers try to keep high standards, because an excessively bugged release will affect both immediate sales and reputation of the brand. This kind of philosophy sometimes produces games which are little more (or less) than beta versions: some entries of the Stronghold series come to mind, or the very recent and exemplary case of Final Fantasy XIV. But the cases are countless.

It's worth mentioning that although the shrine of Diana Nemorensis was seemingly gone during the third to the fourth century, the cult of Diana in general was a long lasting one, surviving throughout the Middle Ages and converging into popular piety and so-called witchcraft. Her cult was widespread enough for Maximus of Turin still complained about it at the beginning of the fifth century. And of course we have Middle Ages accounts that document her survival into the ninth century and beyond. Any reference you may wanna do to her cult during the fifth century would not be inaccurate. About Frazer, The Golden Bough undoubtedly is a breathtaking reading. It is also in the public domain, in case you have an e-reader and you're native English speaker or you'd read it in English anyway. Just make sure you read the one volume edition: the longer versions are not worth the effort, considering that Frazer mistook many details and is nowadays worth mostly for his general insights.

I'm so sorry, Number Six. <g> I agree my name isn't 'Signifer'. I don't know what I was thinking. I decided to somewhat follow Horace's path down the Appia because he was headed to Brundisium. I just want to be consistent in my logical stops along the way. Although my novel is focused on plot more than exact historical detail. I try to be as accurate as possible. Also, who is Frazer? Is he/she a Late Antiquity historian? Cinzia Sir James G. Frazer is one of the fathers of anthropology. He was not quite a historian and certainly not a Late Antiquity one, his main area of interest being the archaic period. However, his most famous book, The Golden Bough is centered around a matter that begins at the lake of Nemi, which was then in the territory of Aricia: on the lake there was a sacred grove and the sanctuary of Diana Aricina (or Diana Nemorensis). Sadly the sanctuary did not seem to survive further than the third century CE; its priest, the so-called Rex Nemorensis, was supposedly gone latest during the fourth century. By the end of the fourth century there seem to be a reduced activity around the lake. Anyway, I have no idea what your story is about, but worth knowing what Aricia is about!

Ah-a! Forum Sempronii (Fossombrone nowadays).

Any reason for they stop in Aricia? Are you a fan of Frazer? Also, you mixed my name with the title. The forum layout isn't very clear with that. And no, I am not offended.

I cannot help you with the questions about mansio and hospitium, although I invite you to remember that Casson is mostly concerned with archaic and classical period, while you're setting your story in late antiquity. For the question 2, if they stop by Aricia, they could probably be hosted by a member of the gens Anicia, a noble family from Latium itself. Pope Gregory I is from this family. Here it seems to be a list of some of their members: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anicia_(gens)

I will surely try it in one year or two, when they will release some hopefully well patched Gold edition or so.

What you probably came across is that theater as a physical place was banned: the senate opposed the building of permanent theaters, which indeed weren't built until the late Republic. Before then, Rome had temporary wooden theaters. So yes, of course Rome had theater.

Yeah, I also read that other subtractive forms were more common than IV (which perhaps is not attested at all before Middle Ages?). But, if I had to guess the reason, it must be because IIII was conceptually more... basic: I would imagine that such a basic numeral evolved more slowly than other ones, especially if the bars still kept an intuitive meaning, like fingers or sticks. If you consider longer numerals, you can see the reason for it was needed to make them visually simpler: not so for IIII. Finally, the language reflected the subtractive form in the long numerals: eighteen was duo-de-viginti, nineteen was un-de-viginti, but four was always quattuor.

The is a clear perspective bias in speculating that IV was avoided because it would be confused with Juppiter. If you simply think that IIII was the original form, there was nothing be avoided. They kept writing IIII because that was the original, traditional and common form. In the same way, they kept writing VIIII rather than IX. I don't know, though, when the subtractive principle was introduced. To my understanding it was quite gradually implemented: in Roman times it was known but little used. Would be interesting to find some accademic article on the matter.

I'll think of it when this migraine is over

Piobbico?

Wow, that sculpture is surely beautiful.

It was variable. Charlemagne himself started with this intitulatio in his documents: Karolus serenissimus Augustus a Deo coronatus, magnus ac pacificus imperator, Romanum guberans Imperium. This is from 801, after the coronation, while Charles was still in Italy. Meanwhile his seals had the formula Renovatio Romani Imperii. But, after the peace with Nikephoros in 812, it was decided that Charles would keep an imperial qualification, but not the name of Roman Emperor: he was acclaimed Basileus, meaning Basileus Francorum, not Romanorum (for the latter belonged to the Byzantine Emperor); Basileus Francorum is a title that sometimes appears in later literary sources. In 813, the son and successor of Charles, Louis the Pious was crowned by his father, not by the Pope. In the same year, Charles changed the formula on his seals from Renovatio Romani Imperii to Renovatio Regni Francorum, which will be used also by Louis. Charles' biographer, Ehinard, will not say much about his Roman Empire: he will be "the Emperor who nobly expanded the Frank kingdom", like his epitaph says in Ehinard. Not much about the glories of his Roman Empire. It was the Roman Church that continued to cling on to the idea of a translatio Imperii. The same idea will come back with the German Emperors of the 12th century, but the Carolingians, beforehand, were done with it. Needless to say that the translatio Imperii is just a political claim: nothing institutional nor substantial.

That's Voltaire.

Thanks to both of you, I didn't know most of those websites (especially apprecciated the one with the list of books) and I was just finding out yesterday about Crawford's Roman Republican Coinage. A book that is not listed above (I think) and that I have been using recently is M

Hello, I know very little about Roman coins and I wondered if there are any comprehensive and authoritative books about Roman coins that are commonly referred to by scholarly essays. I know some very old ones, but I'm clueless about recent ones. Given the width of the field, and given it gathers also the interest of non specialists, there are countless books around, which makes it difficult for me to find the good ones. I am interested on all periods from the first coinages up to Byzantium's 8th century. And no, I don't expect to find all that in one book Thank you for the help.

There is a famous article by Momigliano from 1973 called La caduta senza rumore di un impero (which translated roughly as 'The noiseless fall of an empire'). In this fundamental essay Momigliano argues that nobody really noticed the so-called 'fall' of the Roman Empire back in 476 or around that date. Long has been since Momigliano's essay and the fact that the Roman Empire never fell has now become common knowledge among historians and partly also among part of the general public; it's also general opinion of the historians that the so called barbarian kingdoms had long-unrecognized traits of continuity and communion with the Roman Empire itself; finally, no major discontinuation is postulated anymore in economy and social order between late Roman Empire and Germanic kingdoms. Nowadays historians tend to see the period from the 3rd to the 8th century and even onwards as a continuum, without the previously postulated traumatic divide caused by Germanic 'invasions' (which aren't either called invasions anymore). Said all the above, it's true that the Roman Empire never fell (not before 1453) and evolved instead. But claiming that "the Pope is now the head of the Roman Empire of today" is a bit hazardous and makes little sense to me. The Pope is the heir of a political tradition that goes back not earlier than the 7th century (claims of political dominion are a late event in the history of the Church) and, surely, connects the Pontifical State (which was part of the Eastern Roman Empire at that date) to the Roman tradition. But being an heir doesn't make him the head of the Roman Empire itself. The tradition isn't even continuous: we may argue that the Pontifical dominion was, at times, mere part of the French or German kingdoms / empires, lacking real sovreignity: can't reduce that complexity to a simple and direct political legacy, which could as well be claimed by the Merovingian Gaul and onwards. Let alone the fact that the Pontifical State ceased to exist in a meaningful sense during 1870.

Polybius never states anything implying that Rome would be an exception to the ending or aging process. I know the passage you just quoted, also for it's one of the most famous of Polybius, but a superior and balanced constitution doesn't make it everlasting as well: this is what Polybius never states, not even in the text above. His praise for the Roman constitution goes hand in hand with his admiration towards Rome, but there is no saying that such a superior constitution would also be an everlasting one. This opinion is sometimes claimed also with the belief that Polybius expresses some kind of predestination for Rome will last forever, but this is not the meaning of Stoic (and Polybian) tyche: tyche, as an ecompassing force that governs everything, placed Rome at its outstanding position in history, but the concept of tyche doesn't include also a promise for an everlasting empire. So, Polybius does his job as historian with describing the constitution of Rome the way it appears to him: yet all the possible praises do not mean that Rome is an exception to the regular course of history. Discussion of the perfect form of State was a common topic in Greek political thought, and this is what Polybius is about: but even a dinamic, self-regenerating constitution doesn't mean an everlasting one.

It's always a good idea to read broad works such as Mommsen's History of Rome, although I am not a great follower of most of Mommsen's ideas (nevertheless he has my foremost respect). You must be careful when you read works suchs as Mommsen's or Gibbon's, but I guess you will learn it over time by yourself. If you read Italian I could suggest Santo Mazzarino's L'impero romano, but it has not been translated to English, like most of his works (Mazzarino was a great mind and a leading historian; you should note his The end of the ancient world, for when you move onto late antiquity). Anyway, an author of similar prestige as Mommsen (but truly there is nobody like Mommsen) is Rostovtzeff, The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, definitely a must-read at some point, like Mommsen and Gibbon (but you should 'correct' it with The Ancient Economy by Moses Finley). And do not forget the so called fifth book of Mommsen's history fo Rome: The provinces of the Roman empire from Caesar to Diocletian. You could read authors such as Bury (which I do not suggest), the mentor of Runciman, but he's a late 19th century historian, you'd get the wrong picture from him (as you probably got from Mommsen, though). As a beginner, I believe you should rather go for more recent historians, not earlier than those who were still publishing during Sixties. Also, I'm not a great fan of general histories of the Roman eras, I would rather suggest you to focus on specific issues and monographies, but of course you'll probably need a guide book in order to put all of those pieces together. About the original sources: Tacitus, Suetonius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Cassius Dio, Zosimus (but he mostly covers late antiquity): they're all solid writers, beside sources for Roman history. Beside them, there are plenty of other historians and sources, of course, but those five ones are something along the lines of Caesar's works, which you said you read. When you decide to move onto the late empire, ask again, it's one of my specific fields. But if you decide to start considering the religious history of the Empire already, don't read anything before you read MacMullen's Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries.

I am not a number, I am an individual.

Actually this is not accurate, but it's a common misconception. Rome was indeed an exception on many degrees but, if you were to quote a passage of Polybius were it's apparent that Rome would not encounter the same fate as the previous empires, you would find none, because there is none. Parts of Polybius' Histories are missing, hence it's not sure what he assumed to be the final destiny of Rome, hence the common misconception: but it's fairly safe to guess that he would see Rome as lasting particularly longer than other empires, thanks to its own features, but surely not as being aeternal or anything close to the concept of aeternal. A different guess would contradict both Polybius personal philosophy and his stoic background.

I'm having difficulties to follow this discussion. Are you talking this story of the Pontifex Maximus coming from Pergamon to Rome as an actual historical fact, or are you criticizing this... "theory"? Are we aware that, historically speaking, the Roman Pontifex has nothing to do with Pergamon?

Hello hello, I hate introducing myself on forums so I just started posting already... Anyway, here I am, been looking for a forum about ancient history for a while and I came across this one. I hope we're gonna have a lot of ineresting talks