sonic

From what I remember there were only very bare bones when it came to the history of early Rome, especially as much of the Roman records were destroyed by the Gallic sack of 386 BCE. As a result, Livy and others also used events recorded by other states in Italy and 'embellished' the events by inserting speeches and (roughly) comparable stories from Greek histories into their own. Again if my memory serves, this was helped by the contemporary belief that individuals with certain characteristics acted in specific and obvious ways. Therefore, a character from Roman history recorded as being greedy and arrogant would act in exactly the same way as somebody in Livy's time who had the same personality. Obviously, the current characters would then be transposed onto the ancient ones in the belief that their actions would be the same. Then again, I could be wrong: my memory's not great! Thanks for the list - I've placed an order!

Hi all. Am thinking of getting back into the earliest period of Roman history. Can anyone tell me the best new (i.e. c.AD 2000 and later) books/articles with the latest thinking on the earliest periods? Cheers Ian

I second that statement. Have a good holiday people!

Just read the (Damn long!) article and have to say I agree with a lot of it. Quite a lot of it links with the reasons behind some at least of the Brexit vote. It wasn't that people were always violently anti-European, it was that certain portions of the media stirred up "Anti-European Regulations" amongst the semi-interested. Those who were really interested investigated and found that the vast majority of the claims were rubbish, so dismissed them. A lot of people didn't. In addition, the Exit vote was largely from those areas in England and Wales that have suffered since WW2 from the dismantling of traditional industry and the lack of jobs - as all of the 'replacement' jobs tended to be in the cities rather than the towns. I know this from personal experience, having spent a long time unemployed. Looking at the public-school elite who run the country makes me angry, simply because they appear to be mass-produced and although they stand for different political parties (think David Cameron and Ed Miliband) they both struggle to communicate with the 'ordinary' people in the UK. We are discounted. That is one of the reasons why people voted against them. In effect, Brexit was in part a protest vote against a narrow ruling elite based in the middle class with no connection with the reality of working-class problems. The article suggests that the same is true - again at least in part - in the US, where part of Trump's appeal lies in the fact that he does not communicate in the same way as Clinton et al, and so appeals to a 'working class' which feels its problems and fears are being ignored. As to the 'Democracies' part of the thread, they only seem to end when a demagogue arises who plays on peoples' fears to the extent that he can subvert the system to the point where he can assume total control. This can really ONLY happen in a democracy, as it is only in a democracy where he can achieve power by the 'will of the people'. Otherwise, his rise must be violent and arouse the likelihood of violent opposition. Having said all of that, it should be remembered that in reality many factors influenced the outcome of both votes, and that the rise of Hitler in Germany (the last major Western democracy to end) was easier because of the ill-feeling towards politicians caused by the end of WW1 and the fragmented nature of politics in the Weimar Republic. Hopefully, in both the UK and the US anger towards the political system has not yet reached the point where one man can overthrow it.

Good find Viggen. If only they'd completed a project like this for the PLRE before I shelled out several hundred pounds for it!

Excellent graphic of the last day of Pompeii. Well worth a look. http://www.openculture.com/2016/02/watch-the-destruction-of-pompeii-by-mount-vesuvius-re-created-with-computer-animation-79-ad.html

What about Constantine V? Usually dismissed because of his religious policy, but lasted a long time and didn't do badly.

This is the main cause for the vote. Both the Conservatives and Labour have been led by private-school wallies who have not been interested in what the working man has had to say. Although in London this issue seems to have been less of a problem, I think that in the North and Wales the fact that the leader of the Labour party has been a "gormless upper-class twit" has been seen as a betrayal. Voters took the opportunity to express their unhappiness and now we're out of Europe. This isn't a problem just in the UK. The far right in Europe is gaining ground due to the exact same problems: misinformation, old-fashioned prejudice inherited from parents, and misinformation from all sides simply due to the political obsession with 'spin'. If the centre parties would give up their obsession and speak " the Truth" (whatever that is!) they would gain a lot of votes. Yet whatever else happens, at least our equivalent of Donald Trump isn't in the running to lead the country! Don't forget the old football chant: "Two World Wars and One World Cup, doo dah, doo dah ...."

I find it odd that Boris isn't standing to lead the Conservatives. I get the feeling that he's realized that the Brexit group can't fulfil their promises concerning trade and immigration and is determined not to lead the country when the s*@t hits the fan. After all, the many voters who went with leaving did so because they 'wanted to take the country back'. To be told by the EU that any trade agreements will involve 'freedom of movement' negates that policy, so the 'racist' voters (i.e. those whose only motive for voting was that they wanted foreigners out of England) will mount a backlash against whoever is PM. Especially if that is someone who led the Brexit campaign. There's already a 'slap Michael Gove' website (http://games.usvsth3m.com/slap-michael-gove/) which currently has a score of 107 million slaps! If he becomes the Conservative leader and hence PM, it is probable that e will become the most hated PM in the history of the UK, possibly even surpassing Margaret Thatcher. (Please note that these are the views of a political 'outsider'. I have no strong political affiliations and this post is simply an observation from a position of neutrality.)

It figures in the downfall of the Empire in the fifth century. Interesting to see it in an early story!

Well, seems like the country followed the results of the UNRV poll. Now to find out the truth of all those Brexit claims. Somehow, I feel like it's going to be a bad few years for Britain.

See why many people are confused? The number of lies told by both sides is appalling.

Is this the city known as Vienne in France?

Very interesting response, sonic. I bet it is confusing what with each side often advocating completely opposing views. So, when you say you'd choose a politician you despise, would Nigel Farage be a good candidate? He's definitely one of them. Nigel Farage and Michael Gove are two politicians I loathe, so maybe I shouldn't have voted 'undecided'!

It's confusing. We're being lied to by both sides about the impact of leaving. The 'Exit' mob are telling us how rich we'll be and the 'Remain' mob are saying that leaving will cause massive job losses as Europe will then impose tariffs on our exports. I've decided that the best way to reach a decision is to choose a politician who I can't stand and whose opinion I deride. I'll then vote the opposite way to them.

Surely the fact that the massive tomb found earlier and assumed to be Alexander's due to its size etc is now known not to be Alexander's must throw doubt on this claim. What makes it worse is the quote: "In an address at a conference in Thessaloniki, Greece, commemorating the 2,400th anniversary of Aristotle’s birth, the archaeologist, Konstantinos Sismanidis, said he had “no proof but strong indications, as certain as one can be,” to support his claim". So we're to believe the massive coincidence that it was found at such a perfect time? The cynic in me has severe doubts ...

I've got to admit that I'm looking forward to reading the translation of the 'Sylloge Tacticorum'. Sadly, I forgot to ask when it was due for publishing! Edit: Just checked the Ashgate site: 2017.

That doesn't look good, but just the usual Hollywood drivel! Mind you, I could be wrong ...

Strangely, I'm not tempted to click on any of those links ...

So what are the primary sources for his reign?

Which is why defeats such as Adrianople were such a disaster. Not only was it the loss of men, although that must obviously remain the main tragedy, but the loss of the battlefield meant that the Goths were able to capture all of the armour from the dead and severely wounded, meaning that the Romans then had to start from scratch equipping their newly-raised troops.

Good post Caldrail. Just one question: what evidence have you found that the fabricae (factories) did not work well?

Hi G. Right back at you! Thanks for the support concerning Adrianople. When I read the account in Ammianus - on which all modern interpretations are based - they seemed a little odd in some respects. I would hope that my own take at least makes some sense! At some point when my son is older I need to go on some long journeys: I have a lot of time to make up!

I'm not 'A'. I'm partly 'B', but partly 'C': he had Christian leanings but was a power-hungry individual with all of the negative traits associated with those who will do anything to achieve power.

Interesting piece. As you point out, the identification of the battlefield is always going to founder on the facts that we are reliant on Ammianus for information - which is not really detailed enough for a specific answer - and that over the last 1600+ years even minor changes in the local topography, such as the location of a stream, can alter our perceptions as to whether a location is a candidate or not. So, when are you going back with a powerful metal detector? PS Nice to be referenced!!