Maty

My book of choice for the topic is 'Daggers in the forum' by Kieth Richardson. It's getting a bit long in the tooth (1980, I think), but it's academically sound and easy to read.

This is a wonderful resource, but a quote is only half a quote if it does not give its source. And as the quote in the original language is not given, tracking the source down will be no easy job. On the other hand, thanks to this site (now gratefully bookmarked) I know what to look for.

Cupid/Eros was not always the cuddly boy archer. According to Hesiod's theogony he was originally one of the primary forces of the universe, along with Tartarus, Gaia and Erebus. Without him Aphrodite/Venus would never have been born.

I don't know if these mp3s have been mentioned already, but they seem interesting http://www.thehistorynetwork.org/TheHistor...e_Magazine.html

That Julius Caesar said 'veni, veni vici' to describe his conquest of Britain. Apparently its one of those factoids that 'everybody' knows is true. And the 'fact' that orgies were a regular Roman pastime. Or that Cleopatra held the asp to her bosom. (Plutarch tell us it was the wrist, which is a heck of a lot more practical.) Or that legionary tunics were always red? or ... (I'll let someone else take over from here. I need to lie down.)

My own guess - and if anyone has any actual information, please do tell! - is that you have to use your right hand when fighting in formation, but since a shield can be used by either hand, in open field play, you can suit yourself. (Also I don't think it is co-incidence that a Roman sword is strapped so that it can be drawn by either hand. Note that one major advantage of being a left-hander is that your opponent is used to fighting right-handers, as are you. So you get an immediate advantage. Finally you can get quite dexterous in using the un-natural hand with practice. Right-handed cardsharps often learn to manipulate a deck of cards with their left, because you hold the deck in that hand when dealing. (I have had a varied education.)

Don't forget the original authors. I'd recommend reading Livy alongside modern books that explain more of the background, and Tacitus for the early empire. Add Suetonius' twelve Caesars for a bit of spice, and maybe a bit of Sallust for the late Republic and Julius Caesar himself. There's nothing like reading history by people who were there at the time.

Heh! I like the cover of this month's magazine. Johnny Shumante was the illustrator of my Macedonian wars book, and my publishers purchased that pic as well. He also did some custom pics for the book, and I've got them printed and framed. We had a long discussion about Carthaginian/Numidian elephants (which the one on the Ancient Warfare cover is) and whether they had towers. He's not only a good artist, but he knows his Livy and archaeology as well!

Nope. I saw something like this in Ceasarea in Israel, so that's my guess ....

Hmmmm I'd approach the topic from several angles. Firstly the fact that Nero's was in many ways a golden age for the arts - undoubtedly because of Nero's interest. Mention literature - Lucan, Seneca, Petronius, coinage (Nero's was some of the prettiest coinage ever) and architecture, stressing the Domus Aurea. Then look at the senatorial response to Nero appearing as an artist rather than as a patron of the arts, and what this reveals about the senate and the perceived role of the emperor. Then point out that Nero was the most monumentally incompetent emperor until Commodus, and suggest that his last words indicate that his heart was not really in his job, but such was the nature of the Principate at that time that strong candidates had to take the job or die, and the only retirement was feet first. Therefore Nero saw himself as a victim of circumstance rather than the stereotypical tyrant he is now considered. That should cover most of the bases. Good luck!

The two fields have a lot in common, but they are distinct. Essentially, archaeology does 'what' and ancient history does 'why'. I can't imagine doing ancient history without input from archaeology, but ancient history also works with demographers, sociologists and numismatists to name a few. One of the joys of the subject is the other disciplines that you get involved with. And I haven't even mentioned classicists until now ...

What degree are you going for specifically? From your original post, I followed the 'higher education' part, but some (perhaps more familiar with the US education system than I) appear to have inferred a Ph.D. I'm not sure how you would have got to that point without some earlier academic involvement in ancient history. If you are planning to study as an undergrad, your tutors will start by assuming only basic information about ancient history. I too as an undergrad did the 'Roman republic at 100 years a week' module, and I can assure you that far from complete mastery of the topic was required to pass the final exam. Bear in mind that ancient history is a humungeously big subject, and even top ancient historians only know a fraction of it. Even as a doctoral student I found areas where my tutors frankly admitted ignorance, and now that I am a decade or two beyond that point I'm amazed at how much I didn't know when I wrote my thesis. So I'd not assume that when a topic is dealing with 500 years of history you'll be offered more than a look at important trends and highlights. No-one writes a course that no student can pass.

Has anyone had a look at this article? Best, E.E., 'The literate Roman soldier' The Classical Journal 62 (1966), 122-127. It was on my research list, but I didn't track it down in time for when I needed it, so I still haven't.

Though it tells against my point I can't resist recounting a nasty academic put-down from a few years back. A speaker had given a lecture comparing Victorian and Roman marriage, paying plenty of attention to the parallels, and suggesting what this could tell us about Roman marriage. One of the early 'questions' was from someone who recounted the story of a drunk who was found by a policeman on his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk explained that he had lost his wallet back in the alleyway, and was looking for it. 'Well, why are you not looking for it in the alleyway?' asked the policeman. The drunk replied 'the light is better here'. I always recall this anecdote whenever I go hunting for evidence for ancient Rome in other eras.

>>"Furthermore, the "average woman" (of a modern, industrialized nation) does not want "to raise a brood of bonny bouncing children."<< Ouch! Correction noted I do have to agree that the modern woman has hugely wider choices than any Roman - even the most aristocratic. What is interesting is that - as you say - marriage and having children is no longer compulsory, or even necessary for most modern females. However, a substantial majority choose to take that step. A Roman woman would choose to be involved in her children's upbringing, and want the best for those children - and as your point about the public schools shows, so does the modern woman. (The main difference being that she wants me to help pay for it!) So, with all this choice the significant thing is that most people, and not just women, choose to do the same things as their Roman counterparts. We like a good social life, music, to enjoy public entertainment when we can, to spend time with our families and to live in a good home. We try to keep up with the Joneses, the Romans tried to keep up with the Julii, and we all whinge about our taxes. I still hold to my previous argument - human nature doesn't change, but it adapts itself to the society it finds itself in.

And this is the huge stumbling block, and the difference between us, Calders. No - they are not! Each individual is a product of his/her society, which society helps shape his/her ambitions and motives. Are you saying that a Roman woman's motives and ambitions are the same as an 18th century Swedish woman's, or a 21st century English woman's for that matter? Same for the men. Roman men were imbued with a sense of history, duty to the state and Rome's destiny. But was this ALL Romans? Or just those in government? Do we even have evidence to make an informed analysis of the urban poor and their motives/ambitions? Sweeping generalisations do not help us here. Well, there are some comments we can make, sweeping generalizations though they are, as cultural anthropologists have gone to some effort to identify what are called 'cultural universals'. That is, all human societies have certain features which they share - making jokes, liking music and dance, a tendency for males and females to form long-term unions, a desire for social status, and to raise children to whom we are genetically related. (And I'll add a tendency for teenage males to make idiots of themselves, as I've just come back from watching a bunch of mall-rats doing so.) Human nature is basically unchanged from the time we left the African savannahs - however, the manner in which it finds expression is indeed radically different from society to society, and history can also show some interesting social pathologies (I'll put Sparta in this group - possibly we should add the aristocracy of the Late Roman Republic as well.) So yup, I'd say our Roman woman, 21st century lass, western or otherwise, or your average (I stress average) female in any society wants a good marriage, to enjoy social status in her peer group, would prefer wealth to poverty, and would probably like to give that little cow down the road a good slap. And should it happen that the average woman does not want to raise a brood of bonny bouncing children, the human race is in trouble. Once we recognize these basic human traits, we can see how they find expression in different societies. So I'd say Caldrail's cause is not totally lost!

Well, the maniple and the phalanx co-existed for a while, but you are certainly correct. This explains why the Macedonian wars lasted as long as they did - basically the mountain passes into Macedonia were a series of such bottlenecks and the Romans could not get past the phalanx in such situations. It took some remarkably hare-brained exploits by Marcus Philippus to finally get round these defensive obstacles, and an even more idiotic response by Persues of Macedon not to win the war immediately afterwards. My source for the above information is 'Roman Conquests: Macedonia and Greece' Pen & Sword 2009. A book I heartily recommend.

Another point that's going to need a Bible scholar to resolve definitively... Let's agree to disagree why Jesus was crucified, but what about the two gentlemen he was crucified alongside? The English version of the Bible says 'thieves'. We might stretch this to 'bandits' or even, to get technical, Jewish 'listim'. However, if these are defined in the Latin version as 'ladri' (thieves) then we have to accept that in a book designed for a Roman audience, in a section which those writing it wanted to be as credible as possible, people are reported as being crucified by the Roman authorities for being thieves.

As I have already noted, this story was reported by three independent and regularly used classical sources, two of them regularly considered as particularly reliable. With all due respect, this story performs far better on this count than Jesus' crucifixion. BTW, it is exactly because it wasn't state-sanctioned that this crucifixion is so relevant for this discussion. Wasn't the idea that Caesar had promised the miscreants that he would crucify them? Therefore he was delivering on his word, even though he was 'kind' enough to crucify them as corpses.

'If you were make a book out of your pictures and publish it, you would get sued, and rightly so.' H'mm. I'm not a copyright lawyer but that would be an interesting case. For example if I were to publish a book of my favourite pictures in a particular art gallery, can the gallery claim I have violated their sole right to publish pictures that are in its possession? Furthermore, the law (at least in the UK) explicitly allows photography in public places unless there is a good reason why not (e.g. security), and most museums certainly count as public. It would be hard to enforce a law which gives ownership of images no matter who created the images (though I'm sure some film stars would love the idea). You could only claim copyright violation if you made the original exhibit in question (e.g. logos or cartoon characters), and I can't see many museum owners copping to that. I've certainly used pictures taken in museums in my work (not the same as a book of pictures I agree) and have credited the museum where the pic was taken. In one museum in Germany, once I explained the pictures were for a book, the staff could not have been more helpful, and certainly did not invoice me afterwards.

There's another issue involved as well - that of copyright. If you take your own pic in a museum, you own the rights. You use one from a catalogue - even on a personal website, they are entitled to come after you for it. I remember asking one large institution for permission to use a picture of a statue on their grounds. They were delighted to let me do so for a mere 550 euros (which was more than I was being paid for writing the article). Had Nephele published a museum photo of her pharoah here, she would have violated the museum's copyright. She published her own, to which she has the full rights. Personally I always use no flash and a small tripod so that the longer exposure times don't produce blurring. The only museum that didn't allow me to do that, I took the pics anyway, and cheerfully let them throw me out when they finally caught up with me.

For those who are interested, Adrian Goldsworthy also has a blog at his website www.adriangoldsworthy.com which he updates regularly, though not always on ancient history.

"How could someone as so clearly politically astute as Caesar, for lack of a better way of saying it, "not seen this thing coming?" He did take at least one precaution - His heir Octavian was safely stashed away in Greece with a friendly legion close at hand. In the end it was this precaution that did for Brutus and Cassius and the other assassins.

You are right - it is from a set of texts known as 'the Sybilline texts'. I was reading them this afternoon and was wondering why the material seemed familiar.What you have is something of a paraphrase, but its definitely the same thing. Go to here http://sacred-texts.com/cla/sib/sib06.htm and scroll down through several sections of inspired gibberish until you get to the bit labelled p.106 and you will find And then too shall an earthquake overthrow Both Salamis and Paphos, when dark water Shall dash o'er Cyprus washed by many a wave. But when from deep cleft of Italian land Fire shall come flashing forth in the broad heaven, And many cities burn and men destroy, And much black ashes shall fill the great sky, And small drops like red earth shall fall from heaven, Then know the anger of the God of heaven Stirring stuff ....