Maty

Now let us consider the lessons of the judgement of Paris. The problem with picking just one God or Goddess is that you please one - and annoy all the others. I'll argue that to get the full benefit of polytheism, one has to choose a deity according to the situation - just as you don't call a plumber when your car breaks down. So I'll go with Sterculinus for manure spreading, but Mercury when I'm checking over a contract. And at some other times, it's got to be Aphrodite ....

Diocletian. There's not enough stuff on the third century.

If you are looking at maps, try also the Shepherd pair - for general purposes these are as detailed as any sane person should need, and should also go some way towards helping with your more specialized purposes. http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/shepherd/italy_ancient_north.jpg http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw/historical/shepherd/italy_ancient_south.jpg

Are you perhaps thinking of the other Venta - Venta Silurum? I've been to both, and while I'm prepared to take an archaeologist's word for what the walls of Venta Icenorum used to be, I've also walked the ramparts of the wall at Venta Silurum, and these are remarkable. Here's a link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/The_Southern_wall_of_the_Roman_city_of_Venta_Silurum_-_geograph.org.uk_-_1162370.jpg

For those who did not see this the first time around ...

['Regarding the crucial metal bits, that sounds more like modern thinking to me, though I can't discount the point. There wasn't an industrial base to produce standard fittings thus having hinges and brackets would mean odd bits and pieces rather than an Acme Catapult Kit. They never bolted things together as we do now. Everything dovetailed or slotted together, thus the iron bits weren't as necessary as we might imagine, being more of a useful convenience than a requirement.'] There's a lot to discuss on this - is it possible to prevail on the moderators to move it to a separate thread? It's certainly possible to build a complete siege engine from scratch. In theory, you could leave me in a clearing with enough soil rich in iron ore, and I could do the job. However, even then, some of the springy stuff - women's hair, sinew etc would be best obtained beforehand. And once the specialized bits have been built for one catapult, I'd assume a forward thinking general would bag them and keep for the next siege. (Unless he was crossing the Alps or something.) Things didn't get bolted, mainly because of the trouble with making matching threads without a lathe, but they did get nailed or clamped. And in 69 AD we find a legion taking a siege catapult with them on a forced march, which they wouldn't do if they were that easy to knock up in situ. (Did you see a programme on the BBC a few years back called junkyard challenge, where two teams had to make a siege catapult from scrap? In the end an onager-style machine beat a trebuchet design. Great fun. But neither team tried the crossbow-on-steriods which seems to have been the most common early siege weapon. Though older, these were actually more complex.)

Given the needs of your heading, perhaps regnal years are the best bet. Germania Year XXV of Emperor and consul Flavius Placidius Valentinianus Augustus. The proper way of putting this in a header would be Flavius Placidius Valentinianus Augustus imp. cos. XXV Vot XXX mult The form XXV vot literally means that he has vowed (vota) to serve Rome every year for for 25 years, and intends to do so for thirty more (multi) years.

If you wanted to be absolutely correct, you need to use the name of the consuls who gave their name to the year. Thus a totally correct date would be something like 'in the year of the second consulship of Chronologicus and the first consulship of Tempus in the four hundred and fifth olympiad, nine hundred and fifty years from the founding of the city.' (This is to give the form. The actual date is erroneous.) As a stylistic note, remember that AD comes before the numeral, and BC after. So it's AD 451 (The year of the Lord 451) and 451 BC (451 years before Christ). While AD was only used from the seventh century, CE (Common Era, though what the heck is 'common' about most of it I have no idea) only dates from 25 PCE (politically correct era).

I had no clue. Would you have a reference? It sounds like something I ought to taking a look at. This was something I read while researching a book on Greek myth. It was an article considering the legend of Cadmus slaying the Ismenian water-dragon as a distorted version of the draining of aforesaid lake (presumably a branch of Lake Copias or Yliki?) It must have been published within the last four years, as I can't find it on JSTOR.

A further point of interest is that the Greek tradition that Beotian Thebes was founded beside a shallow lake. This lake had vanished by historical times, but modern studies have shown that this was indeed the case.

Well, we have two mentions in the sources. Martial in 'The spectacles' says that there is no reason to disbelieve the tale of Pasiphae,as 'we have seen it with our own eyes', in a performance presented by Domitian. The second is from the Golden Ass where our hero (a donkey) is required to copulate with a poisoner in the arena prior to a leopard being unleashed on both. However, as this tale has a number of magical transformations and other unlikely happenings, the reader must decide how credible this event is. Given that Roman punishment went in for maximum pain and humiliation, it seems quite possible to me. Also if you ask nicely at Cologne museum you get to see a very X-rated selection of oil lamps which would probably get me arrested if I posted the images on the internet. But again, the question is whether the ladies getting intimate with swans, bulls etc are fantasy, mythological or depictions of real events. However, I'll say with some confidence that the quote given at the start of this discussion is pure unadulterated BS. It either comes from Stephen Barber's 'Divine Carnage' or from a similar bit of pornography pretending to be history.

Here's a solution from the early empire, assuming that you had the money for it. It's Caligula taking an interest in home renovation as reported in Philo's 'Embassy to Gaius'(364) "... and as soon as he had entered he commanded the windows which were around it to be filled up with the transparent pebbles very much resembling white crystal which do not hinder the light, but which keep out the wind and the heat of the sun."

The article is dramatic, but not entirely accurate: Everyone knows that Crassus was the richest man in Rome ... That's one of those factoids that 'everyone knows' but is wrong about. The article is right - Pompey was richer than Crassus after his eastern wars. With the article, I think that the point is that the maius imperium (which gave Pompey precedence over provincial governors in the areas where he was operating), and having proconsular power in multiple provinces later became two of the main planks of the principate (tribunican power within Rome was the other). In other words, measures to allow a specific issue to be dealt with were then used as precedent for laws which gave autocracy a constitutional fig-leaf. In the same way, measures which the Americans and Britons are taking to defeat terror (e.g. suspension of certain civil liberties, more intrusive tracking and surveillance of citizens, border controls, Britain's attempt to build a national DNA database)are all measures designed to protect citizens. They probably do it well - though nothing will stop a determined terrorist. However, the same measures would come in very handy for anyone who wanted to build a police state - or indeed for a police state to develop by default. It boils down to how far you trust those running things not to abuse their new powers. And we can trust them. Right?

With the post-traumatic stress issue, it might also be worth looking at catharsis. The modern soldier fights his battles and goes home where he - or she - then copes with the emotional strains that result from deliberately placing oneself in a life-threatening situation. There is no catharsis. Assuming that things went well, the average legionary finished a battle or siege by purging stress through(in his eyes) well-earned massacre, rape and pillage. Since his society condoned such actions, there would be no guilt afterwards. So an interesting question is whether - deplorable as it might be - did such conduct make for a more emotionally healthy soldier?

Two things that make this quote suspect. First Caesar - and the comment about 'illicit wealth' suggests we are talking of Caius Julius Caesar the dictator - only celebrated the one triumph. So Cicero would know the plural was wrong. Secondly, Caesar never talked of a 'new society'. His entire propaganda effort was based on his having stabilized the old one - a line that was pushed by his heir Augustus even while he was creating a new society.

[siege equipment was not essential. Lacking such things, and let's be honest, most ancient armies built siege equipment in situ and as required if they knew how, then simply waiting for the city to starve was still a viable tactic. ] This is something I've been meaning to look at when (if) I get the time. I was talking this over a few months back on the topic of Antony losing his siege train in Parthia. Apparently though you build your siege equipment in situ, the current theory is that you bring certain crucial metal bits along with you - hinges, ratchets, that sort of thing. Then you bolt them onto locally cut down trees. Bearing in mind that a full-blown Roman siege catapult stood several metres high, I can believe they were quite sophisticated bits of kit. So Hannibal might have been lacking his widgets rather than the raw material. On the starvation side, the problem is that you have a month of forced marches to get to Rome, meaning that you can't stop to gather supplies, while Rome has a month to stock up, remove non-combatants etc. Hannibal might have starved before the Romans did. As you say, H had the motivation, and he had the opportunity. So we have to assume he did not have the means.

So Hannibal decides to march on Rome. He's got an army of about 35,000 men tops, because we are told he lost 8,700 of his 40,000 at Cannae. He's got to get them to the other side of Italy, and over the central mountain range, so let's say it takes a month to do the 400km or so. In this time Rome fortifies its walls, sends recalls to armies from Iberia and Sardinia, and reconstitutes the survivors to Cannae into two legions (it actually did the latter). Since the harvest is just in (its now early September), Rome collects as much food as possible and makes sure that there is nothing in the area of Rome for Hannibal's army to eat. Rome also orders a spring levy of manpower from her allies, who are no longer being harassed by Hannibal as he has gone to Rome. Lacking siege equipment, there is no way that Hannibal is going to take Rome before winter, so after setting up in autumn, his army spends a miserable four months sitting under canvas while illness and disease spread. In spring he finds his supply columns being harassed by Rome's new levies, and with his depleted army, he has both to keep food from getting into Rome and guard his own supply lines. By summer, Rome's overseas legions have returned. Hannibal is pinned against the walls of Rome by an army equal in size to his own, but now in considerably better shape. The commander of an army that has won its victories by being highly mobile and seizing the strategic initiative has allowed himself to become totally immobile while his enemies have the freedom of Italy to organize their counterstrike. I can't see it.

Vitia erunt, donec homines 'There will be vices for as long as there are men.' Tacitus

A very nice article! Well spotted, ParatrooperLirelou. I very much like both her way of thinking and her style of writing. I may well investigate her work further. Agreed - written with great flair. Not sure what the lady has against chariots - we know the Britons really did use them, and to great effect. Caesar and Tacitus among others are very clear on this. Also that stuff about 'We lived in a highly organised, structured, creative, peaceful society until Rome came and wiped it out.' contains at least two errors. I'll agree with the highly-organized and structured bit, not least because these two are basically the same thing. Creative, certainly. Peaceful, definitely not. What we know of pre-conquest Britain involves the usual tribal warfare which got pretty intense at times. (Or does this writer think that the Brits spontaneously developed a talent for war when they gave Caesar such a hard time? Nor did people live in hill forts for the view.) Next, the Romans did not wipe out British culture - that's one of the myths she should be exploding. Archaeology makes it clear that Romano-british culture retained a unique identity through the life of the empire.

I'll go with that Scipio whose wife was forced to suicide by Messalina. Claudius, who knew nothing about it, invited the man to dinner a day later, and asked why his guest had not brought his wife along. Scipio's deadpan reply: 'She had to repay a debt to nature.'

Given the where and when of the inscription, I'd guess it is more likely to be Greek than Latin. In any case, the expert to direct your query to is Prof. P.Dimitrov. He's a specialist in epigraphy in that part of the world.

You will find a lot of relevant material in a book I've just reviewed that will be appearing on this site soon - Robert Hannah's 'Time in Antiquity'. A quick look at the topic in his book shows that though the night was formally divided into twelve hours, as was the day, the night hours were less precise. (No sundials and candle clocks were not used.) Therefore night time tended to be measured by the rising and setting of particular constellations rather than on the hour. So rather than use the names of the hours - which were unofficial anyway - you might do better using names such as 'Sagittarius rising'.

Carthage was infested with homosexuals who spread their vice to Rome and so ultimately destroyed the Roman Empire. This diagnosis comes from no-one other than Roberto De Mattei the deputy head of the Italy's National Research Council. Full details are in the Telegraph here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/8438210/Fall-of-Roman-Empire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html and on that page there's a link to rebuttal (to which I contributed). Why Carthage I wonder? As far as I know contemporary Semitic cultures were much more homophobic than the Romans. If someone is going to claim that homosexuality debauched the empire, shouldn't they be blaming the Greeks?