ASCLEPIADES

Felicem Natalem Dies, Magnus P!

Salve, magnus P. Congratulations, it's another nice review, this time dealing with one of your favourite subjects. As this book is not searchable at amazon, I'm afraid I will have to annoy you with some questions, concerning both this book's methodology and your own opinion: - How did WR get to those figures? (50% mortality seems a bit high). - What evidence did WR present about the identity of P. pestis as the aetiology of this outbreak? - Did he give some account of the affected or deceased contemporary celebrities? - Was there any estimation of the damage done to other countries (Europe, Persia, etc.)? Thanks in advance.

I think the Visigoths were not given land, they took it. Here comes Jordanes, Getica, Cp. XXXV-XXXVI: "The Visigoths, who were their other allies and inhabitants of the western country, were terrified as their kinsmen had been, and knew not how to plan for safety against the race of the Huns. After long deliberation by common consent they finally sent ambassadors into Romania to the Emperor Valens, brother of Valentinian, the elder Emperor, to say that if he would give them part of Thrace or Moesia to keep, they would submit themselves to his laws and commands. That he might have greater confidence in them, they promised to become Christians, if he would give them teachers who spoke their language... They themselves as we have said, crossed the Danube and settled Dacia Ripensis, Moesia and Thrace by permission of the Emperor. Soon famine and want came upon them, as often happens to a people not yet well settled in a country. Their princes and the leaders who ruled them in place of kings, that is Fritigern, Alatheus and Safrac, began to lament the plight of their army and begged Lupicinus and Maximus, the Roman commanders, to open a market. But to what will not the "cursed lust for gold" compel men to assent? The generals, swayed by avarice, sold them at a high price not only the flesh of sheep and oxen, but even the carcasses of dogs and unclean animals, so that a slave would be bartered for a loaf of bread or ten pounds of meat. When their goods and chattels failed, the greedy trader demanded their sons in return for the necessities of life. And the parents consented even to this, in order to provide for the safety of their children, arguing that it was better to lose liberty than life; and indeed it is better that one be sold, if he will be mercifully fed, than that he should be kept free only to die. Now it came to pass in that troubIous time that Lupicinus, the Roman general, invited Fritigern, a chieftain of the Goths, to a feast and, as the event revealed, devised a plot against him. But Fritigern, thinking no evil, came to the feast with a few followers. While he was dining in the praetorium he heard the dying cries of his ill-fated men, for, by order of the general, the soldiers were slaying his companions who were shut up in another part of the house. The loud cries of the dying fell upon ears already suspicious, and Fritigern at once perceived the treacherous trick. He drew his sword and with great courage dashed quickly from the banqueting-hall, rescued his men from their threatening doom and incited them to slay the Romans. Thus these valiant men gained the chance they had longed for--to be free to die in battle rather than to perish of hunger--and immediately took arms to kill the generals Lupicinus and Maximus. Thus that day put an end to the famine of the Goths and the safety of the Romans, for the Goths no longer as strangers and pilgrims, but as citizens and lords, began to rule the inhabitants and to hold in their own right all the northern country as far as the Danube. When the Emperor Valens heard of this at Antioch, he made ready an army at once and set out for the country of Thrace. Here a grievous battle took place and the Goths prevailed. The Emperor himself was wounded and fled to a farm near Hadrianople. The Goths, not knowing that an emperor lay hidden in so poor a hut, set fire to it (as is customary in dealing with a cruel foe), and thus he was cremated in royal splendor... From this time the Visigoths, in consequence of their glorious victory, possessed Thrace and Dacia Ripensis as if it were their native land." A good example of bad politics regarding the Germanic people from the Roman side.

I agree 100% however I also do not use the homepage much, so my opinion doesn't count for as much as those who are using it always. Salve, Amici. Even being a frequent user of the homepage, I honestly can't make the choice: I find the two styles both functional and aesthetic. In fact, if you are a computer illiterate like me, UNRV is a good place for learning the basics..

Salve, Amici. The emphasis is mine. Once again, we must remember the gossip-like nature of this information provided by Cassius almost two centuries after the actual events, especially as it seems that closer sources (vg, C. Suetonius, C. Tacitus, F. Josephus, V. Paterculus) did not confirm such story.

It appears that, for any reason, the germanic people didn't like the idea of being enslaved for eventually becoming Roman citizens.

Nope, I was mistaken. Your translations are accurate. These vandmestrene correspond to the Curator aquarum. In origin, a cura was not an office in itself, but a duty or responsibility of a particular officer. Augustus created standing boards of curatores, whose members were drawn from the ranks of ex-magistrates and whose functions were those of an imperial executive. (Note #2 on the Rodger's translation posted by the University of Vermont). After reading the whole text, I think Frontinus is comparing the real measures of four pipes with the mistakenly enlarged (or diminished) figures used by these Curator aquarum, as it is explained in the chapters XXXI-XXXIV: (Extract from Rodger's translation): "...Now in most instances members of the water staff have adhered to the unambiguous system, but in four of these pipes they have made deviations, namely the 12-, 20-, 100-, and 120-pipes. In the case of the 12-pipe, to be sure, the error is not great, nor is this size in common use. (2) To its diameter they added a fraction of a digit (1/16), to its capacity accordingly a small fraction of a quinaria. But in the other three pipes a greater discrepancy is detected. The 20-pipe they make smaller by half a digit in diameter, which reduces its capacity by 3 l/24 quinariae; and they make widespread use of this pipe for deliveries. On the other hand, they have enlarged, rather than diminished, the 100-pipe and the 120-pipe, sizes they use regularly for receiving water. To the diameter of the 100-pipe they add 17/24 of a digit, which increases the capacity by 10 17/24 quinariae. To the diameter of the 120-pipe they add 3 5/8 digits, which increases the capacity by 66 1/6 quinariae... To put the matter simply, there are 25 pipes, all of which--excepting only these four which the water-men have modified--follow the systematic pattern of sizes and are in agreement with the recorded capacities." (And from the Bennett's translation): "... But the water-men, while they conform to the obvious reckoning in most ajutages, have made deviation in the case of four of them, namely: the 12-, 20-, 100-, and 120‑pipe. In case of the 12‑pipe, the error is not great, nor is its use frequent. They have added 1/24 plus 1/48 to its diameter, and to its capacity 1/4 of a quinaria. A greater discrepancy is detected in case of the three remaining ajutages. These water-men diminish the 20‑pipe in its diameter by 1/2 plus 1/24 of a digit, its capacity by 3 quinariae plus 1/4 plus 1/24; and common use is made of this ajutage for delivery. But in case of the 100‑pipe and 120‑pipe, through which they regularly receive water, the pipes are not diminished but enlarged! For to the diameter of the 100‑pipe they add 2/3 plus 1/24 of a digit, and to the capacity, 10 quinariae plus 1/2 plus 1/24. To the diameter of the 120‑pipe they add 3 digits plus 7/12 plus 1/24 plus 1/48; to its capacity, 66 quinariae plus 1/6... In all there are 25 ajutages. They all conform to their computed and recorded capacities, barring these four which the water-men have altered... " The subsequent description of these four pipes (Cp. XLIV, XLVI, LXII and LXIII) corresponds perfectly with the four instances where the word "Aquarios" ("water-men") ocurred in the Latin original text, always preceded by the preposition "apud" (by); vg, in your example(Cp. LXIII), the 120-pipe had an actual diameter of 12 4/12 6/288 digits, while the measure used by the vandmestrene (apud aquarios) was of 16 digits. I'm really sorry for having made the issue even more confusing for you.

Salve, Amici. Here comes Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities: "DIPLOMA, a writ or public document, which conferred upon a person any right or privilege. During the republic, it was granted by the con

Interesting indeed, but the quid is that we really don't know if these rumours and/or allegations were accepted indeed during the Social War or if they were developed ex post facto, as they were written by Orosius at the IV Century AD.

Suetonius says nothing about Cato being bribed. The point is that I simply quoted an ambigous phrase of Suetonius: "ac plerique pecunias contulerunt, ne Catone quidem abnuente eam largitionem e re publica fieri. Many of them contributed to the fund, and even Cato did not deny that bribery under such circumstances was for the good of the commonwealth." which seems to have been the main origin of some gratuitous speculation about Cato's honesty by some secondary sources (I think R. Syme was mentioned), as an example of historical (Suetonian) gossip. I considered it analogous to the presumed responsibility of Marius Minor in the death of L. P. Cato discussed on this thread, probably another example of historical (Orosian) gossip.

I think it's noteworthy that the first defeat ever of the General Bonaparte was at the siege of Acre, against a predominantly Turkish force (under Ahmed al-Jazzar Pasha) with British support (under Sir Sidney Smith), sixteen years before Waterloo. Not surprisingly, as with the Battle of Gallipoli at 1915, western historians tend to diminish the Turkish contribution. Anyway, it seems that Mehmet Ali didn't come to this war front until after Napoleon's departure.

As a matter of fact, there is an ongoing similar controversy regarding the extent of human sacrifice among the Celts. Here comes CJ Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Liber VI, Cp. XVI: "The nation of all the Gauls is extremely devoted to superstitious rites; and on that account they who are troubled with unusually severe diseases and they who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of those sacrifices; because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods cannot be rendered propitious, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire, the men perish enveloped in the flames. They consider that the oblation of such as have been taken in theft, or in robbery, or any other offence, is more acceptable to the immortal gods; but when a supply of that class is wanting, they have recourse to the oblation of even the innocent." And Ibid., Cp. XIX: "...Their funerals, considering the state of civilization among the Gauls, are magnificent and costly; and they cast into the fire all things, including living creatures, which they suppose to have been dear to them when alive; and, a little before this period, slaves and dependants, who were ascertained to have been beloved by them, were, after the regular funeral rites were completed, burnt together with them." As in the case of Carthage, some scholars consider these reports as Roman negative propaganda. Even if Caesar didn't specifically mention any child sacrifice, there has been found some archaeological, evidence; vg. at Woodhenge (Britannia).

Salve, Amici. Here it is: MPC send us to the NAVIS website, which I consider the best of the best regarding Classical Navies. As their picture archive is quite extensive, the link is somewhat heavy and the search may be a little difficult. They have the record of two sister Punic military vessels, numbered 56 (Marsala 1, this pic) and 84 (Marsala 2), both of them found on a sand bank near Isola Lunga (ancient Motya) outside that Sicilian city (ancient Lilybaeum), dated from the III Century BC, and with some circumstantial evidence relating them to the naval battle that ended the I Punic War (March 10, DXIII AUC / 241 BC).

Salve, Amici. By the way this episode is written ("It was thought by some that his death.../quasi ab incerto..."), I think we are dealing with some historic gossip, analogous to that suetonian story of the purported electoral bribery of Cato Minor (Divus Iulius, Cp. XIX, sec. I). You know; it may be true (????) but, who knows? Maybe we should give more credit to the audacity of this L. P. Cato and/or the military talents of the Marsians.

Congratulations, WW; this is a great post. I supposse it will make its way to the front page.

I agree. I only think that for some commander to qualify as one of the best military leaders ever, he must be compared with his peers; Pizarro, Cortes and other Conquistadores simply didn't qualify. That doesn't mean their conquests were not far more transcendent globally than those from other far better commanders, either from theirs or any other era. We know indeed his performance against Almagro and other Spanish troops in their private civil war; he was tricky and treacherous, although clearly not enough to survive this war, as he was killed by a direct assault of some 20 soldiers; I don't think he ever showed any outstanding military qualities while fighting against other conquistadores. I would never consider Francisco Pizarro as unskilled. The first factor would help to explain why the Tahuantisuyo fall so quickly. The latter would help to explain why it took so long to much more numerous Spanish troops to subdue the Neo-Inca state. BTW, I didn't know about your book. If you upload the specifics, I would love to read it.

The zulus were not nomads. They lived in fixed locations by their heyday and as a result were able to organise themselves in social and military terms. As Zulus were no farmers and had no cities, I supposse that depends on your definition of "Nomad" and "fixed locations". I understand they are commonly considered as pastoral nomads, like the Maasai of eastern Africa.

Probably many members are familiarized with the shibboleth (not sibboleth) story: (Judges, Ch. 12, Ver. 4-6): "Then Jephthah gathered all the men of Gilead and fought with Ephraim; and the men of Gilead defeated Ephraim, because they said, "You are fugitives from Ephraim, you Gileadites - in the heart of Ephraim and Manasseh." Then the Gileadites took the fords of the Jordan against the Ephraimites. Whenever one of the fugitives of Ephraim said, "Let me go over," the men of Gilead would say to him, "Are you an Ephraimite?" When he said, "No," they said to him, "Then say Shibboleth," and he said, "Sibboleth," for he could not pronounce it right. Then they seized him and killed him at the fords of the Jordan. Forty-two thousand of the Ephraimites fell at that time."

Salve, Amici. I don't have an accent! (Oh yes, you do!)

And LIBOR . . . Ain't that The London Interbank Overnight Rate or something like that? I think I've seen that on some of my loan docs, and A'm thinking that's what my commercial loan rate is pegged to. . . . Sequitur

And here comes P. Orosius (Historiarum Adversum Paganos, Liber V, Cp. XVIII, sec. XXIV) (In Latin, I'm afraid; BTW, I don't understand the Smith's reference previously quoted) "Porcius Cato consul Marianas copias habens cum aliquanta strenue gessisset, gloriatus est, C. Marium non maiora fecisse, et ob hoc, cum ad lacum Fucinum contra Marsos bellum gereret, a filio C. Marii in tumultu belli quasi ab incerto auctore prostratus est."

Only a vague notion. Gratiam habeo for the information, RG. I'm curious; did the Egyptian campaign of Napoleon have any effect in all these events?

No, I think Pizarro was a good leader. I simply don't think he was "among the best military leaders ever", certainly not among his peers. He and his men would have made at best a mediocre battalion in contemporary Europe. If you were a good Spanish soldier at the XVI century, you were send to Italy, not to America. If you check the accounts of the conquerors (vg, Diaz del Castillo), you will find they were very well aware of the contagious nature of the plague fortuitously carried by themselves and its effect on the American natives. That

Congratulationis, magnus P!