DDickey

Well, I voted today (I always vote). And because I like neither Obama nor McCain, I decided to participate primarily in local elections. For President of the United States, however, I chose to write someone in. Who, you might ask? Well, I wrote in Publius Scipio Africanus (yes, I am serious; I really did it). Although I take elections and politics extremely seriously, I couldn't bring myself to vote for A because I dislike B--I caution against protest votes; I think it could be dangerous. And the only other option on our ticket--I'm in Indiana--was Bob Barr running as a Libertarian. He's an idiot, so I didn't vote for him.

Yeah, sorry. I was at work when I wrote my last response, so I didn’t have time to write anything longer. I think the structure of the Roman world was crucial to its success. Its ability to amass soldiers following its defeat at Cannae, for example, gave them, as you said, an upper hand. Also, Roman foreign policy tended to be extremely aggressive. The true success, I think, resided in the entire Roman milieu. As Polybius wrote, ‘The circumstances of the Roman army were the exact opposite, and therefore Fabius was not able to meet the enemy in a general battle, as it would evidently result in a reverse, but on due consideration he fell back on those means in which the Romans had the advantage, confined himself to these, and regulated his conduct of the war thereby. These advantages of the Romans lay in inexhaustible supplies of provisions and men.’ (III.89) I think that last sentence is crucial. The Roman method, if you will, provided a structure and framework on which competent generals built and refined their tactics as the need arose. So, I guess, basically I’m agreeing with you when you said, ‘My point is that Rome's success depended not so much in each individual military genius as it was the case for other countries (let say the Lusitanians under Viriathus).’ However, I also agree with WotWotius, who said, ‘I am sorry, but these tactics and logistics of which you speak were made notable by the individual; and were much less the result of an overriding cultural mechanism. Whilst many expects dispute almost every other element of Roman society, there is no denying that Rome - most notably Republican Rome - was a highly militarised society, with war fused into almost everything. But even this only influenced Rome's perception of war, and not her ability to wage it. As in any society, the society of ancient Rome contained individuals of differing abilities, and thus many generals reacted differently in similar situations: compare, for example, Marius's campaigns again the Cimbri with his defeated predecessors. It not surprising, then, that Fabian tactics are named after an individual and not a Roman policy.’ Overall, I think, it’s a complex issue to distill so simply. But I guess, to answer the question on its face: 'Who do you think were the greatest generals Rome ever had to offer?' There’s too many for me to name here, but I'll give the obvious answers. Scipio Africanus and Caesar are my two favorites—keep in mind that I’m choosing to stay in the mid-to late Republic; if I were to slip outside of that time frame, I would have to put Belisarius on the list, even though some may not consider him a ‘Roman’ general, strictly speaking. But that, as they say, is not a can of worms I want to open here.

I'm blasting through Rome in the Late Republic (second edition) by Mary Beard & Michael Crawford. It's my second time reading it, and I forgot how beautifully they distilled the essence of the Late Republic. It's a simple, wonderful overview. Has anyone read Beard's book on Triumphs or the one on Roman Religion? I've been thinking about picking one up. Any recommendations?

It appears as though a fallacious argument has been presented and propagated here. Here, it would be called the

Don't know if these have been mentioned elsewhere, but I saw them on Amazon and thought I'd link to them here. I'm definitely looking forward to both of them. How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower by Adrian Goldsworthy The Forge of Christendom: The End of Days and the Epic Rise of the West by Tom Holland

Justinian's Flea by William Rosen recently came out in paperback. In hardcover, the book's subtitle read: "Plague, Empire, and the Birth of Europe." In paperback, the subtitle has been changed, and now reads, "The First Great Plague and the End of the Roman Empire." On the back of the paperback, in bold, red letters, it reads, "How Nature's Smallest Organism Brought Down History's Mightiest Empire." These changes, to me, seem stunningly misleading, and I'm certain a few readers ill versed in history are going to be greatly disappointed. But, I suppose, in this day and age sensationalism sells, and that's all that seems to matter anymore.

I'm currently reading a book, entitled "The Ten Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How it Changed America," about the history of comic books culminating with nationwide censorship in the late 40's and 50's. It's a spectacular account of the birth of a specific form of pop culture and also a study of postwar paranoia and diverging cultural shifts. It

I don't know if this has already been posted, but I thought I'd share anyway. Hulu has available online for free The National Geographic Channel's Hannibal vs. Rome, a 2 hour popular documentary. I haven't watched it yet, so I'm not sure if it's worth the watch. Has anyone else seen it? Is it worth watching? The Link

The run-up to the First World War, following Ferdinand

Mods: Feel free to move this, but, in keeping with the last couple posts--i.e. mine --I thought I'd post a link here to an interesting conversation about WWII revisionism.

I didn't exactly mean it in the light of a "noble cause"...but as Rose Tattoo said; "There comes a time when every man must fight".

Good show Tobias! It's good to know some of us still stand up for and understand honor, duty, courage, and a willingness to risk all for a noble cause and a national purpose. Delete all except "noble cause". What was so noble about the Great War? I think it was one of the most unnecessary and gratuitously destructive wars ever fought by foolish mankind. Defining the Second World War as unnecessary is becoming all the rage lately, and it shows a profound

Apparently wowio has gone global, so many of you may now have access to the books.

This fascinates me. It's a period to which I've had little exposure. Out of curiosity, what, if any, old magistracies existed? Did they serve any functions? Or, if they did exist in this late period, were they merely ornamental? I know they lost functioning relevance during the Imperial Age, but did the old magistracies ever make any kind of comeback?

Thank you. I wanted to jump in there, but I thought I'd bite my tongue instead. Oh, it was hard! Aside from that ... I've got nothing. I'm actually at work trying to kill some time, so ignore this post.

"A mummy of a middle-aged woman dating to Ancient Greek times has been discovered in a lead coffin inside a marble sarcophagus, the first clear indication of embalming in Greece from the era when the Romans ruled there." Read the full story here.

Salve, DD. We agree; even so, bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. Do you remember the 1979 classic Walter Hill's film The Warriors? ("Come out to plaaay-hay!"); BTW, soon to be re-filmed by Tony Scott, with a tentative release date of 2010 and now set in LA instead of NYC. Maybe someone recalls some classical names within it (Cyrus, Cleon, Ajax). It was loosely based in a 1965 homonym novel by by Sol Yurick, itself loosely based on the Anabasis. In fact, one of the novel's main characters was constatly reading a comic book adaptation on Anabasis. Anyway, the film's plot line is much closer to Anabasis than the novel: the Warriors have to get home to Coney Island by travelling through territory controlled by hostile gangs. Yeah, it never occured to me until I read that news brief that the Warriors was loosely based on Xenophon. Makes me want to re-watch it.

Columbia Pictures has bought an adaptation of Anabasis, a memoir by Xenophon, a Greek soldier who was amongst a group of mercenaries hired by Persian Prince Cyrus the Younger to fight his brother Artaxerxes II for the throne of Persia. What are everyones thoughts on this? Prediction: Hollywood will butcher it and mutilate ancient history--as per usual with good ol' Hollywood.

This is fantastic! I want to hear more ancient jokes!

America. Indiana.

First Ladies travel the world in a capacity in which, often times, they represent America, usually in nothing more than a goodwill capacity. As such, I think a candidate

I don't think you quite got my comment in response to FVC's statement regarding the "problem" with "the average American". My comment was not to imply or agree that Americans (or members of any other nationality) are dumb -- or even "smarter than most people assume." When speaking of the average whatever, one should bear in mind that the word "average" implies the peak of the Bell Curve. There's a pretty good chance that there are going to be an equal number of dumb and smart folks on either side of "average". That was the gist of the comment. As for Borat... The popularity of the Borat movie is by no means proof that every person who went to see it, and laughed their asses off at the hilariously crude physical humor in the movie, also recognized the irony in the movie. As for your assertion that "it's the liberals and the democrats who are pissed off over the [New Yorker] cover"... Note that the New Yorker article states: "The response from both Democrats and Republicans was explosive." In fact here's one apparent "liberal and democrat" who was most definitely not "pissed off" by the New Yorker cover: Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Art Spiegelman. You can listen to an interesting NPR interview ("But both Obama and rival John McCain said they found it offensive.") with Mr. Spiegelman here: "Art Spiegelman Defends 'New Yorker' Obama Cover". Click on the "Listen Now" at the NPR site. -- Nephele My apologies. To be honest I only skimmed the thread, and, reading your post, I jumped to conclusions. It just iritates me to no end to hear people condemn Americans and dismiss them as morons, which was why I responded the way I did. Again, I apologize. I do, however, have another gripe, which I will take up ... now.

It's not just "the average American" who often fails to grasp satire. Regardless of where you live, think of one person you know whom you would describe as being "of average intelligence." Then realize that 50% of everyone else is dumber than that. -- Nephele I completely disagree. Americans are a lot smarter than most people assume. People do get satire; the issue with the New Yorker cover was that it was designed to provoke and infuriate. Every issue regarding the magazine cover strikes me as ridiculous and overblown--it is, after all, a magazine cover; and a funny one at that--but to suggest that people 'don't get it' is too condescending, I think. Remember, Fox executives thought Borat was too sophisticated for average Americans, and so they only released it in 800 theaters. It went on to own the weekend, and make over 150 million dollars. The furor over the New Yorker cover is strictly political, nothing more, nothing less. To say that people aren't sophisticated enough is off-target, I think. After all, it's the liberals and the democrats who are pissed off over the cover, and they constantly ridicule the right and conservatives, whom they portray as Nascar-loving troglodytes. Now that the tables have been turned, and fingers are pointed back at them, their natural inclination is to blow up and to not take kindly to something of this nature