sylla

The Carthaginian campaigns in Italy from the Punic War II had many parallels with WWII Operation Barbarossa; an invading army with vastly superior net military performance that is nevertheless utterly contained and neutralized by an immense and painful logistic effort from the invaded power. An obvious difference is that the Wehrmacht had no major defeat for just six months from the beginning of the invasion, while Hannibal's army had to wait for full seven years until the fall of Capua. Most of the examples of undefeated armies for comparable lapses that eventually lost their wars (eg, the French in Spain in the early XIX century or the Americans in Vietnam in the middle XX century) were facing mostly irregular forces and controlling most of the disputed territory, including almost all the main urban centers; the Romans preserved a fully functional state that remained in control of most of Italy even after Cannae. The main reasons why Rome was not defeated at Punic War II by Carthage, Macedonia and their allies after so much time were mostly included within such immense logistic effort: - More than anything else, the vastly superior recruiting potential from Italy in comparison with their enemies, presumably in the order of four or five Romans & allies for each Punic subject. - The Fabian strategy, basically the Roman version of scorched earth. - The full development of the Roman position warfare, both defensive and offensive. - The ferrous and merciless Roman control over the other Italian populations, hardly always "voluntary", as attested by Capua, Syracuse, the Lucanians, and the Bruttians, among others.. - The permanent and uncontested Roman naval supremacy over almost all the Mare Nostrum, effectively connecting the multiple theatres of war for themselves and isolating their opponents at the same time. - The huge supply support from Sicily and (fundamentally) from the nominally neutral Egypt. - A rather long line of active Roman allies, notoriously Pergamon, the Aetolian League, Sparta, Massalia, and multiple Celtic, Iberian and African nations. The odds were clearly favorable to the Roman side at 218 BC, and it's an outstanding tribute to the military abilities of Hannibal and his army that they were able to hold the Romans against the ropes for so long. More than for their possible political consequences, the battle of Cannae is famous as the ideal model for the annihilation battle from a numerically inferior attacker, since its own era through the Reanaissance and Von Schlieffen up to present day; paradoxically, we know very little for sure about it, as is the case for many other ancient battles; even the debate on which side of the Aufidius river did the battle take place is still ongoing (the right bank seems to be mostly favored). There

We essentially agree here; however, being the skulls together doesn't necessarily imply decapitation (SIC): "As well as the skulls, the archaeologists found torso and leg bones buried in separate sections of the pit". This separate burying might have been done for ritual reasons.

My favorite Vespasian's quotation would still be Atqui... e lotio est / "Yet it comes from urine" (Suetonius Vespasian, 23, 3), on the lack of bad odor from tax money.

This fascinating issue seems to be the same one pointed by Ludovicus.

Ave, TTS; I would start by thoroughly reading UNRV articles from head to tail.

Sadly, Mr. Hinerman didn't state how was this piece (lot 189/sale 1314) authenticated (to be fair, it seems neither did Christie's itself). (BTW, I'm not sure if the Wired editor's "maxima plaga" would be the best translation for "critical hit").

If I knew nothing about Christianity aside from the mere fact of its existence, all their scriptures sacred to the cult had disappeared, and all that remains was the Mithraic archaeological artifacts and oblique references, I may have thought they were both the same religion.

Nobody questions the causes must precede the effects. We're talking here mostly about historical determinism, which is hardly just a NN's theory; this stuff had been permanently on the philosophers' discussion table for at least the last three centuries. Inevitably, the core concept in NN's question is the adjective "inevitable"; it implies that the odds for any alternative outcome must be infinitesimally low. Strictly speaking, few if any historic processes may be rightly labeled as inevitable, because virtually all of them have a large number (even thousands) of contributing factors ("causes") for (or against) the historic actual outcomes; hence, easy conceivable little changes in any of them might have completely changed such outcomes. From your own examples: - Columbus: his project might have been accepted by the King Joao II of Portugal. - WWII: Adolf Hitler might have been executed (or simply killed) after the failed beer hall putsch of 1923. - WWI: UK and France might have begun a war after the Fashoda affair in 1898; it's extremely hard to imagine which side would have the other European powers fallen in. - American Civil War: a more able administration than those of Pierce or Buchanan might have effectively promoted a peaceful agreement between the states. - Alexander Magnus: had Phillip II of Macedon not been timely assassinated by Pausanias, Alexander's single mindedness in conquering Asia might very well have been forecasted. - Hannibal: it's debatable if he ever had any real chance of finishing Rome, even after Cannae.

It seems it has far more eccentricity than character.

Las Medulas.

True, but the footnote's author does cite one other 19th century historian as his source for that passage -- William Blair -- whom I suspect may have himself cited ancient sources for that statement in his oft-quoted and, apparently, definitive work on the subject of Roman slavery. I was unable to find a free download of Blair's work on the Web, but I see from WorldCat that the New York Public Library has a copy of Blair's Inquiry into the State of Slavery Amongst the Romans. If I get a chance this weekend, I may visit NYPL and have a look for that book. Or, you could check out WorldCat.org and see if there's a library near you that has Blair's work in its collection. Blair's work seems to be mostly found in university libraries. -- Nephele Thanks for the search, Nephele;judging by Blair's long footnote, I would love to eventually check out more of his work. However, that's hardly required for Ludovicus

Seleucia Pieria?

I believe this poem was lost, we may have a fragment of two lines from it however this is disputed. Those two lines are quoted by Edward Champlin in his Nero (SIC): Dices culminibus Remi vagantis / infandos domini nocentis ignes "The unspeakable flames of the criminal tyrant roamed the heights of Remus..."

Is it in Italy?

Thanks! I have finally found it; it's the note that comments the following statement: "there were many other methods of freeing slaves, but these did not confer complete freedom". It was an especial form of testamentary manumission, because both the concubine and the children

The Cloaca Maxima?

Indeed, that book is handy in addressing one of the original questions posed by Ludovicus at the start of this thread: From a footnote on page 28: "On the death of a master who had maintained his slave-girl as a concubine, she and her children got free, by law, in spite of any thing to the contrary, contained in the will of the deceased. A female slave, marrying a free person, with consent of her master, who gave her a dowry, was forthwith deemed a freedwoman." -- Nephele P.S. For anyone who wants to see (and participate in) a practical application of slave titles from the cited book, Roman Antiquities, clicky here. I can always use more slaves. Yes, the resource answers my question, and what a great resource it is. Thanks for the link! I'm just discovering what a treasure trove is just a click away on Google Books. Adam's Roman Antiquities is indeed an excellent book, quite congruent with Smith

BTW, Prof. Jona Lendering (www.livius.org) has some nice theologically neutral reviews on the historic relevance and context of many NT related figures, like Herod I and his dynasty, Pilate, Caiaphas, John the Baptist and naturally Jesus, from a classical scholar standpoint and cross-referenced with plenty of primary sources.

You know, idealization of the past is one of the first signs of intellectual aging.

Is this a water-related structure?

Sounds fine to me. It's probably the way the things should always have been.