WotWotius

No.

Right! I had a sneaking suspicion that I was Utica to begin with; I just could not find any images. Right, here is another:

Utica!

Sadly, the leftist nature of my country dictates that 'special treatment' will not be dished out for individual cases. *sigh* I am, however, going to keep on the offensive until I get my passport! Though I thank you both for your advice.

About two months ago, I lost my passport in the midst of deepest, darkest Exeter. These days it is one of the few forms of recognisable I.D., and therefore those of us blessed (or cursed) with a youthful exterior must risk keeping on our person

Corinth?

'Thus encouraged, he made an attempt on the island of Mona, as a place from which the rebels drew reinforcements; but in doing this he left his rear open to attack.' -Tac, Agr, 14.

Bull

Excellent! Wow, that was fast. Was it really so easy? Ok then, here is another:

Thank you for all of your suggestions. I think that I will go with the book by Martin.

El Djem (Thysdrus)?

I was wondering if anybody could recommend a good, bare-bones reference book on Ancient Greek history in its entirety. I am not looking for a vastly interpretive angle; I only want a book detailed to the extent of giving me a good overview. Does anybody know of any?

I was dipping into the Tacitus' Histories the other day, and I came across a fine example of his pungently cynical comments (in this case, regarding the last words of Galba): 'extremam eius vocem, ut cuique odium aut admiratio fuit, varie prodidere. alii suppliciter interrogasse quid mali meruisset, paucos dies exolvendo donativo deprecatum: plures obtulise ultro percussoribus iugulum: agerent ac ferirent, si ita [e] re publica videretur. non interfuit occidentium quid diceret.' 'His last words have been variously reported according to men that hated or admired him. Some have said that he begged and asked what harm he had deserved, imploring for a few days' respite to pay the troops their largess. The majority said that he voluntarily offered his neck to the blow and blade them, 'Come, strike, if it serves the Empire's need'. Whatever he said mattered little to his assassins.' - Histories, Book 1, 41. In your view, what is Tacitus' greatest moment?

Ancient Rome: DK Eyewitness Guide and The Rotten Romans (Horrible Histories) by Terry Deary were the first books that I ever read on the Romans (aged 7 methinks...); I thoroughly recommend both of them.

Well the book has to be concise seeing that it covers 607 years of history in just over 500 pages. If you would like a book that is just as detailed, but written in less of an over-indulgent manner, I would recommend The Roman Republic by Michael Crawford. I must warn you however; its bare-bones style essentially makes it a reference book.

Alexandria?

He has withdrawn from public life until he has finished his exams...

I would recommend the above title. Although it is nothing particularly dynamic, it is an excellent reference book, and I am currently using it for revision.

I was not saying that all stereotype derive from lack of contact; I was just giving it as one factor behind Rome's racist attitudes. What I actually meant was that although Roman writer's possessed more than a deep-seated hatred for foreigners, generalisations in Roman ethnography (particularly when looking at slightly more obscure races) often sprang from poor research and ignorance. Tacitus, to use an example, based his account of the Jews not on contemporary Jewish texts, but on older, generally Greek, sources written when contact between the classical world and the Jews was more sporadic. As a result of doing so, Tacitus gives us a highly garbled; highly generalised; and a highly blackening account of the Jews. Yes the Rome of Tacitus' time had been in direct contact with Judea for a number of years, but one must keep in mind that in during this time, only a few senator had visited the province in person (be it through military service, or as a governor), and to them it was just a backwater

The answer is Chichester! Who wants to go next?

The Romans were beaten by other groups from time to time (e.g., Greeks), yet they did not harbor everlasting enmity. Isn't it possible that the German and Gallic victories were so galling to the Romans precisely because the Roman viewed them as especially inferior? To be defeated by an equal is no great dishonor; to be defeated by an inferior is maddening. Yes, this was often the case when the Romans were assessing the Gauls. The Gallic sack of Rome in 390 BC left a profoundly long-lasting effect on the psyche of Rome. From that day on, most Romans assigned themselves to an almost Sun-reader-like mentality, viewing Gallic culture as something that does not go beyond 'sacking things'. As a result, only a few Roman authors try to look beyond this image and delve further into the nature of the Gauls

In my view, aggressive nationalism, manifest destiny and jingoism are all subgroups of racism.

The Roman mindset was higly responsible for the rise of the Empire. Superiority in every sense was ingrained within the psyche of all Romans; this often resulted in arrogance and xenophobia, but also a belief that it was in Rome's destiny to rule. This superiority was not restricted to the ruling aristocracy, the ordinary people of Rome felt this way; they accordingly imposed honours and offices on aristocrats who brought them victories - Scipio Aemilianus being a fine example - and they rejected aristocrats who appeased foreigners and even allies - the tribune Livius Drusus for example. This belief was present everywhere in Rome; it often surfaced in Roman literature: 'Of Mars and his own name endow the Roman nation. To these I set no bounds, either in space or time; Unlimited power I give them.' - Virgil Aeneid I. 278-80 Although Greek, the republican historian Polybius was a keen supporter of this ideology; the works were almost a doctrine written to inform other Greeks why they should assign themselves to Rome. Generally speaking, the Romans viewed foreigners in two different ways: the subjected - people who had submitted to Rome, and therefore worthy of a Roman lifestyle; and the defiant - people that resisted Rome, and therefore must be destroyed. Edit: spelling.

The statue was made around 1856-1885, but it wasn

The Romans, in their own little world, believed that due to the nature of their location, they had managed to maintain the balance between the hardy (but weak-spirited) nature of the barbarian north, and the intellectual (but crafty) character of the Greek south: - Vitruvius, Architecture VI. I. 9-11