WotWotius

A while back I wrote an essay on Greco-Roman attitudes towards the Iron age Britons, and the validity of the contemporary sources surrounding them (you may recognize it from a previous post). And here it is... How useful are the Greco-Roman sources in determining the truth about life and events in Iron Age Britain? History is by no means set in stone. Though we can piece together much of the past

I am about to start a degree in Ancient History and Archaeology, so I would welcome any of these books.

I noticed that when engaging in a bridge battle, phalanxes on RTR are unstoppable when place correctly. I was able to conquer most of Asia just by stratically placing phalanx armies over various bridges.

An official apology was never given. The standards were not returned until the time of Augustus, and even then it one of the many 'agreements' of Marcus Agrippa's eastern settlement with the Parthians. I do not really have the time to post any more details on the matter, but maybe someone else will. Edit: sorry I just saw the ubove post.

'If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, than it's good enough for me' -U.S. Senator from the 1950s. Methinks that the quote above is the definition of 'foot in mouth'.

Robin Lane Fox, wasn't the Historical consultant for Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' (yawn)?

The vast majority of slaves during the time of the Principate were probably the products of foreign wars. However, according to various sources, many slaves from this time were in fact trained Greeks from (surprisingly...) Greece: a land that had been under the wing of Rome for two to three centuries. My question is, how did Rome acquire so many Greeks as slaves when at this time there was never a war against Greek cities?

Octavian did however seem to present his personal rivalry as a political one against Egypt; this was due to the fact that a national war against a foreign enemy would look much better than a civil one. The whole episode of Octavian stealing MA's will, and the way that Antony was seen as a product of a corrupt eastern land thereafter, clearly indicates that Octavian was indeed using political ideologies to justify his personal grudge.

This is probably a bit off topic (I should probably start a new one), but it could be argued that, unlike in the timeframe mentioned above, the state of the Empire in the period thereafter (44-31 BC) was determined entirely by personal grudges: both Octavian and Antony were Caesareans, and when they fell out ideologies played second fiddle to their individual bitterness towards each other.

So would everybody be in favour of meeting in late September/early October?

It

Sounds like something the Hundred Acre Wood militia would use... :thumbs_up: But seriously, I am also curious to know how the natives of the Black Sea area were able to get their enemies to ingest poisonous honey so easily.

'I fought the lawn, and the lawn won'

I didn't realise that there was so little written about Cassius' early life. One might think that as the man was such a pivotal character during the death of the Republic, ancient historians would have bothered to document his early life.

So how exactly was this poisoned honey used against enemies? Was there food poisened with it? or was it somehow used in battle?

Could you recomend me a good source on the life of Cassius Longinus?

I think this was because during Republican times, Romans (particularly the men) felt no shame for their physical appearance. This was indeed mirrored in the ruggedly realistic republican busts, but also in the fact that prominent Romans received really unflattering cognomen (e.g. Cicero) without offence. Rome evidently was not 'dating culture'; marriages were often arranged to bestow financial or political gain on the participants

I read somewhere (I cannot remember where) that Cassius apparently opted to assassinate Caesar not because he was concerned about restoring the Republican system, but due to the fact that Caesar refused to promote his career on the cursus honorum. Basically Cassius murdered Caesar for personal, rather than collective gain. This may indeed to wrong, but I was wondering if anybody had any more information on the matter.

Internet Explorer for me (as with most people I have jumped on the Bill Gates bandwagon).

The motive was to restore the Republic. There may have been jealousy and other emotional responses involved, but it was clear that the reason for the assassination was because they believed Caesar was a tyrant. Additionally, Brutus may have been shamed by Caesar's apparent affair with his mother, Servilia. Brutus probably saw assassination as the perfect means to avenge such opprobrium.

The article I read additionally mentioned that even after large-scale resistance in the province had been quelled, Rome still had a domineering military presence in the area.

It is called the art of being an orator: in order to arouse a crowd your points must be emphasised, exaggerated and even falsified, and that was perceived to be acceptable then. Maybe Antony was giving Cicero a taste of his on oratory medicine (vengeance of the philippics maybe?).

Is there any textual evidence for the existence of King Caradoc?

True say

I recently read an article by David Mattingly in the BBC History Magazine on the Roman presence in Britain. He argued that civilization in Roman Britain was less luxurious and more oppressive than it was later epitomised as: 'For the majority, the benefits of Roman rule were less tangible than the conventional archaeological presentation of Roman Britain would suggest. The large size of the military garrison exacted a high price on civilian communities in all parts of the island and this continued for generation after generation. The slow development and early decline of towns (and limited extension of know area of civil local government in southern Britain) is hardly a resounding success story...Britannia was an expensive province and one with a distinctly military and financially exploited character...'