WotWotius

Guinness with a side order of Guinness.

Or the beginning of agriculture in the Neolithic?

A favorite of mine for a quick snack is......a bowl of Heinz tomato soup with cheddar cheese grated into until it melts than lashings of Worcestershire sauce to finish it off. It takes about 5 mins to prepare and is absolutely delicious. Yes, in soups, broths and - don't judge me for this - pot noodles are the only foodstuffs in which I fully appreciate the source. Oh, and let us not forget Worcester Sauce Wheat Crunchies...

Yep, that's pretty much what kills it for me. Then again, one can't be an adventurous eater if one thinks too much about the ingredients! Yes, I cannot stomach worcestershire sauce if I think about the ingredients too much. Also, it resemblance to garum/liquamen in quite off putting.

Also he did not have a daughter, and he most definitely did not escape the wrath of Vesuvius. But hey, I am just glad to see Caecilius in action.

I not really a fan of Dr Who, but this is certainly worth looking at, no least to watch the debut of Caecilius from the Cambridge Latin Course!

No, black pudding good, cider bad... This is really turning into quite a privative discussion.

I am likewise. I was merely highlighting that, while possessing obviously shortcomings, the early histories of Rome have some degree of fact ingrained in them, and probably need not be be scrutinised quite so severely.

Isn't this special delegation viewed by many historians as an old wives' tale? Yes, it is a fair enough point to say Livy's early histories are by no means gospel, but this is not a premise for dismissing the delegation as a complete falsehood. During this early period of her history Rome had had contact with the Greek world: it has been argued that during the time of Coriolanus - i.e. before the Twelve Tables - the Greek tyrant Hiero (I forget which one) sent grain to relieve a famine-stricken Rome. I am not suggesting that the emissaries sent to Athens were hanging on the Archons' every word; I am merely believe that diplomatic relations with the Athenians - which may or may not have influenced the decisions of the decumvirs - is not completely out of the question. Edit: grammar.

According to Goldsworthy, all marriages contracted prior to enlistment were declared illegitimate - the evidence for this is not mentioned. He also notes that centurion were within their rights to marry - again the evidence for this is not mentioned.

I am currently proofreading/ sort of proofreading my essays with a gin and tonic...does that count as a snack?

Good point. But why are you mentioning the exiles of 52 but not the exiles of 88? Since we're comparing Sulla to the triumvirate, you can't subtract only from one side! I was just using the year 52 as one example, but that is a fair point. That's probably a good idea. Why don't you give it shot and tell us what you find? I have to do two papers and quite a bit of Latin work, but after that I shall give it a shot.

Doesn't matter...

err..? Burn: n. An exclamatory response, generally used by a third party after someone has just received an insult (Source: Urban Dictionary, 2008).

*burn*

I would just like to point out - after a good half-hour of switching back and forth from PP's table - many of the dots on the chart represent exiles as well mortalities. For instance, out the eight dots for the year 52 BCE, only one represents an actual death - the rest were, for multiple reasons, exiled. Further, although it has been suggested that the late/mid first century BCE sample bias has been offset by the absence of Cicero's letters, a sample bias is still apparent. Take, for example our sources for the early period of the civil war (Gracchus to c.Sulla's death). These are mostly synoptic histories (Appian, Dio, Livy etc.), and only really documented the lives and deaths of the most notable individuals: the men whose actions could make or break history. Less notable people are only mentioned when could be use to prove a wider philosophical argument. The sources for the mid century conflict (Catiline to Caesar) are also aided by these synoptic histories. These, however, only play an auxiliary role in the reconstruction of this period as they give way to other, more comprehensive and near-primary sources: Sallust, Caesar and Hirtius. Both the comprehensive and primary(ish) nature of these sources mean that the deaths of historical footnotes were recorded alongside those of the famous republicans: Hirtius and Caesar mention the deaths centurions and primi pili; Sallust mentions the deaths of Catiline's legates. So for a greater insight into who killed the most, one is better off looking at figures from synoptic histories.

Aqueducts were built to supply urban areas and since Britain was on the fringe of empire the need to develop urban areas wasn't as keenly felt as say Italy, and in any case, Britain was well watered so the cost of such infrastructure was deemed too expensive. I do believe there is evidence for a wooden aqueduct near Dorchester: www.roseivy.demon.co.uk/aqua Also, the odd lead pipe is frequently unearthed during excavations of urban site in Roman Britain, including one bearing the name of Agricola himself - this being one of few sources on his governorship outside of Tacitus. So you see the aqueduct did catch on in Roman Britain, but, as with everything else 'Roman' in the province, they were a slightly more humdrum affair.

You could try Plutarch's biographies of Marius and Sulla. No other ancient sources come to mind.

Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign-by-reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome by Chris Scarre is a book that with provide you with a great frame of reference. I thoroughly recommend it.

It seems that the above quotations epitomise a major dichotomy in historical theory. On the one hand, the past, in the abstract sense, cannot be pinned down in the present in its original context; it is an untamed cloud of the

I commend Boris Johnson for standing for Mayor of London. Not because I have faith in his 'ability', mind you, but because if he were to be elected into office, he would no longer be Shadow Minister for Higher Education - and thus have less of a stake in my future as a student! The man is so unbelievably detached from reality it is not even funny: about a year ago he visited my university and spent more time discussing boating shoes than higher education; upon a visit to Portsmouth he blurted out that the place was full of 'drug addicts and fat people'! What seems to annoy me most about the man is that people tend to write off the above events as being 'his manner' or his 'eccentricity'. That would be fine and dandy were not in a position of potential power! As a writer, I rather like him. As a historian, however, he is rather piss poor. He has a tendency to use analogy all too freely - using modern, but fitting ones can often blur context, but in his case his comparison between Rome and the EU inflames this problem to its greatest extent. One thing on which I would actually commend him would be his role in saving the Ancient History A-level - at least his heart is in the right place.

We can all agree that internal marriage alliances within the Roman aristocracy was a regular occurrence. What seems to be far more of a rarity is a marriage alliance between the Roman elite and foreign monarchs. The reasons for this is quite simple, really: firstly it was probably considered beneath a Roman aristocrat's honour to have a foreigner affiliated with his noble gens; and secondly, unlike the marriage alliances of the Diodachi, an international alliance cemented in this fashion would have not been as beneficial to the multiple families of the aristocracy and Roman state as a whole. I do, however, know of two tenuous references to external Roman marriage alliance: 1) The famous proposal of Ptolemy (VI or VIII) to Cornelia, daughter of P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, widow of Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, who rejected him (Plu. Tib. Grac. 1.4.). 2) Octavian's proposal that his daughter, Julia, should marry the Getaic King Cotiso in order to strengthen their alliance against Antony (Sue. Aug. LXIII). Although Suetonius' source for this is in fact one of Antony's letters referring to Octavian backing out of the original betrothal of Julia to Antony's son in favour of a foreign candidate. This is most probably slander - the fact that the marriage in question never amounted to anything further proves this. Does anybody know of any other references of this nature?

Happy Birthday, Cato.

The Roman Triumph by Mary Beard. I have only just started, but I have heard good things about the book. This really is a useful book. Not particularly well written, but useful nevertheless.

Great job, Ursus. This was a series that I really wanted to watch - but alas, my family lost their free trial of the History Channel a week before it was aired, so I might just go ahead and buy the DVD.