WotWotius

I think Norway was a concept invented by the Victorians to give Scandinavia some modesty - 'the fig leaf of Europe', as it were.

Romulus wasn't exaclty an historical figure. Having declared the 'freedom of the Greek' at the Isthmus Games in 196 BC, T. Quinctius Flamininus became the first 'historically-viable' Roman to receive godlike honours (in Chalkis). Although this was merely an extension of the Hellenistic practice of ruler worship

The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. I read it cover to cover over the course of three shifts at work - I work in a secondhand bookshop, you see. Before that, I read Xenophon's Anabasis. I love my job...

Great reviews, Ursus. There is, however, one other book worth mentioning in regards to the Hellenistic World - namely Peter Green's Alexander to Actium. It is interesting in that Green is not afraid to adopt a critical approach towards the notion of Hellenism as a beacon of culture. He argues that although certain aspects of the arts flourished under the various Hellenistic kings, they were only the few that benefited from royal patronage; those that did not, fell short and dissipated. If all goes well this Christmas, I will stop having to rely on my copy from the library. If so, the book may be worth reviewing...

What if Rome had invented the internet.

The cultural relativism (i.e. the belief that, by definition, all cultures are equal) of the postcolonial backlash is indeed an annoyance. Yes, all cultures are worthy of further study, but some clearly had a more of a resounding impact on the world than others - in reference to Ancient Rome, this is clearly the case. We thus should not marginalize the study of Rome on the basis modern, and somewhat irrelevant, ethics.

What is quite interesting about the Romanian language is that it still has some scant traces of pre-Latin Daco-Getae in it. Take, for example, some of the country's river names: although adapted to Latin, I am told that they still sound quite Thracian (e.g. Marisius, Alutus, Ordessus, Crisius, Rhabon, Donaris, Pyrhetus, Ararus, Napenis). Also the names of ten plants with healing powers (apparently) still maintain the Thracian names.

I remember my Ancient History teacher telling me about a similar film advertised under the title of 'The Affairs of Messalina'. She said she spend ten minutes watching the film until she realised that she was in the wrong kind of cinema, watching the wrong kind of film. Apparently there was very history in the dialogue; in fact, there was very little dialogue at all...

To the question of "why to study History?", this is certainly not one of the right answers. I think we have plenty of evidence that chauvinism and historical manicheism have never been useful, but often dangerous, as you can always use them to support even the most heinous actions (vg, genocide). Besides, they preclude us from an objective analysis of the dynamics of History. Why thank you, squire. I think what is most alarming is that cultural values have percolated into many aspects of historical analysis - in particular, Art History. Take, for example, the study of Upper Palaeolithic cave paintings: upon their discovery in the 19th Century, cave painting were thought be fakes as the new Darwinian thinking on evolution was interpreted as meaning that early humans could not have been sufficiently advanced to create art; during the 1950s-60s, the world's fascination with space travel was reflected in the fact that the study of cave painting was dominated by theories involving the cosmos; in the 1960s-70s feminism was often a key explanation for their existence; even Marxist theory has been applied. Again, this is just one of many example.

Roman Dacia: archaeology, history and politics: describe the impact of modern politics on the way Roman Dacia has been presented in the archaeological and historical literature. In the study of History, the detachment of one’s own cultural values can be hard to achieve. In most examples of historical writing – including the ancient sources (e.g. Tacitus, Annals, 1.1; Livy, 1.1.1.) – the claim of impartiality rarely departs from the text; but, with most examples of historical writing, the execution of full impartiality is a rarity. It is, as it were, hard not to claim that cultural bias is ingrained at a subliminal level (Mattingly, 1997, 14). The mindset of the historian always resonates throughout his prose. Take, for example, the below quotes: ‘[Rome is called] the nurse and parent of all other lands, elected by the gods’ will in order to make heaven itself brighter, to bring scattered peoples into unity, to make manners gentle, to draw together by community of language the jarring and uncouth tongues of nearly countless nations, to give civilization to humankind…’ (Pliny the Elder, NH, 3.39 [c.75 CE] quoted by Champion, 2004, 260). ‘Our civilization seems firmly set in many lands; our task is rather to spread it further and develop its good qualities than to defend its life. If war destroys it in one continent, it has other homes. But the Roman Empire was the civilized world; the safety of Rome was the safety of all civilization.’ (Francis Haverfield, 1915, 11). It is evident that both authors are products of an imperial mentality (the former a product of the Roman Empire, while the other a product of the curiously similar British Empire): both have a sense of manifest destiny; both raise the notion that not all races have equal scope to contribute to wider ‘civilisation’ (Woolf, 1998, 5). In reference to the passage by Pliny, one can see that superiority, in every sense, was ingrained within the psyche of the Roman elite; this gave rise to both xenophobia and a sense of jingoism (Rich, 1995, 39), and this subsequently distorts modern perceptions of Rome. Like many other historians of the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries, Haverfield is very much of the opinion that the European imperialism of his time was the heir of the Classical imperialism of Pliny’s (Woolf, 1998, 6). Haverfield’s fully-fledged endorsement of the Roman Empire stems from the notion that the Empire was a model on which British Empire could be based. In his book The Romanization of Britain, Haverfield draws parallels between the ‘…rule of civilized white men over the uncivilized Africans…’ (Harverfield, 1915, 13), and the ‘civilizing’ nature of the Romans. Because a positive assessment of Rome would, in the eyes of Haverfield’s contemporaries, ultimately shine positive light on European imperialism, many ancient sources advocating the civilizing nature of Rome – such as the above quote from Pliny – are taken at face value (Haverfield, 1915, 12); this over-dependence on the ancient sources, as we shall see in the assessment of Roman Dacia (roughly modern-day Romania), will contribute to other forms of politically-influenced History. Haverfield’s example of contemporary events influencing History did not just occur in isolation: Rome, as it were, has always been used a springboard for wider ideologies. Even the academically renowned work of the 19th-century historian Theodore Mommsen tells us just as much about the ideologies of his time as it does Rome. One could even go as far as to say that his most famous work, the Geschichte, was a political pamphlet founded in the light of the events of 1848 (Freeman, 1997, 30) – Mommsen, in many ways, viewed Italy’s unification during the Early Republic as a model of a unified Germany. With the two above examples in mind, it is very easy to see that the study of Roman antiquity, alongside almost every other period of the past, deals not only with a pursuit of the past, but also with fulfilling one’s own political agenda (Freeman, 1997, 30). For the study of History can reinforce both a national and political identity. In the context of studying Roman Dacia, both of these concepts have coloured the subject. Whether we are looking at the province with an 18th-century mindset, or a near contemporary one, nationalism and political ideologies – even when at a subliminal level – dominate the pages of Dacian history (Haynes and Hanson, 2004, 27). Before we proceed, however, it is first necessary to discuss the main Romanian schools of thought that highlight the interplay between they study of the past and identity. In taking a highly generalised viewpoint, there are three main schools of thought on early Romanian History (Haynes & Hanson, 2004, 27): the so-called ‘Latinists’, who were of the view that Rome was a uniting force, and that modern-day Romanians have an ethic connection to Romans – the Romanian language does, after all, derive from Latin (V

This is just a little aside, but that is not a Warwhichshire accent. Anybody who has attended Eton tend to lose any trace of their regional accent - the person in the recording to far too 'well spoken' to be labeled as somebody with a Midland's accent; his vowels are too open (e.g. he says 'pa®th' as opposed to the Midland 'path').

I do not quite believe this story myself, but I was once told (I forget by whom) that the original puritan settlers of America deemed it blasphemous to breath through one's nose, which closed many of their vowel sounds. Whether or not this is a true story is open to scrutiny

Latakia?

The Urban Image of Augustan Rome by Diane Favro is an excellent book on first-century Rome: it discusses both the physical appearance of Augustus' Rome, but also the physical progression of the city from Republic (a period to which half the book is dedicated) to principate.

Yes, but let's not take this discussion out of context. My point being that the army, for many Roman aristocrats, was a springboard for a 'misspent youth'.

Adolescence was still a well-defined (psychological) concept prior to child labor laws. The name for the concept was "Youth", which was distinct from childhood and full adulthood. Again, while the legal rights of adolescents (or 'youth') has varied over centuries, there is clearly recognizable adolescent behavior going back to the ancient world. If we think about it a little, I'm sure people can dig up good Roman references to the risk-taking, sexual exploration, and rebellion of young people who were becoming adults (whether their parents and society liked it or not). Off the top of my head, I recall one of Cicero's Philippics chastising Antony for his adolescent escapades with Curio. In the Greek comedies, there is also a terrific scene depicting young lovers being interrupted by three old hags; a scene that would be situationally identical to the horror of finding your grandmother's friends flirting with your teen boyfriend via MySpace. Do not forget Hadrian's - along with many other aristocratic Romans at that time - adolescent escapades in the army. Apparently, much to the disappointment of Trajan (then his legal guardian), Hadrian's military career was damaged by his love of hunting - a passion that often distracted him from his duties.

Confisco

Or, if ambition takes hold, you could swim! Anyway, I am not too sure if I can make those dates as I will be excavating at Vindolanda at that time; and, if all goes well, I may be at the British School at Rome the following month. I would also like to apologise for my resent absence from the forum over the past month - up until now, I have been internetless in my new house, so I only really get five minutes a day in the library.

*Groan* Good photoshopping though.

Fear as an incentive for war forever present in the minds of many Romans. Even when an enemy was of little threat to Rome, fear of what they may become was seemly a good reason to wage war on them; this militaristic incentive is most obvious when looking at Carthage

Bingo!

No, no and no. Keep in mind that we are guessing cities, not walls.

Did a high proportion of Patricians make a conscious decision not to enter the senate, and therefore adopt a life of business?

Yes, due to the USA only possessing just under 500 years of History, there is a greater need for archaeologists to unearth the nation's rich Prehistory. I have been on digs in both America and in the UK, and the only real differences that I can see - apart from the fact that some sites in America have a tendency to over-complicate the recording of strata (although this may also be the case in Britain) - are dictated by climate. On the sites I visited in the USA, the climate was quite arid. As this was so, the removal of the topsoil in fresh squares could only really be done in two ways: via a JCB (and therefore potentially harmful), or through the slow and steady use of a trowel (which, for some reason, seem to be much larger in America). On the digs on which I participated in the UK, the wet & miserable nature of the climate meant that the topsoil was loose enough to be removed with a spade. I am making sweeping and fairly inexpert generalisations, but I do not think that there is any harm in sharing one's experiences.