M. Porcius Cato

Not with a vorpal blade, I'd wager. You've gone up in my estimations MPC I've levelled? Excellent!

You sure about that? What other early Mediterranean cultures had human sacrifice as part of a funeral rite? Then strangling was impermissalbe? Don't tell Samson the Sadducee Strangler! What is the evidence that the percentage of deaths decreased? What was the % decrease?

Not with a vorpal blade, I'd wager.

The full dope at Wired Magazine.

That's a leap--just because they are isolated from us, doesn't mean they don't have contact (including violent contact) with surrounding tribes. I'm guessing the war paint isn't to impress the toucans.

I'm not sure that neglect is so beneficent. If 'uncontacted' Tribe A goes on a killing raid of 'contacted' Tribe B, is it really moral for the state to decline to intervene?

Good point about the Marian reforms: it's an oversimplification to think that every reform was designed to beat a particular class of competitors (e.g., phalanxes, war bands, etc.). The 'Camillan' reforms were the reforms that changed the hoplite army of the regnal period into the republican army described by Livy. I'm guessing the idea is that this organization is sufficiently different from the Polybian army to need its own designation. Digging around for more in depth treatment, I found Miller, M.C.J., 'The Principes and the so-called Camillan Reforms' in: Ancient World XXIII.2 (1992) 59-70. This essay is also reprinted in Michael F. Pavkovic (Ed.), The Army of the Roman Republic. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of either.

I'm not sure I'd impute that much drama or ingenuity to Christian scribes, but more to the issue: Isn't your conjecture completely arbitrary? Is there any passage in Tacitus that you couldn't, with just as much evidence, dismiss as a copyist's invention? Nothing in the passage itself is out of the ordinary. Certainly Nero was a drama queen, and the episode quoted is just another example of this. Plus, such behavior at an execution is particularly tasteless for exactly the reason cited by Tacitus: it makes the execution itself appear to be designed "to glut one man's cruelty" and elicits compassion for even the most vile criminal. Even today we recognize this as a danger of public (or worse, televised) executions -- the executed obviously treat the event with much seriousness, whereas the producers of the spectacle do not, and the contrast elicits sympathy for the executed. (The cell phone video of Saddam Hussein's execution, for example, had this effect -- making Saddam look dignified and his Shiite executors cruel, despite a lifetime of non-televised cruelty by Saddam against the Shiites.)

No--the people stopped electing magistrates during the reign of Tiberius. Transfer of election of magistrates to the senate was the most definitive break from the republican constitution, and it's also a full return to the way the senate operated under the Tarquin monarchs. My source is terribly outdated, however: Abbott, Frank Frost (1901). A History and Description of Roman Political Institutions. Still looking for corroboration from an ancient source.

We're getting off-topic, but they are not mutually exclusive possibilities. The Servian reforms--like the 'Camillan', 'Polybian', and 'Marian' reforms--could have been designed to compete with the strongest enemies of Rome.

Great question. From Livy, it's fairly clear that the (legendary) king Servius Tullius assembled hoplites, presumably in the phalanx formation depicted in Etruscan art. It's also clear that this system was not used during the Punic Wars, where we have the wonderful description of the 'Polybian' legion (HERE's the Polybius, Bk 6). But how did the Polybian legion evolve? On this issue, there is (surprisingly) nothing in Adrian Goldsworthy's Complete Roman Army. However, Livy provides a nice answer in his description of the war with the Samnites (Book 8): At first the Romans used the large round shield called the clipeus, afterwards, when the soldiers received pay, the smaller oblong shield called the scutum was adopted. The phalanx formation, similar to the Macedonian of the earlier days, was abandoned in favour of the distribution into companies (manipuli); the rear portion being broken up into smaller divisions. The foremost line consisted of the hastati, formed into fifteen companies, drawn up at a short distance from each other. These were called the light-armed companies, as whilst one-third carried a long spear (hasta) and short iron javelins, the remainder carried shields. This front line consisted of youths in the first bloom of manhood just old enough for service. Behind them were stationed an equal number of companies, called principes, made up of men in the full vigour of life, all carrying shields and furnished with superior weapons. This body of thirty companies were called the antepilani. Behind them were the standards under which were stationed fifteen companies, which were divided into three sections called vexillae, the first section in each was called the pilus, and they consisted of 180 men to every standard (vexillum). The first vexillum was followed by the triarii, veterans of proved courage; the second by the rorarii, or "skirmishers," younger men and less distinguished; the third by the accensi, who were least to be depended upon, and were therefore placed in the rearmost line. When the battle formation of the army was completed, the hastati were the first to engage. If they failed to repulse the enemy, they slowly retired through the intervals between the companies of the principes who then took up the fight, the hastati following in their rear. The triarii, meantime, were resting on one knee under their standards, their shields over their shoulders and their spears planted on the ground with the points upwards, giving them the appearance of a bristling palisade. If the principes were also unsuccessful, they slowly retired to the triarii, which has given rise to the proverbial saying, when people are in great difficulty "matters have come down to the triarii." When the triarii had admitted the hastati and principes through the intervals separating their companies they rose from their kneeling posture and instantly closing their companies up they blocked all passage through them and in one compact mass fell on the enemy as the last hope of the army. The enemy who had followed up the others as though they had defeated them, saw with dread a now and larger army rising apparently out of the earth. There were generally four legions enrolled, consisting each of 5000 men, and 300 cavalry were assigned to each legion. A force of equal size used to be supplied by the Latins, now, however, they were hostile to Rome. The two armies were drawn up in the same formation, and they knew that if the maniples kept their order they would have to fight, not only vexilla with vexilla, hastati with hastati, principes with principes, but even centurion with centurion. There were amongst the triarii two centurions, one in each army - the Roman, possessing but little bodily strength but an energetic and experienced soldier, the Latin, a man of enormous strength and a splendid fighter - very well known to each other because they had always served in the same company. The Roman, distrusting his own strength, had obtained the consuls' permission before leaving Rome to choose his own sub-centurion to protect him from the man who was destined to be his enemy. This youth, finding himself face to face with the Latin centurion, gained a victory over him.

That claw? Which claw? There are eight different claws depicted in the link kindly provided by GPM.

Not so fast there, NN. Tacitus, who was no friend of the Christians, squarely indicts Nero for persecuting the Jesus cult: But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called 'Chrestians' by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. In fairness to Nero, though, there was circumstantial evidence that the Christians were to blame. Specifically, the conflagration started near the Capena Gate, where Christians lived (and not far from where Peter himself reportedly spent his last days) in a Jewish quarter of the city near the Circus Maximus. And while the fire spread from there, it managed to leave the Jewish quarter itself (where the Christians lived) untouched. Cui bono? Of course, I say "cui bono?" with tongue in cheek. There were many other reasons that the fire may have started near the Capena Gate that have absolutely nothing to do with the Christians. So, Tacitus also had every right to suspect Nero of scapegoating the Christians. Of course, it's also possible that Nero didn't scapegoat the Christians (as Tacitus maintained) nor did the Christians start the fire (as Nero maintained). A third possibility is that Nero was a dunce, didn't engage in the counterfactual reasoning to see through the circumstantial evidence pointing to the Christian's guilt, and thus authentically believed (falsely) the Christians were to blame. Of the three possibilities, this one strikes me as the most plausible. Jove knows, Nero was no deep philosopher.

So Roman tribunes of the plebs sponsored the world's first tax rebate? Bravo!

1/3 percent? That's still another figure--not at all consistent with the previous two.

While you're looking for the Tarpeian Rock, you might consult Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide. Without it, I would have been lost in locating the Tarpeian Rock.

Nice review, Ursus.

This evidence doesn't really support the claim either. First, we've been talking about the monasteries in the era of the iconoclasts (c. 750 AD), and Cassiodorus practiced nearly two hundred years prior. Second, the only classical text known as being familiar to Cassiodorus was the Latin Josephus, and there is no evidence that Cassiodorus promoted its being copied. Third, Cassiodorus' school was set up in opposition to the secular schools of the East, and almost all the texts mentioned by Cassiodorus were those of the early Christians (e.g., Augustine--and if spreading Augustine was the chief purpose of these monasteries, I suddenly have a newfound respect for the Vikings!). Is this really the best evidence that the monasteries promoted the spread of classical texts? If so, I'm inclined to believe Erasmus' characterization of monks as largely illiterate con-men. Certainly the direct evidence of monks destroying the works of Archimedes is consistent with this characterization.

It's very nice evidence that the monks were copying something, but what is the evidence that they were copying -- let alone teaching -- classical philosophy, literature, poetry, letters, and so forth? Nothing in the existence of the scriptorium suggests that these classical works were being copied. Indeed, very often we find such horrors as monks ERASING classical works to create copies of hymnals and psalms (e.g., see HERE). Indeed, modern researchers are today uncovering lost works of antiquity -- including lost works of Archimedes and commentaries on Aristotle -- by using multispectral imaging to scan medieval prayer books for invisible traces of the ancient ink washed away by Christian monks. So, far from these scriptoria being preservers of antiquity, they were very often its leading destroyers.

Yes, absolutely. Σεβαστοῦ (Sebastos) was the Greek adaptation (clearly not a literal translation) for Augustus, developed by Octavius himself; just check on Res Gestae Divi Augusti , written both in Greek and in Latin; no less, no more. The Res Gestae was not written in Greek. It was translated into Greek. It was also translated into English--and probably Kurdish and Urdu at some point. So what? Shall we say there are "no discontinuities" between Augustan Rome and Victorian England? Absurd. Yes, Greek was widely used in the Hellenistic world. So what? Why would Livy have to translate all this Greek, I wonder? Do you think Constantine XI would have had the same problem? Of course not. Why? Because there is a clear discontinuity between the Roman Empire and its successor states--the common language of Roman law, Roman letters, Roman oratory, Roman military, and Roman business was Latin. If at Magnesia you had shouted orders to your soldiers in Greek, you'd have found a pilum sticking out your rear. Sorry if I sound like I'm channeling Cato the Elder here, but as much as I'm a philhellene, the Byzantine Empire was an ordinary successor state, like the People's Republic of China to the Qing Dynasty. Yes, there are commonalities between empires and successors, but "no discontinuities"? Absurd.

Given how many discontinuities were present--linguistic, constitutional, geographic, and demographic--there is no one date at which you can say "Now the Roman Empire ends and the Byzantine begins". However, the date of the greatest number of changes and of largest magnitude is the date of the traditional fall of the West.

As much as I'd like to read the early annalists like Fabius Pictor or to be able to fill in the lacunae of Tacitus, I most mourn the loss of Latin literature, like the plays of Accius. His play Brutus, about the expulsion of the kings, was wildly successful. As the author of lines like "Oderint dum metuant", Accius probably had much more to share than what has survived.

Sure, that's possible too, but it doesn't change my broader point against the idea that kids can be "civilized" or "socialized" by their parents. If kids could be "socialized" by their parents, then their improved behavior at home should transfer to school. But the finding from parenting interventions as well as correlational studies is that improved behavior at home doesn't even translate into improved behavior at school, let alone a lifetime of good behavior on subways, street corners, etc. I think the positive point is that children respond to situation-specific contingencies and the likelihood of transfer is related to how similar novel situations are to the situations where the good behavior was learned. There's nothing particularly radical about this idea -- it's just what we find in all kinds of learning phenomena across all kinds of species.

Disruptive behavior at home has a very low correlation with disruptive behavior at school. Kids who learn that their moms and dads aren't push-overs can and do find that their teachers are--and vice-versa. I think it's unrealistic to think that children can be inoculated against bad behavior.