M. Porcius Cato

Generally, yes. But the original question concerned Cannae, where the protection of the lines broke. For Scipio's question about his namesake, he should note that the tribunes at Cannae could find no protection behind their lines.

I don't know if you realize it or not, RW, but you've now switched to discussing the regal period rather than the early republic. The Roman constitution changed dramatically from the regal period to the early republic, changed gradually from the early republic to the late republic, and then changed dramatically again after Actium.

What is the evidence that the monasteries promoted education in the classics? Erasmus reported that monks were actively discouraged from learning Greek and that most monks were illiterate. It seems to me that Humanists and free-thinkers (like Gibbon) did far more to promote education in general--and classical education in particular--than did the monks.

Yes--especially since the front of the Roman line had been fighting for much longer than the African infantry that had been held in reserve. So the military tribunes not only had their jobs cut out for them, they were also getting annihilated along with their troops.

According to Goldsworthy's book on Cannae, the military tribunes were not fixed to a position on the battle line. Rather, they were to move around the battle line, encouraging troops and committing reserves.

Can I just ask--who wrote the UNRV article on taxation, and what sources were used?

Very cool odeon, NN. Look forward to seeing the Rostra spring to life as well. BTW, isn't it odd that most of the Lego works above are all-white? The temples weren't actually monochrome, and doesn't it take more effort to pick out all white pieces anyway?

Safeguards to prevent looting are important, but there is an equally important goal of safeguarding artifacts themselves. After the Taliban destroyed centuries-old Buddhist art, it would be irresponsible to assume that the ancestral home of an artifact is necessarily the safest home for that artifact today.

Goldsworthy's reconstruction makes the most sense to me. His depiction of the role of the African infantry is also consistent with Polybius (3.115): For a time the Spaniards and Celts kept their ranks and struggled bravely with the Romans, but soon, borne down by the weight of the legions, they gave way and fell back, breaking up the crescent. The Roman maniples, pursuing them furiously, easily penetrated the enemy's front, since the Celts were deployed in a thin line while they themselves had crowded up from the wings to the centre where the fighting was going on. For the centres and wings did not come into action simultaneously, but the centres first, as the Celts were drawn up in a crescent and a long way in advance of their wings, the convex face of the crescent being turned towards the enemy. The Romans, however, following up the Celts and pressing on to the centre and that part of the enemy's line which was giving way, progressed so far that they now had the heavy-armed Africans on both of their flanks. Hereupon the Africans on the right wing facing to the left and then beginning from the right charged upon the enemy's flank, while those on the left faced to the right and dressing by the left, did the same, the situation itself indicating to them how to act. The consequence was that, as Hannibal had designed, the Romans, straying too far in pursuit of the Celts, were caught between the two divisions of the enemy, and they now no longer kept their compact formation but turned singly or in companies to deal with the enemy who was falling on their flanks.

As much as I'd love to see the spread of Latin, I'd prefer to see students introduced to statistics. Of the neglected topics of pre-university study, statistics is the most broadly useful. Statistics--not Latin--is the lingua franca of business, economics, psychology, anthropology, sociology, political science, and all the medical sciences.

No mere local tribe could impose its law on all the tribes of Rome. But the Tribal Assembly (comitia tributa) was no mere local tribe--by the late republic, it had become the chief lawmaking body. You can find a decent explanation of the Assemblies HERE.

The Metro is cheap, clean, and convenient, but it fails to deliver you to the best neighborhood in DC--Georgetown. Except for Kinkead's in Foggy Bottom, the best restaurants (even on a budget) are in Georgetown. Take the Orange or Blue line to Foggy Bottom, walk to Georgetown along M street, and find anything with "Cafe" or "Bistro" in it and look at the menu (my faves as a college student: Cafe Larouche, Bistro Francais, and Pied du Cochon). If you love French Provencal, Georgetown is great--your Marriott (the JW?) has a mediocre restaurant. Georgetown also has nearly the only decent bookstores in the city (even if you've been spoiled by the Strand, Logic & Literature used to have a terrific collection of classics). Dumburton Oaks in Georgetown also has one of the finest collections of Byzantine art in the Western Hemisphere. BTW, don't pass up the chance to visit Georgetown for the fireworks display. All cities have fireworks. There is only one Georgetown--and it's the Palatine of our nation's capital.

From Wired Magazine: "We've reached an age where egotism is considered too much work. Why discuss your hopes and fears when you can just post the results of online tests, show cartoon versions of yourself and collect "friends"? It's a good thing Anais Nin wasn't a blogger, or instead of a steamy tale of sexual awakening and creative fervor, we'd just know that if she was a Ninja Turtle, she'd be Raphael."

The Portrait Gallery and National Gallery of Art were my favorite places to take visitors when I lived in DC. How long will you be staying?

I have one on Caesar's civil war, and I enjoyed the lavish illustrations.

OK, so what timeframe did you have in mind when you wrote:

Is Worcester no longer busy, noisy, and dirty?

Kosmo, your two constraints--after Augustus and before Christianity--leave a time period that is so tiny (less than 20 years) that it's trivial to argue with you. Let's grant your point--over a 20 year period, Roman culture failed to sway anyone outside its borders. So what? How many cultural assimilations--even of the most open societies--have ever occurred over such a small time period? Frankly, I don't see how your broader point justifies your extremely narrow constraints.

It's not the quantity that bothers me, but the quality: a needless repetition of the same old biographical details without any new insights on anything in the Roman world. If these new works were of the quality of Meier's innovative work on Caesar, I'd greet each new tome on the balding bully with open arms.

Sullafelix, can you provide a link to your extract from Seneca?

Taking bribes was unscrupulous, but let's not overlook the fact that, with or without bribes, non-Roman heads of state (i.e., client kings) typically had patrons in Rome. This system was important because it was a proto-federalist mechanism for spreading information about problems of mutual interest to Rome and its allies. Absent actual legal representation in Rome or outright conquest, it's hard to imagine an alternative system that would be as effective in balancing local rule with the overall objectives of the Roman state. Yes, Jugurtha was a rogue, but the system that Sallust decries is overwrought with Marian utopianism and underinformed by any consideration of constitutional alternatives.

When are you talking about? The shadowy regal period? Certainly by the second century, the comitia centuriata was not a legislative body. Laws and treaties were decided by the tribal assemblies, not by the antiquated comitia centuriata.

Given the strong influence of Greeks and Etruscans on Rome, how can you tell whether Gauls and Britons were more influenced by Massalia or by Rome? The development of Narbonensis certainly skyrocketed after Romans took an interest in the territory--surely that suggests that Greek and Etruscan influences only went so far. Moreover, Hellenization of barbarian tribes was a cultural phenomenon that took place all over the Mediterranean, and the rate of Hellenization must have been influenced by the ubiquity of Roman merchants and traders. These groups are constantly mentioned in our sources, and they were apparently viewed as enough of a threat that they were fairly often targeted by insecure local rulers (e.g., Mitridates, Vercingetorix, etc). Best I can tell from the written sources, from the presence of Roman coins, and from the spread of Roman public architecture, Roman merchants and traders--operating under the protection of Roman treaties and arms--spread Roman goods and the Roman way of life all over Spain, North Africa, and the Levant. The bottom line is that before Christian missionaries spread their gloomy Judaean message of "Weep and repent", enterprising capitalists spread the good news from Rome, Pecunia non olet.

Yes, indeed.