M. Porcius Cato

And even far later; for example within the Justinian

OK, so keep reading beyond the first sentence of Tacitus, and you'll see that Tacitus does use res publica to refer to a specific type of regime. (I.7) Nam Tiberius cuncta per consules incipiebat, tamquam vetere re publica et ambiguus imperandi: ne edictum quidem, quo patres in curiam vocabat, nisi tribuniciae potestatis praescriptione posuit sub Augusto acceptae. For Tiberius would inaugurate everything with the consuls, as though the ancient constitution remained, and he hesitated about being emperor. Even the proclamation by which he summoned the senators to their chamber, he issued merely with the title of Tribune, which he had received under Augustus. (I.3-4) quotus quisque reliquus qui rem publicam vidisset? Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspectare... How few were left who had seen the republic! Thus the State had been revolutionised, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality. Stript of equality, all looked up to the commands of a sovereign... In both cases, it's clear that Tacitus uses res publica to mean more than just an ordinary term for the state. It's clearly something that contrasts with the state of affairs under a princeps, where men were "stript of equality' and "looked up to the commands of a sovereign". The dual use of res publica as both a generic term for the state and as a specific form of a good state is in no way unique to the Romans. The Greek term politeia works exactly the same way.

You're attacking a straw-man and quoting Brooks out of context. Far from claiming that the conflict was purely theological, Brooks points to political, cultural, and theological elements of the conflict: It begins with the spread of Greek culture. Alexander

I don't understand this post. The revolt against Hellenism had a strong element of class struggle? How so? What are the classes that you have in mind? In the sources I've read, the only classes mentioned were the Jewish priestly class versus the Seleucids and their Jewish allies. This leaves any other element of class struggle entirely to one's own imagination. Also, who deprived the urban masses of what rights? In what sense did the Hashmoneans rule as an Hellenic dynasty in an Hellenic style state?

You're absolutely right (and thanks for pointing out) that the story of the anti-Jewish religious decree by Antiochus IV is entirely absent from contemporary Hellenic and Latin sources. It's possible that his anti-Jewish actions were fabricated after the fact by anti-Hellenic sympathizers. On the other hand, all accounts of Antiochus report on his activities strictly from the point of view of his enemies -- and his non-Jewish enemies probably wouldn't have cared about Antiochus violating Jewish religious law (which to ancient outsiders--though not later Christians--probably appeared ridiculous anyway) given Antiochus' more important effects on ancient geopolitics.

I agree that--without Hellenic culture--Rome would have been a very dreary empire indeed, if it even managed to get out of Italy. But with respect to Hellenism, Christianity, and Hellenistic autocrats (do you look for a cloud in every silver lining, Ursus?), I'm not so sure. With respect to Christianity, the unwashed Picts and Germans had no Greco-Oriental cultural background, yet the Jesus cult spread among these barbarians too. By the same token, Hellenistic-style autocracy (complete with king-worship, propaganda architecture and courtier-artists) existed in ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Persia long before the 'glory of Greece'. I agree that Hellenism was the carrier of these Eastern viruses (or "memes" if you prefer), but the Greeks picked them up from the East.

So, if the roads, theatres, libraries, medicinal technologies and other Hellenic advances were not desired for all humanity but just for the Greeks, you'll be able to provide evidence that Jews were not allowed to participate in these advances, right? Given that this wasn't the case in any of the other Greek colonies, my strong suspicion is that the common claim about the Hellenistic Greeks is essentially correct. One of these sources is the "quisling" Josephus. Elsewhere, you've impugned his reliability for being a Jewish 'turncoat'. Are we to disbelieve his account in this context because he's now not a Jewish turncoat? In all seriousness, though, there are a number of non-Jewish sources on Antiochus in Jerusalem, including Jerome (HERE), Johannes Malalas (HERE), the Byzantine Suda (HERE), and the Chronographeion Syntomon (HERE). Of course, the earliest accounts are of Jewish texts, but I'm guessing news of events might have reached the families of slaughtered Jews before it reached any Gentiles.

So what? Nasty people are capable of accurate history too. If there's archaeological evidence from the Masada that contradicts Josephus' account, could you please explain it more thoroughly? For example, how do we know the bones discovered there were of people trying to flee?

What a fascinating question! Just to add to Maty's excellent post -- I'd like to add roads to the mix of public spaces. Like the Romans, the Greeks certainly had a sophisticated network of roads connecting their cities to harbors, to shrines, and to one another, but my impression is that the Greeks didn't have the same level of road-culture (road decor, roadside necropolii, road markers, overall road quality, etc) built up around it that the Romans did. One might argue that this is merely an evolutionary difference -- that the Greeks *would* have built up their road-culture if only the Greeks had been more successful in their imperial expansion, etc. But, I'm not so sure about that argument. The Greeks were notoriously fractious, competitive, and independent, with Greek colonies joined only by sea-routes and little attention paid to building infrastructure among Greek cities capable of moving large armies (and why would they, since they were normally at war with one another anyway?). To my mind, the failure of the Greeks to build a proper highway system really is emblematic of a cultural difference with the Romans, one that's at least as important as differences in the orientation of temples.

Not too often do we get a nice, balanced story about the ancient conflict between Hellenic culture and local tribalist traditions, but here's a timely one from David Brooks at the New York Times. It's worth thinking about this: What if Hellenism hadn't been slowly absorbed by the Romans but instead had been violently imposed on her, as Antiochus IV seemed to do? In that situation, one can easily imagine the likes of Cato the Elder in the role of Mattathias (though, thankfully, it never came to that) -- and world history would have been dramatically different.

This feels like a "homework help" type of question.

Yes, and even a broken clock is correct twice a day. EDIT--Let me be less cryptic: But what does this imply about the accuracy of 'historical memory'? Memory for events, even those witnessed first hand, are notoriously susceptible to suggestion, omission, conflation, interference, bias, misattribution, and (sometimes) persistence. Given these Seven Sins of Memory, it is possible that historical memories are accurate, but we should look out for evidence of well-known memory failings too. In the case of the history of the early Roman republic, there is probably evidence of all seven sins. The first one that comes to mind is interference from other historical events. I mean, it's possible that Romans expelled the kings in just that same magical year that the tyrant Hippias was expelled from Athens (thereby setting the stage for the birth of democracy), but it's an awfully big coincidence, isn't it?

How so?

Nice review of the newest bio of Mithridates HERE at the Washington Post. Apparently it's up for the National Book Award, which is a big deal.

Really?? If that's true, I feel even better about spitting on the flowers strewn there! But how do you know that neo-fascists are involved?

I agree that Antony should be judged primarily by his deeds rather than by hear-say. But I'm not sure even that evidence supports a positive appraisal of Antony's ability as a commander and statesman. Yes, when Antony had Caesar's veterans under his command, he didn't always lose. But a commander's ability has to be evaluated by his performance in all his roles -- logistics, tactics, and strategy. At Mutina and at Actium, Antony's command at logistics and strategy were shown to be middling at best. I'm curious, though, about Antony's role in the Egyptian economy. What exactly did he do that supposedly caused an improvement in the Egyptian economy? Also, why didn't he do that in Italy?

If you haven't had a chance to visit Attalus.org, here's still another reason -- the correspondence between Cassius and Cicero have been newly compiled. The treasure is HERE.

Aside from the myth of the Caledonian boar hunt, is there any hint that the Greeks of the 5th century or the Carthaginians ever engaged in 'royal hunts'?

None of the portraits posted above match the coin depictions of Caesar as well as the best-attested 'Tusculum' portrait of Caesar, which portrays the darling of Venus with his characteristic vulture neck and balding pate.

I expressed my doubts on this identification when the announcement was first made. Here's another doubter too (Mary Beard), expressing my sentiment perfectly in "The face of Julius Caesar? Come off it!"

Hard to believe a whole book could be written about the Lusitanian war...

Harris definitely portrays the whole Cicero -- brilliant and sometimes downright stupid, brave and sometimes utterly cowardly, heroic and sometimes just despicable. It's Cicero's better side that (rightfully) captures most of the limelight in Imperium, especially the prosecution of Verres, where Cicero's brilliance, bravery, and heroism were in full force. Yet, one of the more dramatic scenes in the first novel concerns the deep disappointment of an idealistic young Stoic who had supported Cicero and who witnessed with horror one of Cicero's particularly ugly Gaul-baiting speeches.

Chariot racing and gladiatorial games had very similar histories, and the evidence is just too fragmentary and unreliable to know how they caught fire. They both originated with the Etruscans -- long before Roman written history began. Evidence of exhibition of either type of sport is spotty throughout the monarchical and republican eras -- although we know about some spectacular and peculiar games, we really have no idea how often the Circus Maximus was used for chariot racing, how often gladiatorial games were held for funereal rites, let alone how popular either sport was for any given year (since we can't compare the gross receipts for the two types of sports). Yes, they were both exhibited more frequently than ever as Augustus revived and cultivated many ancient festivals, such as the Secular Games -- but that doesn't really tell us much about how popular either sport was either.

I'm kind of curious too about this 'ritual hoard' idea. On the one hand, the Romans were such a hard-nosed punch of pragmatists that it just beggars belief to think that they buried coin hoards to appease some deity. And when they were pious (which they sometimes were), when did they ever show it by burying *money*? What would a god do with money? Stinking entrails -- that makes sense... but money??

One way of assessing the validity of the coin hoards as a proxy for political violence is to compare it to other proxies like prosopographical evidence. PP and I did a little study a while back looking at all the named victims of political violence in the literary sources, and I made a chart to illustrate the findings. Here's our chart (133 BCE - 44 BCE): Now here's the chart from PNAS (200BCE - 0 CE): The two sources--numismatic and prosopographic--align rather nicely. Note especially the two spikes surrounding the Marius/Sulla conflict (92-80) and Caesar's civil war (49-44). Moreover, the Italian hoards provide evidence of political turmoil (surround the Social War) that the prosopographical evidence neglects. In my view, the PNAS article was superb and is a model of what modern ancient history ought to be.