M. Porcius Cato

Thanks, Andrew. Perhaps you could explain a puzzling passage that prompted my question. According to Book 8 of the Odyssey, the origin of the conflict between the Greeks and Trojans lay in the conflict between Odysseus and Achilles. Huh? That sure doesn't come through in the Iliad. Here's the relevant passage: The company then laid their hands upon the good things that were before them, but as soon as they had had enough to eat and drink, the muse inspired Demodocus to sing the feats of heroes, and more especially a matter that was then in the mouths of all men, to wit, the quarrel between Ulysses and Achilles, and the fierce words that they heaped on one another as they gat together at a banquet. But Agamemnon was glad when he heard his chieftains quarrelling with one another, for Apollo had foretold him this at Pytho when he crossed the stone floor to consult the oracle. Here was the beginning of the evil that by the will of Jove fell both Danaans and Trojans.

I'm wondering if our resident experts can help me on this: Why is both the Iliad and Odyssey attributed to the same person? They seem quite different to me, both stylistically and substantively.

What are the primary literary sources for the history of this period?

Because that's where my namesake Cato Uticensis made his last stand against Caesar. The Uticans, in appreciation of Cato, subsequently erected a heroic statue of him. My portrait at left is of a portrait bust of Cato found at Utica and (last I checked) displayed in the museum there. Utica is also historically interesting because it was the first major city in Africa to stand with Rome against Carthage and was the capital city of the province. BTW, welcome to UNRV Urbs. Hope to see more of your posts.

I feel exactly the same way! Philosophically, the Greeks (or at least the Athenians, or at least the Athenians of the 5th century or so) were more rational and more humanistic. Scientifically, they were light years ahead of their Roman counterparts. Greek sculpture and theatre were vastly better than anything created originally by Romans. Frankly, the Romans knew it too: that's why they sent their sons to Greece for an education. When it comes to history, however, Roman history wins hands down. Why? It's not because Roman writers were better stylists. Greeks like Polybius and Plutarch were not inferior writers to Livy and Tacitus. The reason, I think, comes down to two aspects about the substance of Roman history. First, the rise and fall of Roman civilization took place over a longer period of time, over a larger part of the world, and with a greater difference between beginning and floruit than anything in Greek history. This tends to make Roman history more epic in scale and thus more interesting. (For a humble and somewhat nerdy example, it's like comparing The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings.) Second, and I think this is the key, Roman history (and Romans in general) were more concerned with individuals and individual conflicts. Thanks in part to its republican system and in part to the many enemies of Rome, the epic backdrop of Roman history recedes behind captivating personal struggles--Romulus versus Remus, Brutus versus Tarquin, Dentatus versus Pyrrhus, Scipio versus Hannibal, Cato versus Scipio, Sulla versus Marius, Cicero versus Catiline, Pompey versus Caesar versus Cato, Brutus and Cassius versus Caesar, Antony versus Cicero versus Octavian, etc. This emphasis on individuals, I think, isn't unique to Roman history either. Although the Romans normally produced inferior (original) sculpture, there was one genre where the Romans bested the Greeks--portraiture. Moreover, in the Latin literature, we have masterpieces on the private lives of Romans by Cicero and Suetonius. I don't want to oversell this last difference between the Greeks and Romans, though. For example, we have the Lives of Eminent Philosophers by Diogenes Laertius, which is a thoroughly enjoyable romp through the bedrooms and kitchens of Epikourous, Aristotle, etc. Plutarch, of course, preserved many great Roman lives as well (though very often from Roman sources). But, my guess is that anyone who likes these Greek exceptions to the rule will be attracted to Roman history over Greek history. Anyway, that's my theory.

From the New Scientist: In about 60 AD, a Greek engineer called Hero constructed a three-wheeled cart that could carry a group of automata to the front of a stage where they would perform for an audience. Power came from a falling weight that pulled on string wrapped round the cart's drive axle, and Sharkey reckons this string-based control mechanism is exactly equivalent to a modern programming language. He describes it in this week's issue of New Scientist magazine. Video from New Scientist.

Do they actually want it to work? Here's a nice diagram depicting how one might work: If they just want to know what they look like, here's one from Priene:

Some of my fondest memories from childhood were those of being left alone in the library. Even when on vacation, I'd finagle my way to the local library to see what it had.

I have some nice images posted of the "House of Falling Waters" from Utica in the "Guess the Ancient City" thread. More generally, I'm keen to learn as much as possible about Roman Africa generally and Utica in particular.

The Wikipedia page, Roman relations with Parthia, is currently riddled with errors, at least in the section "Relations during the Republic". Can anyone with expertise on the history of the Principate see whether that section is as bad?

The Jeremy Sisto "Julius Caesar" had some nice moments. Sulla was presented as the wicked old villain that he was. The depiction of Pompey was among the best I've seen -- you could actually imagine him as the sort for whom Caesar would carry water. Christopher Walken as Cato was simply funny (and, again, TOO OLD). While Sisto was a good young Caesar, he didn't hold a candle to the Hinds performance in HBO's Rome which was pitch perfect.

My guess is that the literal answer to your question is actually pretty lame. The Romans associated their Neptune with horses because Neptune plays the same role in the Roman pantheon as does Poseidon in the Greek pantheon and the Greeks associated Poseidon with horses. The non-literal answer to your question is more interesting. The interesting question is, Why was the Poseidon/Neptune role associated with horses? Because the myths say that Neptune created horses (see Apollodorus, the Homeric Hymns, Ovid, etc). Why would anyone believe that a god of water would create an animal that clearly can't live in water? I guess the hint is in the way the ancient authors talk about the horse, which is bound up in the imagery of rushing, breaking waters, which sort of resemble a herd of galloping horses (see especially Ovid on this). "If x looks like y, then y created x" is the hallmark of what is called "mythopoetic reasoning". If you apply this principle consistently, you can reverse-engineer all kinds of creation myths.

Left-wing Gauls are in an uproar that the leader of the Republic is...jogging. "Le running" is apparently too individualistic and too (say it with disgust) American for some. I guess they'll just have to replace their favorite term of abuse, "creeping Americanism", with "jogging Americanism"! There's a great response to this fashionable idiocy by that Cato of perfidious Albion, fellow jogger Boris Johnson. (Of course, Cato didn't actually jog, but as a good Stoic, he did walk a lot -- and it's a looong walk from Egypt to Utica.)

I'd think it would be quite useful for prostitutes.

On Roman matters, the last book I finished was Caroline Lawrence's thoroughly-enjoyable, Trimalchio's Feast, which features a parrot named Siptax that mindlessly repeats, "Long live Caesar". Currently, I'm reading A History of the Roman Republic by Klaus Bringmann. Bringmann and Siptax seem birds of a feather.

Did they have only one design? Seems somewhat unlikely for such a common good. In any case, here's a typical illustration of one:

Instead of doing a search on Google, try doing a search on your library's catalogue of BOOKS. They deliver text at amazing speeds without even needing an internet connection, feature high quality images, and--best of all--contain scholarly references and are edited for accuracy. All operating systems work with BOOKS, and thanks to public libraries, they're even open source.

No worries... I wrote this post before I had my AM coffee and was still very cranky.

I take your point, but Skarr should get the credit for the "feral monster" description of Pompey. (See here.) My favorite term of abuse for Pompey is the more classical "teenage butcher".

Caesarea NOT originally Phoenician? The architecture certainly looks Phoenician (that stone in particular). Here's the first Google-hit for the above image of Caesarea. I'm guessing this is the one WW used since the image size is identical. Now note what the page says about the history of Caesarea: Initially, Caesarea was a Phoenician site in the Persian period (6 to 3rd C BC). The Phoenicians, the maritime merchants of the ancient world, used the natural bays and the nearby rivers in order to establish a port, one of many ports that they set up along the shore stretching from Tyre down to Gaza. The city flourished at the Greek period. Later, in the Roman period, King Herod created it into one of the largest cities in the Roman World, and called it after his patron, Augustus Caesar. The site was an important Roman city, and played an important role in the history of Ancient Israel. It later decayed after the Arab conquest, and returned to glory with the Crusaders. After their retreat the city was left in ruins, and its stones were reused in buildings throughout the region. Come on, guys, we can't guess the ancient city from bad clues!

No--but having deposed a dictator, why not help the Iraqis to give democracy a shot? Rome's empire was paid for PARTLY by (some of) its citizens, but also paid for by direct plunder and nationalization of farms and mines. The Coliseum, for example, was not paid for by the decurions of Judaea but by the goods that were stolen from Jerusalem. The mines of Spain and the leases to the farms of Campania provided well over 1/4 of Roman revenue. Indeed, Romans themselves were free of taxation for most the republic, which when Rome acquired her empire in the first place. Now let's suppose that the Roman model really did apply to the US (e.g., in Iraq). Had the US adopted the Roman model, it would have invaded Iraq many, many years ago--rather than waiting for UN sanctions to enrich the crooks in the UN, Germany, and Russia. The invasion would have involved the use of utterly devastating force--rather than spending money on expensive weaponry specifically designed to avoid civilian casualties. Having defeated Iraq's army, Saddam Hussein and his tyrant family would have been sent to Washington to be garroted--rather than going through the motions of a trial for crimes that were so obvious that even the defendant complained about the charade. Captured enemy troops and sundry others would have been auctioned as slaves--rather than freed and actually paid a wage that was many times their previous salary. Needless to say, al-Sadr and all his sympathizers would have been crucified--rather than invited to join the Iraqi parliament. Obviously, the government of Iraq would have been turned over to the most steadfast of American allies in the region (presumably the Kurds and secular Shi'ites)--rather than holding elections in which many (though not all) American allies were defeated at the polls. Finally, all of Iraq's oil fields would have been confiscated by the American government--rather than owned by the Iraqi people, who are paid directly from Iraqi oil revenues. Again, the comparison of the US and Roman military presence abroad is completely superficial and misleading.

I've opened a can of worms, but if this is all moved to the US/Rome thread, c'est la vie. Please, do look at it. According to the US Dept of Agriculture, farmers earn as much as non-farmers. Ninety-five percent of US farms are still family farms, which collectively produce $ 66 billion dollars a year in revenue. The fate of the US farmer is much like the rest of the population--prosperous. "Standard of living" is a subjective judgment, but the median income in the US (in real dollars) has been rising for some time. Between 1967 and 2005, it rose from $35k to $46k. Unlike the Romans, US troops do not maintain their presence abroad to enforce will of an executive, to collect taxes, or to administer martial law. The comparison is totally superficial.

A somewhat less sophisticated version of Cullen Murphy's argument in "Are We Rome?" is presented in today's NYT article, "Wrapped in Spar-Spangled Toga".

OK, so that rules out everything Carthaginian and much of the Mideast. Is it Egyptian?

Had it been a Phoenician city?