guy

I admit it. All political parties quote prominent Ancient Romans or cite Ancient history to support their partisan view. I admire, however, those who use their vast scholarship to make sometimes valid points; e.g., Victor Davis Hansen on the right or Jeremy McInerney on the left. http://main.gvsu.edu/hauenstein/?id=C91F01D2-EC04-081B-8D5354823752C51F That said, others seem silly and sophomoric. Some writers feel that quoting some bit of obscure Ancient history gives their specious and superficial argument the patina of legitimacy and depth: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/18/784045/-Two-Wars-at-Once:-Roman-Success-USA-Defeat In response to the quote above from the Daily Kos, I must wonder how The Roman Republic ever took on two enemies simultaneously (Carthage and the Macedonians in the 200s BCE or Corinth and Carthage a generation later, for example)? [My statement should be read with sarcasm.] Oh, well. I guess I'm not that smart. guy also known as gaius

I thank you, Barca, for sharing an interest in this fascinating facet of the Roman Empire. Here's a review I write sometime ago on AD 381. I greatly enjoyed that book. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9493 The books by Jenkins are essential, but difficult reading. His writing style is fine, but my eyes glaze over when faced with philosophical arguments. I think sometimes (honestly, most of the time) I would rather watch the DVD Spartacus: Blood and Sand than labor over some obscure theological point. But I also know that vegetables are important, too. (Is beer a vegetable?) guy also known as gaius

Barca. Your first book link is the first book referred to in my original post. I recommend the book highly to anyone interested in the development of Christian doctrine. It changed forever my view of the theological forces at work during the late Roman empire. guy also known as gaius

I have been motivated to write this by Ludovicus' interesting book suggestion: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=11395 Too many historians and writers about the late Roman Empire minimize the role that the various and competing threads of Christian belief played in shaping the world of Late Antiquity. This may arise from their ignorance. Unfortunately, this may also arise from an almost visceral (and possibly understandable) hostility toward Christian theology. I, too, find most philosophical arguments boring and tedious. For me, there is no more effective soporific than discussions about religion. These include the earlier Christian controversy about The Trinity and the later controversies about the

A book on Aetius! Damn! Another book on my "must read list." Ian: Was Aetius an Arian Christian (as, I believe, Stilicho was)? I think history minimizes the importance and significance of the tensions between the orthodox Roman Catholic church and other diverse Christian groups, such as the Arians. guy also known as gaius

Ian: Your book is already on my "must read list." Both Stilicho and the later Aetius are tragic examples of Rome's lost opportunites to save itself. (Does UNRV have a link to Amazon.com to order the book in order support UNRV?) Are you coming to the US for a book signing (perhaps Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas) so I can get my book (and your excellent Belisarius book) signed? Good luck on latest work. guy also known as gaius

Although things are continuing to improve, I think images should be available to even non-forum members. I think this would create more eyeball traffic. Also, I recommend (again ) a new forum called medica. Will my review of the DVD, "Caput Mundi" reappear? Finally, should I rework my personal page because much of the information is missing? guy also known as gaius

"Hey, tell the Emperor Claudius that I think Messalina is up to something, again." guy also known as gaius

Wow. We must have frightened off Trouticus from this forum. He joined in October 2009, wrote one post, and was never heard from again. guy also known as gaius

Ah, Cato. "Full of vim and verve as usual:" Nero has been described as an insecure egomaniac and narcissist with a borderline personality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder The problem is that we have only his critics as sources. They fail to emphasize his patronage of the arts, making him popular among the masses, especially in the eastern, Hellenized portions of the Empire. If anything, he was obsessed with being popular with the lower classes. Suetonius (the great Flavian apologist) and other critics of Nero came from the higher echelons of society and reflected the senatorial values of Rome. They were not amused by his frivolous spending and his artistic pretenses. http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/p/m/49d465/ Plaque dedicated to Nero at Corinth AD 68: guy also known as gaius

Wow: While reviewing some old posts for research purposes on another topic, I found this post by Pantagathus from three years ago on the same subject as this thread. It is fun reading this old post. My apologies to everyone for not previously acknowledging this great thread. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showto...=Cleopatra+coin guy also known as gaius

Obviously, Julius Caesar was dead when Antony made his move on Cleopatra. The answer to your question, however, is "yes." Let me play amateur psychologist: Antony was subordinate and (usually) loyal to Julius Caesar. Upon Caesar's death, Antony wanted to emulate and even surpass Caesar's success (and possibly his romantic conquests). At the time of Caesar's death, Caesar was planning a campaign against the Parthians. Antony, then, felt driven to pursue a rather reckless campaign against Parthia. This was pointless since the Roman General Ventidius had mostly neutralized the Parthian threat to the region before Antony's fruitless efforts. Why else would Antony waste the best opportunity to dominate Octavian, who was the weaker partner at that time? Now, let me play pro-Octavian propagandist: Antony then took 70,000 valuable troops to fullfill his fantasies of surpassing even the great Julius Caesar with a defeat of Parthia. Unfortunately, his campaign ended in disaster at Phraaspa, resulting in the loss of half his men and much of his treasury. This forced Antony further into the clutches of the manipulative (and former lover of Caesar) Cleopatra, abandoning his wife Octavia, and giving Octavian the perfect excuse for Roman hostilities against Antony. I think most Romans preferred this Roman couple (Antony with Octavia): http://www.ancientmoney.org/ri/antony_octavia_cisto.html I'll stop here because most people know the rest of the history better than I. In summary, yes, it was a strange psychological "love triangle." guy also known as gaius Note: I want to thank John N. for creating and sharing such a great collection of coins. He is a true friend to both numismatists and scholars.

Cleopatra, the intelligent and beautiful temptress, may not have been so beautiful. Marc Antony and Cleopatra, perhaps history's most famous power couple, may not have been the most handsome couple. At least, this is what the numismatic evidence suggests. (Slide the mouse across the coin to see both sides): http://www.ancientmoney.org/ri/cleopatra_antony_tet.html More favorable portrayals by Hollywood: HBO's powerful portrayal from Rome: The classic Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor version: And a great video (but weak movie) version: Enjoy. guy also known as gaius Note: I want to thank John N. for creating and sharing such a great collection of coins. He is a true friend to both numismatists and scholars.

This story was all the rage in the popular media a couple of years ago. My question is the following: If the DNA of the Etruscans have been found in a localized area in Turkey, what significance does this have? Many people have jumped to the conclusion that this means that that the Etruscans were originally immigrants from Turkey. Why not the other way? Etruscans were well known for their travels beyond their homeland. Why couldn't this genetic finding represent an Etruscan colony in Turkey? Or, why couldn't these genetic locations represent a much larger diaspora from a different source? A very crude example is Norman blood. We know the Normans conquered England but they also visited Sicily. If I remember correctly, the Normands who lived in Normandy, France where originally from Scandanavia. If we find Norman blood in Sicily and Great Britain, can we conclude that the Sicilians colonized Great Britain? A third possible explanation is that DNA samples found in sarcophagi probably represent the genetic remains of the ruling class and not the vast majority of Etruscans (who numbered hundreds of thousands-which is quite a large number for an immigrant community). Could we then draw the conclusion that Egyptians are of Greek descent since most Ptolemaic remains probably show a predominately Greek ethnicity? Or that the Greeks built the pyramids? The popular media has a way of over-simplifying complicated research findings. Any opinions or criticisms of what I've written would be appreciated. My personal opinion could be easily swayed on this matter. On a lighter note, here are two videos are this topic: http://www.classicsconfidential.co.uk/Clas...ruscan_DNA.html guy also known as gaius

When I first read this a few years ago, I was very impressed with the research. Now, however, I'm a little more incredulous. Who is to say that the Turks living in that region are actually the same Turks of 2,500 years ago? I believe they have suffered multiple invasions, including the Greeks, Romans, Goths, Slavs, Arabs, and Mongols. Similarly, the Italian source for persons of Etruscan origen are a question, too. They are of Etruscan heritage...because of their last names? "...researchers took DNA samples from [italian] men with surnames unique to the district and whose families had lived there for at least three generations." President Obama might have more Etruscan blood. A better source for DNA would have been known Etruscan remains since the Etruscans both buried their dead and buried their cremation remains. guy also known as gaius

You're right about the alleged pig. It looks more like a loaf of bread. As a non-coin collector, I have to defer to the numismatic experts. Nevertheless, it is pretty well accepted that it represents a pig.

Although I'm no expert (and that's obvious ), I think the archaeological evidence (which is quite extensive) supports the theory that gold coinage wasn't produced before this period (the Second Punic War 218-202 B.C.). In fact, gold coinage made in Rome stopped after the end of the Second Punic War and didn't resume until the time of Sulla, more than a century later. Let me plagiarize from Kenneth Harl's book Coinage in the Roman Economy: 300 B.C. to A.D. 700 Gold was not thought necessary for trade and commerce in Ancient Rome, especially after the introduction of silver coinage. Harl quotes Livy as stating that 269/268 B.C. "was the first time the Roman people began to use silver coins" (p. 26). By the first year of the Second Punic War, Rome faced a severe shortage of silver, requiring the lowering of the silver content of coins from 97% to 91%. (p. 30) This could have been one of the pressures for the creation of gold coinage. Romans thought silver was the preferred medium of exchange and the preferred store of value (and not gold). How many of us today think in terms of platinum or palladium coins, despite their high value? In many ancient societies, bartering was still an important part of trade. Stored or implied value was to be found in things other than gold coinage. Harl writes, "Etruscan towns, the most sophisticated centers in Italy during the 6th and 5th centuries B.C. never struck gold or silver coins even though they had extensive trade with the Greeks and Carthaginians. Etruscans reserved gold and silver...for plate and jewelry." (p.21) [Harl is probably incorrect in this assertion. Although bronze was the typical Etruscan coinage found, silver and gold coins attributed to the Etruscans have now been found. These silver and gold coins are in the coastal regions, possibly indicative of the exposure to the Greek and Hellenistic influences of gold and silver coinage. The point of this assertion, however, was that Etruscans did not think of silver and gold coinage as essential to their economy.] According to Harl, Rome preferred silver for their coins and viewed gold as a "regal medal better dedicated to the gods." "The [early] Republic, with no need to hire mercenaries and with limited long distance trade, could afford to dispense with an international gold currency." (p.49) Addendum: An interesting blog about the philosphy of gold, also quoting Harl's book: http://seekingalpha.com/article/22732-why-...stand-inflation

I'm not a soccer fan. In fact, I'd rather watch two men fish than watch the World Cup finals. That said, I'm hoping the best for the Dutch team. The Dutch have a long history of conflict against Spain. Fortunately, the Dutch prevailed in their war against Spain in the 1500s-1600s. Had the Dutch lost, Europe today might be like the modern Middle East, plagued with religious and racial hatred and violence. They won, however, allowing the first modern nation republic to survive. Hopefully, they will be successful, again. Ironically, I was in Argentina in 1978 when Argentina played the Netherlands in the finals. My brother was in the Netherlands with the US military at the same time. Neither of us could have cared less about the finals (although I'm sure he attended better parties in Holland than I could in the military junta-ruled Argentina). guy also known as gaius Ik hou van Amsterdam.

Here's another example of a similar coin. The ROMA is better struck: http://www.acsearch....e.html?id=24425 The incomplete spelling of ROM(A) of the first example probably represents a defect in the die (the mold used to make the coin) or a failure during the actual stricking (causing a weak strike) of the coin. Other examples show the complete ROMA. Remember, this was emergency coinage during the darkest period of the second Punic war. Also, this was Rome's earliest attempts at producing gold coins. Who were the Dioscuri? They are mythological twins better known as Castor and Pollux: http://en.wikipedia....stor_and_Pollux Temple of Castor and Pollux in Rome

I was lucky to recently examine this coin (and other unforgetable Ancient coins) from a private collection. http://www.ancientmo...rr/anon_av.html For us non-coin collectors, coins represent a means to touch history. The story behind these coins is impressive (taken from acsearch.info):

Melvadius: Thank you (once again) for your thoughtful reply to a rather obscure question. From what you've written and from what I've read, it seems unlikely that the Romans had anything more than temporary trading posts in India. Anything more permanent would have cost great resources to sustain as well as have unnecessarily provoked regional enemies (along with the more distant Parthians and later Sassanians). A few coins and pottery shards are not proof of a permanent colony. Thank you, again, guy also known as gaius

I agree. Suetonius was a Flavian propagandist who showed some self-restraint with the still revered Augustus. Tiberus, however, bore the full brunt of Suetonian character assassination and was, therefore, portrayed as some deviant freak. We frequently forget the motivations that any author has for his depictions. guy also known as gaius Addendum: Let me explain what I meant by referring to Suetonius as a "Flavian propagandist." The Julio-Claudian dynasty included the first five Emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero). The Flavian dynasty included Vespasian and his two sons Titus and Domitian. Although he worked during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian (part of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty), he may felt the pressure to diminish the stature of the celebrated Julio-Claudians and elevate the stature of the Flavian Vespasian, a non-Julio-Claudian, in order to curry favor with Nerva-Antonine dynasts (who formed part of another non-Julio-Claudian dynastic line and who may have felt insecure about their status in society).

I recently heard a respected expert on Rome mention the existence of Roman colonies in India. I was shocked. I know Roman coins have been found in India and China. I can even accept the idea of temporary settlements and trading outposts in those areas. I know about the rich trade of spices, ivory, silk, etc. for Roman coinage. But I find it difficult to accept the existence of a permanent colony. A possible analogy would be Venice about the time of Marco Polo (AD 1300). I can accept the fact that Marco Polo [possibly] traveled to China. But I would not say that there were permanent Venetian colonies in China at that time. I can find no evidence of a serious Roman attempt to establish a permanent colony in India. Even Pliny commented on the trade (and negative trade balance) between the Far East and Rome: From my understanding, however, a Roman colony suggests a permanent settlement of Roman citizens with a potential of a much larger expansion. I cannot find any evidence of Roman colonization in India. There have been many Roman coins found in India. There have been amphora shards found, too. (Although initially these fragments were thought to be of Roman origin, many shards have turned out to be of Mesopotamian origin, instead.) This is taken from a timesonline.uk article I can't link to by Norman Hammond, Archaeology Correspondent from December 17, 2007

I look forward to the movie...but with great trepidation: It is easy and important to condemn religious intolerance of any sort. Unfortunately, it now has become too fashionable to criticize the excesses of Christianity of many years ago. guy also known as gaius

Although too simplistic in its characterization (no auxillary troops, no cavalry, etc.), the video is entertaining: guy also known as gaius