Maty

Those with an Athens account, or simply a good local library might like to look at this article Dogs in Ancient Warfare E. S. Forster Greece & Rome, Vol. 10, No. 30 (May, 1941), pp. 114-117 To summarize briefly, there is no mention of Roman war dogs (they are useless in Rome Total War [the computer game] as well ...) but the following are given as confirmed uses. Alyattes King of Lydia (600 BC) used war dogs. Xerxes used Indian hounds (Herod 7.187) One of the Athenians went into the battle of Marathon plus faithful hound. The Colophonians have been covered already And there are a lot of references to watch dogs and tracking dogs, but even the British dogs are not mentioned.

Yeah, I've looked into myself and it's legitimate. I'm seriously considering doing it. My only concern is their history class is broad; I would like to focus on ancient history. If it's any help, I'll be probably teaching two 12 week courses online each side of the Christmas/Saturnalia break. First off is the 'Rome, the city, society and infrastructure' which is the one Nephele referred to earlier, and the second is one which I have just received the contract to write and teach - namely 'Athens and the 5th century intellectual revolution'. Cambridge hasn't started advertising these yet, and will be giving priority on the Athens course to those who have done the Rome module with me, but if anyone is interested I can certainly put them in touch with Lynne Harrison at Cambridge university who will give then technical details of how much and how to sign up. A suggestion to Ursus - might we not try to persuade any UNRV members who do any kind of online course in ancient history to review it so that others thinking of getting academical have a better idea what it entails?

I seem to remember something in an archaeological journal a while back that said hedgehog bones were found in legionary camp debris, which suggests that a legionary on the march was pretty much an omnivore. Note also that 'frumentum' could also be used as a a synonym for 'rations' rather than a particular kind of grub. Co-incidentally I was reading an article last week [The Capture of Animals by the Roman Military Christopher Epplett Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Oct., 2001), pp. 210-222] in which the writer takes legionaries hunting for animals for food as a given, though he adds 'recent research suggests that boar and bear (!) featured less in their diet than supposed.' Incidentally someone called Erdkamp wrote a book called 'Hunger and the sword' in 1998 which deals with the logistics of food in the Roman army. He emphasizes domestic animals as a food supply. Remember that corn has to be carried, whilst goats and cattle are self propelled. As someone once remarked to me whilst we were discussing military supplies 'Any soldier knows the purpose of life. It's to keep meat fresh.' [edit - to add last para]

I'm sure the Bible is authentic. The events described are more open to question. (Though the new testament is as good a contemporary text about life under Roman rule from a provincial's viewpoint that any historian can dream of getting.)

One classical name that will probably be getting a bit of mileage soon is that of the daughter of Helen of Troy - Hermione.

Caesar's only daughter died few years before him without children, after him death all the Julian Caesarian family were descended from his sister throught Augustus. Nero was the last of the male line thought be may have survive by few females. If I may split a hair here - Julia daughter of Caesar did have a child. The father was Pompey. Popblem was that it was a difficult birth which basically wrecked Julia's health. She died, and the child did not long survive her. So better make that 'died without surviving children'. Your point remains correct of course, but given that having the child killed Julia, it's worth mentioning that she had one.

To put Cicero's 'flipflopping' into perspective. Here's from one of his letters to Atticus (Ad Att 2.18) 'I have no heart to write any more about politics. I am disgusted with myself, and its agony to write. I'm trying to stand my ground and keep my self respect amid universal servility, but with less courage than I would wish considering my past record. Caesar is being very liberal towards me ...' There's lots more in this vein. And don't forget that finally Cicero refused to take it any more and stood up quite magnificently to Mark Antony - and paid for it with his life.

Sad to see that Paula has dropped out as well. I read somewhere that biblical names - e.g. Noah are making a comeback. To encourage any potential mothers who are looking for an original classical name for their daughters-to-be, here are some suggestions certain to arouse interest and admiration Alfidia, Ancharia, Arria, Domitilla, Drusilla, Euphemia, Fannia, Fausta, Fulvia, Gratidia, Lepida, Messalina, Orbiana, Ocellina, Pompeia, Poppaea, Porcia, Salona, Sempronia, Servilia, Vipsania I'm sure Nephele can come up with more 'classics'. I remember in a book by G.Mikes, the hero persuaded a mother to call her daughter 'Valinas' claiming this was a water goddess embodying cleanliness and purity. At the time he was looking at a bottle of a certain product in the mirror ...

Cicero defended various characters affiliated with the triumvirate - Vatinus being a prime example. However, he was semi-retired at this point and he was 'invited' to do this small favour for the triumvirs, with the implication that his health and property as well as his career would suffer if he did not. This did not make him feel any more favourably inclined to Pompey or Caesar.

Isn't 'Grace' also in the top 100? I had a quick look at www.statistics.gov.uk which has it at no. 13. I'm mildly appalled to see that Chelsea has made it as well. Has anyone pointed out to the proud parents that the origin of the word is 'port' - i.e. somewhere sailors dock?

Another reason - Caesar learned his politics from Crassus, who knew all about financing the careers of up-and-coming youngsters in order to create a loyal following in the senate. After his early Gallic campaigns Caesar was immensely wealthy, and he used a lot of this money in political 'grants', which were deeply appreciated by the not-necessarily-rich young aristos such as Curio and Mark Antony who were among his followers. Somewhere Cicero remarks that young senators criticizing Caesar were likely to find Balbus (Caesar's agent in Rome) waiting at the senate door to reclaim his loan. Not that many would be critical, as Romans had a keen sense of honour, and one simply did not bad-mouth someone who had done you the favour of a large interest-free loan. Re Cicero - I don't think he ever particularly considered joining Caesar after Caesar launched his coup. However, he was also deeply unimpressed with Pompey and the illegal actions of his followers which drove Caesar to war. I suspect he would have cheerfully called a plague upon both their houses. Remember also that Dolabella, father of Cicero's latest grandchild (born in May that year, I recall) was with Caesar, which at least would make Cicero pause before joining the other side.

Flavia Gemina and Harry Potter do, in fact have something else in common other than inhabiting worlds very different from our own. Both have chroniclers who are able to keep the parents reading the story after the kids have done and gone to sleep. One thing I've noticed about reviews of the Flavia Gemina stories is how much the adults enjoyed them too - I think because the careful research shows without being at all 'teachy'. I'm looking forward to the next one.

>>>10) HADRIAN BUILT HIS WALL TO KEEP THE BARBARIANS OUT OF THE PROVINCE OF BRITANNIA Only if he was a military idiot.<<< Errr ... not sure about no 10. Remember, after Hadrian's wall, the Romans went and built the Antonine wall further north, so they evidently thought the thing was good for something. Let's consider how a wall works from a barbarian point of view. 1. Okay, here's me and my invading Pictish mates (Let's call us the Rangerii, for reasons those familiar with football in the UK will understand). We want to get over the wall and invade the south, unless we are totally demented, even for northerners, this is going to be a raid, rather than a conquest. 2. Arrive at wall, take a quick look at, say the ladder-building options suggested by that stand of trees there, or simply tuck in our sporrans and swarm over the thing. It's nae problem, y'ken. Mind you the Romans on the wall have seen us arrive, but being a mere garrison, back off and watch us swarm over. But the word has gone out that we are here (the wall is great for lateral communications). 3. Great, we've drunk gallons of wine, raped herds of cattle and sheep and are driving flocks of stolen women back to the wall. We're loaded down with looted swag. Behind us is a large and vindictive Roman army, with further forces mustering to east and west (remember those lateral communications?) and ahead of us is, er, a sodding great wall. The garrison on the wall now has just to hold us off for a matter of hours, and we are trapped. And even if we have somehow evaded a pursuing army, it takes a while to get livestock over a wall. 4. Best case scenario - we abandoned our booty, tucked in our sporrans and swarmed back over. Worst case scenario, we got trapped against the wall and massacred. So, yup, I'd argue that the wall keeps barbarians out by removing their incentive to get in. No doubt there were beneficial side effects - population control, settlements at the main entry and exit points, etc, and these might immediately occur to a social historian rather than a military-minded emperor, but ...

Maty, I think I had read somewhere that Caracalla had passed on the name of "Aurelius" to his many newly created Roman citizens. Am I remembering this wrong? Or perhaps Caracalla passed on both of these names -- the adopted "Aurelius" and the maternal "Julius" -- from his family line? It was my understanding that this is why the name of "Aurelius" became common among Rome's Jewish citizenry, as evidenced by the many Aurelii to be found in Jewish inscriptions. NYC's Jewish Museum, in fact, has an ancient Jewish burial plaque from Rome naming an Aurelia Progenia and an Aurelia Quintilla. -- Nephele He did - there was also a slew of new citizens called Antoninius from the same thing. However (as I understand it) by then Roman naming conventions had become flexible enough to allow some variations. Ever since Vespasian - the earliest I can find - adding parts of a distinguished female line also became acceptable. Vespasian was properly Flavius, but he added his mother's line of Vespasia, which is why he is Flavius Vespasianus in the sources. At least that's how I remember it, but will be happy to be corrected!

Incidentally on the 'pre' side the line allegedly goes back to Iulus Ascanius, son of Aeneas and grandson of the goddess Venus. The Julii were one of the few surviving 'ship' families that claimed Trojan origin, and this was behind Julius Caesar's not-so-subtle construction of a temple dedicated to Venus Genetrix.

After the time of Julius Caesar being one of the Julian line was a near-fatal genetic trait. The last known member of the family passed away in Vespasian's time. Whilst the empire is swarming with Julii in later years this is more to do with an idiosyncrasy of Roman nomenclature than family trees. If your name was Kixass Vercingetorix, and you were in a part of northern Italy which was given citizenship by Julius Caesar you would become Kixass Julius Vercingetorix, and the Julius bit would be passed down your line (which is where friend Ursus Julius comes in). Now the fun begins when a Julius who got his name that way - Julius Bassianus - has a gransdon who becomes the emperor Caracalla (Caracalla was not a family name, but a nickname based on his predilection for wearing long Gallic cloaks). Caracalla wanted more Roman citizens, since they paid tax and served in the legions, so he made all free citizens of the empire Romans, thus at a stroke creating a million or so Julii. After that 'Julius' was the Roman equivalent of 'Smith'.

I'll have a guess that Florii might refer to the Roman festival of Floralia, which is still sometimes called Florii though these days it's better known as Palm Sunday. Another possible connection is florii as an ancient word for river in SE Europe. This might tie in with your Avithusa, who don't seem to exist, though Arethusa, a water nymph seems a good possibility. How's your handwriting? Not sure what the connection with Constantinople would be though.

Very much so. The adoptee did not fully abandon his connections with his birth family - the key is in the -anus ending on the name. ('anus' has a sense of 'old' or 'former'.) So Scipio the younger is generally called Scipio Aemilianus by historians. This is the same reason that the pre-Augustus is called Octavian - its an Anglicization of Octavianus. This means that it was important for the adoptee to advertise to prospective political allies (and to Roman aristos marriage was a way of cementing political alliances)that he came with an extra set of family credentials. An even more extreme case during the civil wars was a character called Metellus Scipio who simply used both his adoptive and family names together. But note when the highly Claudian Clodius got adopted by a nobody to become a tribune he never used that name. In the same way, Octavian insisted on being called Julius Caesar, as there was not a lot of mileage in the Octavius name. So, yup, who adopted you was important, but so is who you were pre-adoption, and the name you took depended on the relative importance of the birth and adoptive family.

I'm sure I saw that guy playing tight-head prop for l'azuri in the six nations rugby... They're wonderful pics. Does anyone know if this was a re-enactment society, or did they just dress up council employees?

Despite the ongoing debate about whether he was a true Christian or not, there really is no evidence to suggest that Constantine was an atheist. He's after my time - but I think Constantine got baptized on his deathbed - as an Arian. I'd assume that by the time you are eyeballing the grim reaper you tend to forget political considerations and go with whatever you imagine gives you your best shot in the hereafter. Re ancient atheism, I did some lectures a year or two back on Roman religion (in Rome to an audience of priests -including one on why Christians should indeed be thrown to the lions) and pointed out that you can't be an atheist with the old Gods. Aphrodite/Venus is the name for the force that draws couples together in love or lust. Demeter is the force which turns seed into grain. These things undoubtedly exist. The only question is whether they are sentient, or respond to prayers, but then, the Romans wondered about this too. The nice thing about the ancient Gods was that they didn't want a personal relationship with you (that would be superstitio). As long as you performed their rites, the Gods didn't care whether you believed in them or not. Just as Mr A.S. Blouten of the tax office in Peterborough doesn't care if I believe in him as long as I make over a large chunk of my revenue to him. (Though if there is a hell, Mr Blouten ...) Incidentally, I try not to use the term Pagan, as it is simply a pejorative term for worshippers of the older Gods. Originally 'paganus' signified rustic, with a connotation of 'backward' - which probably tells us something about how Christianity was received outside the cities.

I have passable Italian and Latin that is worse than it should be. My experience with modern Italian is that it is an interesting mix in which the Latin vocabulary has combined with Germanic grammar. As anyone who has dealt with Latin knows, the language is ruthlessly inflected both in verb and noun endings. Modern Italian uses the same auxiliary/participle construction as modern German (and English) with word order important to meaning Consider for example a present perfect (using 'eat' as in earlier postings) English: I have eaten (subject pronoun, auxiliary 'have' past participle 'eaten'.) German: Ich habe gegessen (ditto - or something like it. My German is also rather bad) Italian: Ho mangiato (Ho = 'I have' 'mangiato' is again the past participle.) Latin does not have a Present perfect, and the nearest we get is 'mangiavo' with the 'vo' ending showing past tense and first person Likewise 'The man loves the woman' 'L'uomo ama la donna' and 'Der Mann liebt die Frau' are all dependent on word order to establish meaning. 'Vir feminam amat' means the same as 'Feminam vir amat' or even 'Amat vir feminam'.

Didn't know of Phang at all, but then, I've only recently had to take a detailed look at military affairs for a recent project. Pity I can't borrow the book from your library Nephele. However, since I have a budget for this, it looks as though Amazon are going to benefit. Thanks for the reference CPM!

re Roman law - Whilst not wanting to denigrate the massive edifice of Roman law, let us not forget that the foundation of Roman law was the XII tables of the first decemvirate. To research these laws a special delegation was sent to Greece ... so even this (in any case, stunning) achievement is not entirely Roman. (Sitting in a mud hut and hunting squirrels, forsooth. I'm sure my forebears hunted the noble elk, and possibly also hunted for bears.)

We know that Republican soldiers sometimes married, (our own dear Vorenus for example) and that Augustan legionaries could not. So, when Augustus decreed that soldiers could not henceforth be married, are we to assume that the prohibition applied only to new recruits? That was my assumption, but someone challenged it recently, and I can't find anything in the sources to support my view - or a contrary one. Can anyone here offer any suggestions either way?

I think that's the point. The Romans propagated a number of ideas (which they picked up from the rest of the Mediterranean nations in the process of violently assimilating them) when they got around to violently assimilating those nations where those ideas had not yet spread. I can't offhand think of any states that joined the Roman empire voluntarily, which says something for the perceived benefits of Roman rule. The fact is however, that those ideas were out there, and with or without Rome, they would have made their way around Europe anyway. What Rome did was become the vehicle for the transmission of those ideas to north-western Europe. Whether that transmission would have happened anyway, and how fast, is a matter for speculation. I agree with PP that there is another thing that we can say the Romans did for us - it gave Europe a sense of common heritage and identity which has remained ever since, despite some trying times. But again, would that have happened anyway?