prr

I have been reading a work by Ardant du Picq, a French military writer in the 1800s, who has made a very strong case for morale as being by far the most important factor in a battle (keep in mind Napoleon

I would like to get a copy of Finley's review of Boak's Manpower Shortage and the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West. JSTOR has it as a d/l for $12. The review itself was in the Journal of Roman Studies 48 (1958), 156-64. I'm wondering if this review was published in any collection of Finley's writings---if I'm going to pay that much, I might as well get one of his books (that has it). Does anyone know if this review was published in any of Finley's books?

I have been doing a lot of reading in the later empire era, and keep coming across a contrarian opionion that in fact, the West was just as wealthy as the East was. I was always taught that the East had a much longer urban tradition, and was closer to the trade routes from south-central Asia (indeed the Roman East was the terminus of those routes), so it was wealthier than the West. I have heard that the West was good in terms of manpower sources for the military, but that's about it. Has anyone come across any sources that would insist the other side---that the West was just as wealthy? If so, are there any English writers that support that idea?

I've seen a few different numbers on the size of the Roman empire. (1) I didn't find a figure in the only survey of the Roman world (Chester Starr's History of the Ancient World--much more than simply a work on Rome) that I own. Does someone have a number of square miles of the Roman empire (I suppose the accession of Hadrian in 117, its greatest extent, would be a good time to measure, although honestly a better measure would be only the provinces they kept for a long time). (2) One other problem I have is that I'm pretty sure at one time that I came across a given area for the ROman empire that included water. Now, ever time I come across a number, I'm not sure if the author meant to include the Mediterranean or not. What figures to folks have for its area? Can you please quote sources for this? And tell me if this includes the Mediterranean or not?

The church father Jerome says in his Illustrious Men 17, "Afterwards during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus in the fourth persecution after Nero, in the presence of the proconsul holding court at Smyrna and all the people crying out against him in the Amphitheater, he was burned. He wrote a very valuable Epistle to the Philippians which is read to the present day in the meetings in Asia." Jerome was discussing the martyrdom of Polycarp. Now when he says "during the reign of Marcus Antoninus and L. Aurelius Commodus," does he mean (1) at some point during the reigns of either of the emperors, i.e., at any time from 161-192, or (2) specifically, during the time when both were emperor (apparently Commodus was co-emperor from 177 till the death of his father in 180)? The Latin from the text of Jerome reads: regnante M. Antonino, et L. Aurelio Commodo. The use of the gerund regnante, lit. "reigning" suggests that both were ruling, but this is conjecture on my part.

OK last week I was specifically asking about the sack of Rome in 410 AD. Now, I'm basically looking for primary sources on any sack, or even not one sack in particular, but on their devastating effect (I'm thinking primarily of late 300s/400s). So far I've come across: Jerome's Letter 60 (to Heliodorus), and Salvian's writings. Does anything else come to mind? If you would like to see the type of material I'm interested in, you can see comments from Jerome and Salvian on pages 1 and 2 of this document: Start of the Middle Ages

Too bad. Oh well....too bad they couldn't have lost some other section of his work.

I'm trying to read some ancient descriptions of this, but can't seem to find anything decent. Let me indicate what I've read, and if you can give me anything else, I'll be very grateful: Orosius Contra Paganos 2.19 Augustine City of God 1.12-18 Jerome Ep. 127 (ad Principiam) Socrates Church History 7.10 Sozomen Eccl Hist 9.9-10 Procopius Wars 3.2.7-39 Now Socrates' description was the best, but hardly detailed enough for my purposes. Procopius has the most material by far in his passage, but it there is hardly anything on the sack itself, and more on the move of the Goths to Rome, and the way they got in (getting slaves to overpower guards and then open one of the gates). Is there anything more detailed in any ancient source?

Then looks like Ammianus was right.... Very interesting. He went on about how Jovian was selling out the Roman side. He said that Jovian waited four days (at the end of the campaign), waiting for the Persians to reply to his message. Ammianus said that in four days, the Roman forces could have made it to a fortress that was firmly in control of Rome (without having to have given up the crucial fortresses that Jovian did give up--Nisbis and Singara). One might wonder, however, how a four-day retreat in enemy territory might have worked out, though, while the Persians were still trying to harass them.... Anyways, thanks. I obviously don't have a list in my back pocket of all the occasions that Roman consuls and emperors have surrendered, and what they gave up, so I had no idea if AM's statement was sheer hyperbole or not. EDIT: Forgot the other point that AM was trying to make. He mentioned a couple of times in this passage that Jovian's reason was the threat of civil war. AM stressed that the Romans had gotten the best of the Persians in the fighting up till this point, but that because of the threat of Procopius (not the writer, but his grandfather), Jovian needed to show up in Constantinople with a large army to press his own claim to the throne.

Was this signed over by treaty, or simply a withdrawal of forces?

Not really the same thing, in that the Donations of Alexandria were a result of love, not war. I'm tempted to think the withdrawal from Scotland was the same as from Germany--as in, not verified by treaty, but done unilaterally by Rome (I'll have to go back and see what Tacitus said about Germany, but I'd be surprised if this was by treaty).

I just read an interesting statement in Ammianus Marcellinus, describing the treaty that Jovian made with the Persians, ending the then-deceased Julian's expedition against them. Nowhere

Thanks, Klingan, although I've had another book of hers in my library that was pretty good, I don't' get the impression that I'd get much out of this one (on triumphs). The reviews that I've read all said that it was largely deconstructionist, and what I'm doing now is simply looking at literary accounts (Josephus on Vespasian's, and others on Pompey's in 61 BC) and seeing what they have to say.

Nice list. OK so he was the first to get three triumphs since one of the Fabii had done it over 200 years before.

Pompey triumphed three times. I assume that he was the only Roman to have done this. Is this true? Also, did any other Roman triumph twice?

Michael Rostovtzeff (SEHRE) wrote of the methods that drove the coloni into a downward spiral:

So it appears that this protection was both legal and extra-legal institution. Occasionally it was a matter of bribing people who were powerful enough to ward off the tax collectors; other times it would involve selling one's land to someone who was more wealthy and powerful.

A short summary of Jones' comments: Jones made a few points in volume 2 of his magnum opus. One was that it was most likely not the pressure of regular burdens that might chase a poor farmer off his land, so much

It will be a while before I can get through all of this, but for those who are interested, there is a short (4 pages or so) section from AHM Jones' Later Roman Empire that deals with this question. You can see a pdf of it here: http://paulrittman.com/AHMJones.pdf

Found a nice passage in A.H.M. Jones' Later Roman Empire that deals directly with this. I'll post a transcript of the pages I'm reading in a bit.

English is pretty much the only language I can read at length. I just got Rostovsteff's (sp?) book on social/economic conditions in the Roman empire, and I'm sure somewhere that would be of some help as well. I'll have to look through the index/TOC.

OK the 428 book is on request via library loan. Looks pretty interesting, from a preview on amazon (or was that google books?). Thanks for the reference.

OK, so it looks like a few different factors--illegal (bribery), as well as economies of scale, ability to pay in gold... Well that gives some perspective on it. Are there any classic passages that document this going on? Or is it just a matter of looking at legislation, as documenting that they must have been doing it (or else why pass a law against it)?

I have always heard that farm workers fled to rural landowners from, say, 200s AD onward, in an effort to avoid tax collectors. Even Salvian (book 5) wrote about this phenomenon. Salvian even said that these rural landowners forced the peasants to sign over any land that they owned. My question is--since I've also read that taxes had to be paid on land, if they were in arrears, when it was bought or sold--how could the rural landowners have avoided the exactions that plagued everyone else? Did they use legal methods (and if so, what) or was this simply a matter of brute force? Or is there some other factor I'm overlooking?

I am interested in reading a biography of Pompey. Seager has one that seems to be the current magnum opus (or at least was when I was in grad school). I see from Gelzer's Caesar: Politician and Statesman that he also has a biography of Pompey. Has anyone read either of these? Would anyone care to suggest another? I really only have time to read one, so I'd like to get one that's good... My primary interests would be the political bickering between Pompey and the Senate, esp. from the late 60s on to the outbreak of war with Caesar in 49 (when of course they were no longer bickering).