aemilianus

On a similar note, does anyone know of any way I can access the history of Quintus Dellius? I am totallly lost.

Yep: Declamations, Volume II. But if your public or university library doesn't have these, I would still try WorldCat.org to find the nearest library for this, or another, translation. -- Nephele ]Ok thanks, I have managed to find it in the library. Was just wondering if there was an online version. I find that it is quite rare to not be able to find what you need on the internet - some of the websites are fantastic for ancient sources. Anyway, thanks!

Yes I saw this last night. I have been watching the series. It's interesting that he takes old recipes and ideas for meals or feasts that have become totally alien to us through time and then adds a bizarre modern twist, which instead of making it more acceptable makes it even more alien. Pork scratchings are bad enough at the best of times. I don't think I'd like a nippley one though!

Hi, I found a few references to Seneca's suasoriae 1.6-7 and I am not able to find a translation on the internet, just wondering whether anyone knew where to find one? Thanks

Haha, yeah looks like it

Your result for The Greek Mythology Personality Test ... Prometheus 0% Extroversion, 67% Intuition, 44% Emotiveness, 33% Perceptiveness You are most like Prometheus, and you probably knew that before you even took this test. You probably aren't deliberately altruistic, but you still tend to do things that benefit everyone, even at great expense to your health and personal relationships. You aren't ruled by your emotions, but you still have a strong sense of justice. You make good descisions, but they can sometimes backfire (and this isn't due to a flaw in your reasoning, but due to faulty premises instead). You are very reasonable, you understand systems, you can quickly pinpoint flaws and you know how to correct them. You pride understanding and knowledge above everything else, and your greatest fear is to appear to be incompetent. You tend to be contemptuous of authority, but you don't accept leadership roles yourself until everyone else has demonstrated their own incompetence. You've built a very specific skill set. You know exactly where your strengths and weaknesses are, and you pride yourself on this kind of self-knowledge. You distrust tradition, which you see as arbitrary, and you rely instead on your own judgements. You also pride yourself on your pragmatism. You're also a very private person. Most of all, people think you're arrogant, but screw them! They're the ones who benefit from your ideas and discoveries, and if they took the time to understand why it is that you say and think the things you do, they'd realize that you only appear arrogant because you are exactingly precise when it comes to your area of specification, and most of all because, when you don't know something, you don't have an opinion about it (unlike most of the loudmouths that you have to deal with on a day-to-day basis). Relationships are your kryptonite. It isn't that you don't want them -- in fact, you would very much like a very close relationship with someone who understands you. They're just the one thing in the world that you're naturally bad at. Famous people like you: Niels Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Werner Heisenberg, Issac Newton, John Maynard Keynes, Erwin Schrodinger Stay Clear of: Apollo, Icarus, Hermes, Aphrodite Seek out: Atlas, The Oracle, Daedalus hmmm not sure what to think about that one....

I think there is a good evidence to choose either side, to me it's hard to explain Antonius actions of moving to Alexandria, marrying a foreign queen (a thing that was a taboo in the Roman society) without the eastern monarchy theory on the other hand it's obvious why Augustus wanted to portray Antonius as Cleopatra sex toy who abandon his Roman ways and left the management of the state in Cleopatra hands. If you look on who were Antonius supporters you will find many republicans who fought alongside Brutus and Cassius in Philippi. another example is Gaius Asinius Pollio, who was a republican and even criticize Augustus in histories, I'm think we could say with all certainty that he did not want to establish a Hellenistic monarchy in Rome. So do you think that his time spent in the east was just as a result of him taking that area as his land in the agreements at the start of the triumvirate and that he made the best of what he could? Do you think that the accusations of Antony's self-portrayal as a Dionysian figure is over played? I know that he tried to keep it in the East and not to bring it back to Rome so maybe he was trying to play some kind of double game - appeal to the East while he was there and also maintain his position as a prominent politician in Rome at the same time.

So, in your view, Tacitus was wrong that there were two views about Augustus? That, in fact, there was only one view--that is, unanimous praise for the butcher of Perusia? That's very difficult to believe. If that's not your view, what alternative interpretation should we be "careful" not to overlook? Well maybe you could say that the way it is presented by Tacitus, with the positive views coming before the negative and the list of negative arguments against him could suggest that Tacitus wanted the reader to finish the passage feeling that there was more negative comments spoken about Augustus upon his death than positive. Obviously there would be people sitting on both sides of the fence about Augustus, as would happen upon the death of almost any great man, or even anyone of any fame. The fact that Tacitus tells us of both sides of the argument doesn't mean that he is necessarily presenting the facts without any kind of agenda. At least it is more interesting (and realistic) than the constant shameless praise we get from most of the sources.

Which view would you support? I know it's a bit futile and hypothetical but which side would you take? It's easy to see why Antony would wish to set up a monarchy (worth a try maybe...?) but is there much evidence of his republican tendencies?

I know you can study classics at Leeds as well, but not ancient history. Is this the information you are looking for?

Yes, I study ancient history there. You can also do classics or archaeology. I'm not too sure about medieval history though, you can take a few modules but I'm not sure they have it as a degree.

Surely if Antony had defeated Octavian, he would have had to find a more suitable solution to the problem of government than simply running Rome as a monarchy based in Alexandria. He knew the dangers of assuming dictatorship - worse still, monarchy and had seen, the same as Octavian the fate of Caesar. Don't you think it possible that had he have defeated Octavian he would be likely to try to promote himself as the restorer of the Republic? Just wondering.....

university of Manchester>?

oooh thanks, I like it! Well done. Another freed slave then! x

Hey, thanks for replying and letting me know about the Pat Southern book on Antony and Cleopatra. I have read his biography of Augustus but I will definitely seek that one out. I have found an article focusing on the propaganda of Antony so I will probably start there. Wish me luck

I for one would love to a take on Antonian propaganda. While you know considerable detail in anti-Antonius propaganda thanks to Cicero and the contemporary Augustan historians, we know far less (relatively speaking) of the countering view. The information is out there, so you're task is certainly not impossible, but I think it could be one that has some very compelling potential... especially considering that everyone knows Antonius was a dirtbag... or was he? As you said, the era and details of Livius Drusus has been well documented and debated, though should you choose it, you may wish to pursue your own angle. Again the information is there, via primary and secondary sources, so you stand a chance of telling the tale of any pre-existing view. However, if you take sides and do so with conviction, even using arguments of earlier historians, you're thesis can stand on it's own and with merit. Hi, thanks for your post. I think you're right and I should write about Antony. Maybe tackling the Social War is something to be reserved for later study. I felt a bit like I was going round in circles with the interpretations so any significant contribution would be hard to achieve. Thanks again!

Hi!, Thanks for your welcome. My scrambled name is: acryeebmltakect There you go, see what you can do with that!x

Hi, Sorry if this is not the right place to post, I have never written on this forum before so excuse me if I have got it wrong. I am currently deciding a topic to pursue for my undergraduate thesis in Ancient History and am having difficulty deciding what to do! I have narrowed the decision down to two main areas and I was wondering which you thought would be the most interesting/ appropriate/ rewarding etc. The first area I have looked at was the political propaganda of Antony in the decade or so before Actium. As obviously Octavian was the victor, most of this has been swept under the carpet but it is still possible to draw some conclusions. The second area I have been looking at is the origins of the Social War and the reforms of Livius Drusus. Most of the information I have found has been on the aims of the allies at the start of the Social War (Brunt, Gabba, Moritsen etc) so I'm a bit worried that if I did choose to do this I would end up reciting the views of other historians. Let me know what you think anyway, and where you think these could possibly lead. Thanks for your time, Aemilianus