Divi Filius

Or maybe it could be Livy emulating something from Homer and Greek mythology? Livy's early books are filled with this; this is not different. I would say this kind of warfare is believable in terms of the traditional Hellenic city-state mentality. The short-supply of manpower in the ancient cities of Greece meant that people had to think as conservatively as possible. Imagine being an independent city of 20-30,000 citizens and losing 1-3,000 men in a single battle. An alternative had to be considered since these cities were in a state of almost constant feud and warfare. The single battle between the two cities could be a way of settling small territorial disputes which could otherwise errupt into a disaster. Think of how disasterous it was for Athens to lose in it's Sicilian expedition, which is considered to have destroyed it's hegemony. Yet when we look at how man men were lost, approximately 34,000 men, they pale in comparison to the overall losses which the Romans sustained in the first and second punic war. However, while Livy may have adopted it - that is not say that it did not come from Fabius - for the Homeric theme, to me it seems rather unroman. In the end it was Rome's willingness to shed it's blood to the very last drop that brought Hannibal to his eventual defeat. Polybius himself gave away the belief that if Hannibal had not fought Rome he could very well have replicated Alexander's conquest. Not to mention the fact that's views on war had a far more "scientific" theme to it. Rather then heroic battles, the main attraction is the mechanics of war. but enough ranting..

In American Public Schools all students must daily stand, place the hand on their heart and sing the pledge of allegiance. The whole thing is done in such a monotone and uniform way that the memory of the recitation among the various Americans here must not differentiate much... During the early elementary school years I remember having an ethusiasm for it. In my schools they made us stand for the Pledge and then on every friday we had to sing the national anthem. As I headed into the high school years and into the individualist, anti-comformist years I remember many around me sitting down during the whole thing, or mocking it.The city started enforcing it more after the Iraq war started. You wont face it much after public education. I didnt think anything of it when I first moved to the US from Albania.

Okay... it seems that I completely missed a part of Suetonius bio (VIII,viii) The paragraph focuses mainly on the restoration of the Temple of Jupiter Best and Greatest - burned to the ground in December 18, 69, by the Flavians. But outside damage of the fire that occured on that day must have been minimal; though Tacitus does say that the fire spread from the nearby houses to the temple; and that there must have also been damage done during the battle for the city the next day, I think this particular piece is discussing the past fire.

True. However my time-frame focus is up to 71-2AD when Vespasian returned to Rome and finished making the damage assessment. According to Suetonius, Life of Vespasian (VIII,xvi) Gwyn Morgan, in his book 69AD Year of the Four Emperors, states that there could be a lot of truth into this. So I wanted to see if it was possible to assess just how much the empirial restoration, after the events of 69AD, would have cost. I brought up the 64AD fire since I wanted to see if amount of this sum would have went towards this if it had not been completed by the end of Nero's reign. Tacitus doesn't discuss the city's condition* during these events so maybe the reconstruction must have been finished by then? It would seem plausible considering the hap hazard way much of the buildings were constructed and Suetonius does give us a hint that a plan was actually made during Nero's reign; --Life of Nero(VI, xvi) *However he does mention that the peace in the empire let the buildings adject to the capitol grow up to it's height....(Histories;III. lxxi) This account is similar to the Cremona one.

Okay, based on my grasp of the events, the recovery would involve: -Reorganization of the legions and the Guard. -Restoration of the Rhine(specifically, destruction caused by Civilis but also Vitellian destruction) -Restoration of Rome(not including the 64 fire, going into that in a bit) -Restoration of the Gallic provinces. -Restoration of northern Italy( Specifically, Cremona. Though I doubt it was heavy) -Restoration of the Danube Other than that, I don't think there was much damage elsewhere in the empire. The Parthians were quiet in the east and the Judean campaign had been put on halt until the events were fully resolved, but I doubt this would count much into the recovery. Now my question is: Does anyone know the extent which Rome recovered from the Great Fire under Nero, or what the general consensus of the scholars is? Considering the large neglect in the last years would mean that there wasn't much done ( outside of Nero's villa ofcourse). Im interested in finding how much, if any, of this receipt was to repair the city's devastation from the fire. That is if infact there wasn't a full one under Nero's time.

To tell you the truth, the one reason I get a bit depressed about the Anglo focus when dealing with Roman history is due to the fact that so much significance is placed on Roman Britain(with good reason I suppose) meanwhile other provinces do not get much attention. I understand that similarly that Roman Spain for instance would be dominated by Spanish archeologists and historians, meanwhile Gaul is largely in the hands on the French. Yet still, something in me doubts the strength of Spanish or Italian historians for some reason... Worse still for my own province, Haimos/Balkans where serious scholarship is seriously lacking. Beggars can't be choosers though...

If it was legal I wouldnt mind putting up some Journals on the time period I have picked up from JRST. But since its not open to the public... I dont want to get this place in trouble for anything...

Awesome, I have his veersion of the Illiad and odyssey... They are great... Definitelly going to pick it up...

History of the Later Roman Empire (Two volumes) by J. B. Bury is a good narrative, if not a bit antiquated(It was written in the 20's). History of the Byzantine State by Georgije Ostrogorski begins with Constantine The Later Roman Empire by Averil Cameron(One volume, its not too big, i would suggest this for an inntroduction There is always Cambridge Ancient History, if you have a local university library... I wouldnt suggest forking over the cash for it... primary sources are rare so your not very likely to find many. There is Ammianus Marcellinus, whos cut down history(of his actual history only the last fifteen books survive) is available through penguine classics(much of his anecdotes are lost), there is Procopius Secret Histories but I have never seen any of his On Building/On War unfortunately, I havent seen much of Zosimus either... Dont do what i did and introduce yourself to the history by picking up AHM Jones massive work... I have so much trouble now trying to bring back what I read.... Oh yea... And I just recently read (thanks to Viggen for recommending it) Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire : From the First Century A.D. to the Third Has a few tid bits on the later empire(it ends at Diocletian)... Best not read as an introductory to the period as there is very little actual history... But after some of the narratives have been set and done, I would definitely pick this up.

For beginning books I would recommend Penguin Classics. They contain (although most are heavily selected or abridged) easy to read translations of the classical authors with solid introductions into the period and a hefty amount of notes. They are very cheap used. Its an excellent way to start off learning about the history before you move on to the bigger stuff..

Tiberius had his work made out for him quite well. Its hard to really judge the man based on the fact that he did not deteriorate the state but rather kept it the way it was. If you are to say Tiberius was great, then how godly would Augustus become? We often make is to judge the good emperors based on those who could keep the status quo and those who deteriorate it are the bad ones. This is fine, there is no problem with judging a man good because he can keep the times good. I do however personally find a problem when we group those who could keep that status, with those who make the best out of the status of empire that they are given. To tell you the truth, I cannot find an emperor who was trully the best.... Except Augustus... one who is all to common.

I just opened a paypal account and purchased it... Thankfully I was recently able to get my hands on a credit card... I wanted to get this for a long while.

AHM Jones also wrote a good Prosopography of the late Roman Empire, I have only gotten a chance to skim through it when i was in an upstate NY University which my friend attends. Its still pretty expensive at 300-400. Neverthless, I can hardly picture myself reading such a thing without falling over dead...

Roman society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius sounds very good. Thankfully however, I managed to find just what i was looking for: The Roman empire of the second century, or, The age of the Antonines (Epochs of ancient history) (Epochs of ancient history) (Unknown Binding) Only one more copy available used. So far this is all I was able to find.

Yea, this era always always seems to be placed in the greater context.

Oh and I just saw my spelling error. I meant Nerva not Nera.... lol So far the only accounts I have had of the "5 good emperors" are through various tid bits here or there in different books, so my knowledge is rather weak. So I was wondering if there was any sort of general survey of that period. I have Michael Grants "The Antonines" which acts in such a way(though its a very short one) for the period directly following the one I am looking for(starts with Antoninus Pius).

I've read both the accounts of Suetonius and the year of four emperors by Gwyn and Tacitus accounts of his Histories. Thats why I wanted to move onto post-Dominitian days. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire sounds very good. However the scope is much larger(extending to the 3rd century crisis and begining with the Julio-Claudians. Which means the focus will diminish. Neverthless, thanks a lot. I will be ordering this. But I guess deeper studies on the era will be done through more indirect methods

Because he was reponsible for sprouting an empire which lived in his shadow centuries after his death. The middle east was never the same after his empire was built. It created a mix of eastern culture with native Greek one which produced some of the greatest cities of the ancient world(Alexandria). The culture established by his empire could not even be extinguished by Romanization. The eastern part of that empire continued to Greek in culture and language and stayed so into the Byzantine times. An effect which was felt until the subsequent Arab conquest. Another is legend. He was revered in the entire Hellenistic world. Something which passed on to us into the Middle Ages and then to the Renaissance and the modern world. Today our view of the man has been largely altered in light of modern politics and WW2. It is just as easy to degrade Alexander's achievements as it is to overexaggerate them. Indeed Alexander had attained his army and tactics from his father Philip, just as he himself adopted the oblique advance from Epaminondas. However nobody had ever done it to such a scale as he. Epaminondas did it with a relatively small army against one just as big. Same with Philip, Alexander had to do it against an enemy over twice his size with an army twice as big as Philips. On top of that the sheer level headedness that he showed in the battlefield, never succumbing to panic. On top of that to start out at such a young age from relatively nothing. Napoleon and Hannibal spent much of their careers learning the art of war. Alexander started at 18 and showed sheer brilliance. On top of all this the man completely revolutionized warfare. Adding artilery outside of sieges and placing them into the battlefield. His sieging skills alone. The mobility of his army(his march on Thebes). His acts against Porus in India(the real test of his generalship I have to say) or the mountain warfare. The warfare he fought would dissappear until the time of Julius Caesar and beyond. None of the campaigns of the above ever succeeded in greating such vast empires. 1. Embarrases the western world 2. None left such as a significant cultural legacy. Alexander is mentioned in the Kuran and was revered in Persian well into the Sassanid Empire Something which Augustus commented on. Alexander was first and foremost a fighter. After his campaigns he planned further ones. Arabia, Italy etc. Whether he woulc have succeeded? Who knows. Yet this is another thing that adds to his fame. The fact that he died so young after having completed so much, he left the world wondering at how far he could go, which lead Livy to take a piece of of his history to discuss the chances of Italy having fallen. We still discuss whether he could have conquered here or there. We are left to wonder just how he was going to administer the land(though in likelihood he would have changed very little if anything from the Persian system, which was extremely cohesive).

Im trying to look for one that survey's that particular era, but all I can find are rather expensive single bipgraphies. Also Im talking about second hand sources(I have Augustan History) So far the only survey I have read of that piece of history is from AHM Jones Later Roman Empire. Which was about a 30 page one.

As much as I want to buy one or two of these books(perticularly Poverty in Rome and Journey of Theophanes, for some reason I have a big itch for Roman life now, the army took a step back), Ill have to wait until there are a certain quantity of them used availble for the very scaled back price. I just recently purchased Micheal Grants The Antonines and The Severan used for 10 dollars(whereas new it was something like 50-90). They came in brand new conditions.

Herodotus hailed from Halicarnasus yes, which was a city heavily populated with native Carians but also a large population of Greeks and(according to Olmsteads "History of the Persian Empire") the city had already started it's steady process of hellenization by that point. I havnt heard of any traceable Carian ethnicity in Herodotus though, however I would assume in a majority Carian city he would have some Carian blood.

I saw the one in Verona a little while ago, shame I didnt go inside though i was in a rush. Another treat would be the one in Pula, Croatia: I believe this is one of the best maintained ones.

According to Peter Greens account, Darius probably had no more the about 100,000, highest estimate could be maybe 120,000. Of those that actually took part in the battle it could probably be as low as half before the route occured. Fuller gives us no actual details other than that its cavalry "it must have surpassed that of Alexander". I would personally say his army could have been about 80,000-100,000 infantry and about 30,000 cavalry. Alexander's image has always changed. In the time right after his death to the time of the Roman empire, largely due to the constant threat of Macedon to the Greek cities, Alexander was pretty much looked down upon as a man who overthrew freedom. That "vision" which you speak of is a creation of the Pax Romana historians and their interpretation of the conquest. The peace and prosperity in the time of the main sources which we have today of Alexander(Plutarch, Arrian, Rufus) deeply influenced their view on the conquests of Alexander. They themselves lived a world which they considered the ideal(one where Hellenic learning was dominant and Rome brought Greek culture to the farthest regions of the world). That view is no more distorted then the modern Post-WW2 vision of "men of action". One can argue it was a supremist and ethnocentrist view in itself. Why does the world need Hellenization and Hellenic learning? isnt it a massive degradation of native Persian culture which led about this mentality? On top of that there is little evidence that Alexander actually had any interest in some dual Persian-Greek world as much as any Greek or Persian had in it. At times he would imbue both cultures by mixing customes, something which insulted both Greeks and Persians. Alexander loved his soldiers so as long as they were obedient. Historians argue that the Gedrosia disaster was actually one which Alexander was aware of but did so as to punish the men who forced him to forfeit his conquests. Add this to the fact that he himself had long been recruiting native Persians which was planing to raise for a next invasion. He had for a long time been killing off his commanders and replacing them with more obedient and opportunist Persians who did not have the belligerant tone which the Greeks commanders had, something which was especially necessary for a man who was becoming increasigly despotical. He returned Porus to his kingdom because he did not have anymore administrators that he could pick out from his own list of commanders. He couldnt spare anymore. So he was content with giving Porus the rule in the land. In the end Porus even gained through it all since he received more land then he had before, another example that shows how precarious Alexander's position actually was. In many ways he had overstretched himself and thus began to compromise with the local rulers which he conquered. Porus was one along the many other Persian satraps which he kept in place. The Persians had deep reverence toward the Queen and viewed her to the position of a Goddess(Mother-Goddess). Through her Alexander could solidify and validate his rule over the Persian Empire. She pretty much dissappears when Alexander realizes that Persians will not accept him as ruler no matter what he does, I dont remember but I think she eventually kills herself or dies naturally... I forgot. To have killed her would be more insulting then to have killed the Shahansha himself.

Wot, you can try ebay, I think they have it. I would not recommend UK amazon.com since the book is ridiculous there, but American amazon has it for around 90 dollars used. I dont know if they ship internationally however.

Yea I just checked on amazon, its cheapest is 90 dollars. On ebay its 170. In the UK its 270 pounds. I guess I will make a trip to the NY public library one day. After putting down what I have now and finished Lindel Harts I will go and pick this up.