Divi Filius

I'm scouring through Tacitus Annals right now trying to find the fraction of the land/wealth that was awarded to successful prosecutors during the Treason Trials. I think it was 1/4 but I am not too sure.

I can't delve into any detail as I: 1. Don't have any of those books on hand at this moment. 2. This review was written over two months ago, the book was read around then also. I can say the main differences are that there are a multitude of citations in the more modern works which give them far more credibility, whereas Lindell only uses primary sources, of them Livy and Polybius almost exclusively. They have more depth, and aren't so bogged down by proving points outside of the historical context contemporary with Scipio.

In terms of a biography, him and Scullards are the only works I know of; and the latter is superior. Of general histories of the period, there is Goldsworthy "Punic Wars" along with Nigel Bagnall. Not much out there on the era but I will say that the few available are more detailed and far more scholarly.

He should, but I simply felt that the extent to which it is done in this book is too far. It's one thing to praise, another thing to make the claim that somehow the Romans could have saved Europe from the Dark Ages and the barbarian invasions if they had just followed a policy of Scipio's which simply does not exist. There are some vague comparisons here and there. However they in no way warranted the title of the book. A title obviously there to bring attention to the audience of it's time. Reliable possibly for the layman with only the most basic knowledge of the history in question. Any modern work(unfortunately Scullards is no longer in print, a far superior work) is likely to be considerably better then this brief work. My main gripe is that his interpretation could have been worth more had there been more evidence used, which there wasn't. Quite the contrary. I consider Scipio Africanus among my favorite figures of Roman history, and at times I have found myself ardently defending him against the "Hannibalophils". I just feel that today there are a number of more scholarly works out there.

There is little a person can do about it anymore. The term will not change anytime soon so I just adhere to it. The name "Byzantine" in reference to the Eastern Roman Empire is pretty much universal. I remember when I visited a museum of the said empire in Corfu a long while back and was rather surprised at the fact that even Greeks themselves adhere to the name.

The term hellene started to reappear more and more in the days of the later empire. Ana commented on how she was proud of her "hellenic heritage" but it was used as something connoting legacy then. Their identity was 'Roman'. However as the Byzantine Empire shrunk more and more and as it became pretty much only Greek populated the word "hellene" began to reappear as something connoting identity.

I always recommend Micheal Grant's Julius Caesar when you are looking for something simple. As for the Gallic War I don't think you will find anything much better than his own "De Bellum Gallicum"(The Gallic Wars AKA Conquest of Gaul). You can easily find something which will have a good amount of commentary on Caesar's account. Penguin Classics is probably the cheapest.

The man is quite critical of Peter Heather, although he does recommend him in his reading list... cautiously. I have not had the chance to read any of his works but plan on going into them in the future. So because of this I chose not to mention him specifically in the review. It's too bad I was not aware of this earlier when he stopped by... It would have made for an interesting question.

Yes, and Byzantine politics were also at fault here. The many knights who did come expected a Byzantine emperor to lead them on. What they found was someone who could barely open the gates to them... Albeit now, the original "army" -- if you can call it that -- that made it's way to Constantinople was a joke, which was made quite clear when they were massacred by the Seljucs. But the following army of hardened knights with proper royal leadership too was disrespected. Byzantine footdragging was also partly at fault for their rambunktious behavior. They came in completely expecting the Byzantines to aid them, instead they did the exact opposite, eventually siding with the Muslims. Anyhows, yes, IMO, the event was a "catalyst", among the hundreds of others in the period between 602-1453. History plays out in many cause and effects. This is among the many of them. One that was originally divised to aid the Byzantines, ended up doing irreperable damage to them, two-hundred years later mind you.

Much of this info comes down to us from satyric poets and moralists of the Roman times and much of it was very likely true. However we should keep in mind that many of the people who report the curruption of the Roman world usually like to exaggerate for their own purpose. The same moralists today who complain about the degeneracy of the world. Should we generalize and say that this world is nothing but a *or*/sex addicted enron like society?

I don't know how much proof exists for there to be such a statement. Yea Centurions were often crooked -- the bribe issue settled by Otho comes to mind. But are we now to make these grand generalizations?

Castles of the Middle Ages actually were a byproduct of later Roman fortifications. As the Roman empirial strength declined and the protection starting swinging more and more to the local -- add this to the disestablishment of the legion as a concentrated force(later Roman legion usually comprised about 1,000-3,000 men in numbers, which is why there were so man in the later Empire) -- new systems of defenses were created. The later foritications of the Roman empire were usually built on inclined position in a rectangular, or if possible round, shape. These foritications were meant to house locals in the time of emergency. In the west this happened during the later 3-4th century decline in urban life throughout much of Gaul and other parts of the empire... What developed in the Middle Ages were heavily based, sometimes actually built, on these structure. However if we are talking gunpowder then I could never see Romans possibly breaking the defenses with their own engines. However ingenuity could help them pick up a few things.

I hope something similar is done in eastern European countries. The archeological site of Apollonia and Buthrotum(Butrint) in Albania have lost a significant amount of artifacts due to looters... Missing Antiquities webpage

Mainly because Cicero pointed at Rome's moral failures during his time. It's in "City of God" Book 2.21 I have to say the work is amazing. I would guess that later latin priests preserved Cicero's works in order to get better acquainted with Augustine. Also a number of earlier pieces of Cicero that come down to us were actually thought to have been written by St. Augustine himself. On one occasion a piece of Cicero's writings actually came from a Vatican 8th century copy of Augustine. The parchment used for Augustine's text was actually a 5th century original document of Cicero which was been erased in order to copy Augustine over it. Those crazy Christians. lol

A saint -- Augustine -- saw him in good light, therefore the church had little to argue with...

According to Suetonius (Div. Iul., lvi) Asinius Pollio thinks that they were put together somewhat carelessly and without strict regard for the truth; since in many cases Caesar was too ready to believe the accounts which others gave of their actions, and gave a perverted account of his own, either designedly or perhaps from forgetfulness; and he thinks that he intended to rewrite and revise them." There is an article available on this from Balsdon. J.P.V.D. Balsdon, "The Veracity of Caesar", Greece & Rome, 2nd ser., Vol. 4, No. 1. (1956), pp. 19-28 He goes over a few of the inaccuracies in his books along with many of the questions that arise when studying it. Here is an interesting excerpt from it, a hypothetical trial in Rome had he not marched on the city: "... if Caesar claimed that the mass movement of 368,000 people (B.G. i. 29) might perhaps got out of control or changed directions on the way, the prosecution would have challenged his figure and suggested that it was not in fact a migration on this scale because, when the survivors (110,000 by Caesar's account) were forced to return home, there was a home still for them to return to; that they would have not been so fortunate, as Caesar claimed, the entire people was migrating, for some other tribe would have moved in meanwhile and seized the territory they had vacated. 'Posse Gallos internis discordiis relinqui', it might have been urged (2). The migration was no affair of Caesar's at all. (2) Cf. Tac. Ann. ii. 26. 3

Under the Empire these were given out quite often, and even had certain designations for which level in the military hierarchy could get which award. Officers of praetorian rank, legionary legates, usually received three of each, while the quota for officers of higher grade, those of consular rank, was four coronae, four hasta purae, and four vexilla. G.R. Watson, The Roman soldier, 115 Many of these conferments were honorary however. Among the famous was

I saw a beautiful one in Bassano, Veneto. It was a massive reproduction of the Bona Dea mural. I felt so bad that I had no economic way of buying it and shipping it to the US. It was about 200 Euro's.

I guess Polybius heavy focus on tactics is what alienates it from the logistics and strategic focus of the US army. His account is also far less romantic then Livy's. Although I definitely think his work should be included. The story of the March of the 10,000 is an excellent story for the impressionable recruit. A damn fine way of getting him hyped for war.

Those list of defeats are often the result of tactic inadequacies on the part of the general. When the Roman arms were put in the hand of a adept leader they are usually almost everything which we see them as. It's far easier to for us to remember Varus then Corbulo. Not necessarily so. Often times we do see generals coming to the plate and turning some pampered or defeated legion into a disciplined and effective force through proper training. Corbulo's re-organizing the eastern legions for his Parthian campaign comes to mind, along with th younger Scipio's in Spain. For Corbulo, Tacitus does state that it was the relative peace of the empire which had hijacked the quality of the legion. During the empirial high point it was no joke to be a legionary, you went through extensive training and drills which I could not imagine anyone forgetting completely; should a proper leader come by, he could kick back to shape any legion - ofcourse there were exceptions, the Praetorians often come to mind - with the right moves. However the general himself forgetting the drills or simply leaving them out in order to be popular or the whole system simply forgetting or losing touch with old chores - Vegetius tells us that the Romans in his time didn't even make proper camps - will render a 5 year campaign pretty much worthless... If your going to take that loss from Livy's book, why not the hundreds of other victories gained against the various other people? What about the eventual climax of it all when the Roman army defeated a united army of Etruscans, Celts and Samnites? The victories, mentioned in Livy, are few and far between and stand in deep constrast to the countless victories gained by the Romans nearly every campaign season. This is to such an extent that the chronology can be made by simply crecounting all the fields of the various people's the Romans destroyed, or the various populations enslaved and treaties signed. Because Hannibal was brilliant and a massive variable. He learned to downplay Rome's military advantage and expose it's weakeness in leadership. Not to mention the fact that the men who were defeated at Cannae were largely new and unseasoned recruits going against an army which had been fighting in Spain since Hamilcar's time. I'm kind of confused about this topic, we seem to be jumping from Punic to Augustan constantly. Granted this may have been Rome's advantage during it's Punic era, but this was not the strategy of the Empirial, it couldn't be. The fact that Rome now had a massive empire that stretched thousands of miles and only so many men to guard everything meant that Rome had to be very careful with it's numbers. The single loss of a legion would have big impacts, the loss of three could very well mean complete abandonment of a territory. As long as Augustus could rely on the many client-states in it's border's the effects were not so severe, but once the empire's borders became increasinly fixed and the old system failed, the effects of a legion's complete destruction could be greatly felt.

Classical history is in recession right now and pretty much all classics historians have stated this. I think it's sad but I'm also not surprised. It was a long long time ago and many like the history they can most connect with. For me, Roman history is my main buff but i also love reading about the history of the Balkans, since I am from there.

I was wondering where I could find, preferably on the internet, reproduction paintings of the Pompeii murals?

You could probably build a Micheal Grant collection that would probably be cheaper then some of the books there. I bought his bio of Nero for about 3 bucks, Armies of the Caesar's for 5, Julius Caesar, the Severans and the Antonine for a total of about 20....

The wall was occupied for a short time but ended up being abandoned. The move was very precarious as the Romans had not fully pacified the tribes south of it and faced fully hostile tribes right north of it; so twenty years after it was built the Romans were forced to recede back to the far more safe Hadrian's Wall. It was again briefly occupied by Septimius Severus but very shortly after abandoned once again. Unfortunately my knowledge on Roman Britain is somewhat limited so Im sure someone else can give you far more detail.

Yea but the themes are from a 1c BC writer... Considering his sources, there is nothing out there that tells me that Roman memory from the 6th century could have been that detailed considering no real narrative survived. Such battles could very likely have taken place in a more hellenistic early Rome. However, Livy did not place the story simply to tell the tale...