M. Porcius Cato

For Indiana Jones fans, this article from Archaeology might be better than seeing the newest installment.

You managed to unearth an even worse pun. Well done!

From Toothpaste for Dinner:

Very nice additions Bryaxis.

My favorite example of an eclipse prediction came from the philosopher of biology, Ernst Mayr, who was on a field expedition as a young biologist. Attempting to replicate a similar event from Mark Twain's "Connecticut Yankee...", Mayr confidently predicted a solar eclipse to a tribal elder, whom he hoped to overawe. The tribal elder replied, "Don't worry. It'll pass." Somehow this story has a greater ring of truth than all the rest.

With family and friends in Iraq and with a Ron Paul sign in my window, I'm with you Nephele. Just to be clear: I'm not arguing on behalf of the war, only on the benefits of keeping a base in the region. A base would serve as a deterrent to the Iranians and thus as a safeguard against further deployments.

You may be right about public opinion, but at least one of the implicit targets of Applebaum's claim (Barack Obama) has said that he wouldn't simply bring all the troops home and that he would be willing to send them back in if necessary. Given Obama's statement, I don't think Applebaum is fighting a straw man. It's arguably hypocritical of Obama to denounce McCain and Clinton for endorsing a limited presence in Iraq if Obama recognizes that some US presence is warranted. Moreover, I do wonder whether pulling out of Iraq will keep us out for good. Certainly, we left Vietnam and never needed to return. The unsuccessful resolution of WWI, however, forced Americans back to Germany in less than 25 years, which I'll bet was the last thing anyone could imagine happening in 1918. My hope is that we can leave very soon--and for good, but I can easily imagine scenarios (e.g., an Iranian-backed Shiite government in Iraq supporting attacks on Israel or Saudi Arabia) that would land us right back where we started. We can pray that doesn't happen--or we can accept the Kurds' invitation to base some troops in the region to make sure it doesn't happen.

Great question. Typically, Roman events were dated by referring to the consuls for the year. For example, one would write, "L. Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus was born during the consulships of L. Postumius Albinus and Cn. Fulvius Centumalus." This was handy because the Romans had dutifully recorded (e.g., on the consular fasti) who served as consul since nearly the beginning of the republic. The problem, however, is that it makes calculations opaque. Without a numeric code, you can't quickly determine how many years had passed between (say) the consulships of Albinus and Centumalus and the consulships of C. Sempronius Tuditanus and M'. Aquillius (100). Plus, what do you do when you need to date an event that occurred prior to the first consul? These problems led to an alternative system, used by Livy: one could date events 'ab urbe condita" (from the founding of the city), which obviously predates the republic itself. In this case, Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus was born in 525 AUC (i.e., 229 BC in our Gregorian calendar). This is a neat solution because it makes calculations easier, and the number line stretches further back. The problem with the AUC dating scheme, however, is that it relies on some shaky assumptions regarding the relations among the consular fasti, the number of annual nails that had been driven into the relevant temple, when the practice of annual nails began (and how reliably they had been apportioned yearly). Finally, how are you supposed to date the first Olympics this way? In any case, the AUC system was rarely used by Latin authors, who generally preferred the old system of dating by consuls (or emperors and the year in which they were reigning, e.g., in the 2nd year of Nero). For scientific purposes (e.g., calculating astronomical events such as solar eclipses), almost all ancient systems (including the Greek system of dating events by the Olympiad) are faulty because they must incorporate intercalary months to make up for leap years, and during events like the Punic Wars or Caesar's war on the republic, this didn't happen as it should have. This is one of the reasons behind the creation of the "Julian" calendar (though proper credit should go to Sosigenes of Alexandria, not the guy who caused the calendar to go out of whack again in the first place and couldn't even apply Sosigenes' algorithm correctly), as well as behind Augustus' correction of the first Julian calendar. Because the corrected Julian calendar corresponds (almost exactly) to the solar year, this calendar could keep a year (almost exactly) a year long, and it enjoyed use until well after 1453.

Full story HERE.

I think Anne Applebaum may be the cleverest writer alive. HERE's her smack-down of that Gawker-style, pro-pacifist book on WWII, Human Smoke.

Yes--and his true hero, Bismarck.

Is this chap the gifted individual who discovered a 1500 year old book which - curiously - has the same syntax as the early 19th century context in which it was discovered? Actually, that's the least fishy part of the story. Leave it to South Park to nail it.

Same--the Aemilius Paullus described by Plutarch. My favorite deed: of his spoils from Macedonia, he deposited nearly the whole batch in the public treasury, thereby freeing Romans of any taxes--that is, up until the consulships of the Caesarians Hirtius and Pansa (boo! hiss!). Aemilius Paullus was also to be found in the front rank of the philhellenes, and he never lowered himself to the rank populism that Scipio did. BTW, tradition has it that the Aemilii were descendants of Mamercus, son of Pythagoras. I like to think that if the Aemilii had triumphed over the Julii we would see a Library of Pythagoras in the Forum instead of a dumb temple to Venus.

I don't think it's crazy. The "Later Roman Empire" is often bookended by the accession of Diocletian in 284 and the death of Theodosius in 395, when the empire was divided between Honorius and Arcadius. That said, at least there were still Roman emperors in the west after 395, and there were no more after 476.

To take this thread a bit more seriously than I have up to now, I'd say that our view of Caesar is colored by his depiction by Christians like Shakespeare (e.g., "When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept"). If the Moors had successfully conquered England, I'm sure we would be reading a thread on Muhammed-Caesar parallels instead. Come to think of it, ever notice the parallels between Joseph Smith and Caesar?? Never mind.

Typical Mommsen--what a drama queen. Yes, there were plenty of men in the republic who rose above the rank of mediocrity. They even managed to build a workable, democratic government that held sway over most of the Hellenistic Mediterranean.

Another valuable installment Nephele. Among the Aemilii, whom would you nominate as their greatest representative?

Caesar won the corona civica for his service in the east, but I doubt that a mere contubernales of the unremarkable Thermus would have been worshipped by the locals. So, if there were any cult statues erected to that queen of Bithynia, they must have been cast from the same mold that shaped the cult statues to Antinuous.

Great find, Asclepiades. That addresses the problem nicely.

But what ambitious Roman didn't extol their ancestors and promote their family myths? I don't think we need Alexander to explain why Caesar promoted his descent from the kings of Alba Longa.

I'm not sure this helps clarify things, Asclepiades. Are we to assume that all the proscriptions were to be carried out only on the day that the list was published? That makes no sense: it implies that if a proscribed man could survive just one day, he would be free again. We know that this is not the case--some went into hiding for months. Thus, the time that had elapsed between the publication of the proscription list and the murder doesn't seem germane. Unless there is another law we're failing to consider, if Roscius the Elder had been on the list, his murder would still have been legal--regardless of whether it was committed by his son or someone else. So, why doesn't Cicero defend his client on these grounds? I don't think the answer concerns the validity of the legal argument.

Again: If Jesus is Caesar, where do I sign up for Satanism?

Nice to see you back Asclepiades. What an interesting point! A very interesting point indeed...I just can't believe that Cicero wouldn't have addressed this issue if it had been relevant to the case. Cicero addressed heavily on this issue; it was a critical part of his defense, as he showed how the purported proscription was a crude hoax from Chrysogonus and company. Actually, Sextus Roscius Sr. was a sullan. You're entirely missing the point of the question: Why would Cicero want to show that the proscription of Sextus Roscius the Elder was a hoax? If Sextus Roscius the Elder really had been proscribed by Sulla, then Sextus Roscius the Younger would seem to have been acting legally in killing his father. Indeed, as his killer, he would have had a legal claim to the property of his father, rather than it having been sold at auction. Thus, Cicero appears to have missed an easy way out for his client.

Even if there were no plugs/drains, it's still possible that they knew to circulate the water. An Archimedes screw could be used as a pump for circulating the water out.

Excavations of farms in North Africa very often find private homes with heated baths. Seems like some of the problems reported for the public baths (e.g., use by the ill, algae) might have been minimized for these private baths.