Table of Contents (Volume 21 : 29)
Volume 21: 2007
TOM STEVENSON, What Happened to the Zeus of Olympia?, (65-88).
MICHAEL B. CHARLES, A Regimental Nickname from Late Antiquity: Vegetius and the Mattiobarbuli Again, (89-94).
MORRIS SILVER, Grain Funds in the Roman Near East: Market Failures or Murder of the Market?, (95-104).
Gwyn Davies, reviewing K. Kagan, The Eye of Command, J.D. Montagu, Greek and Roman Warfare. Battles, tactics, and trickery, and J. Osgood, Caesar’s Legacy, Civil War, and the Emergence of the Roman Empire, (105-113).
Volume 22: 2008
GORDON R.B. TURNER AND PATRICIA A. HANNAH, ‘Well-Rowed Ships Face to Face with Greeks’: The Naval Imagery on the Textile in Euripides’ Ion (1158-60), (33-52).
JINYU LIU, Pompeii and collegia: a new appraisal of the evidence, (53-69).
J.F. RATCLIFFE AND R.D. MILNS, Did Caesar Augustus Suffer from Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis?, (71-81).
CATHERINE RUBINCAM, Thucydides 8.68.4: A highly unusual numeric statement, (83-88).
Review Article:
JANEK KUCHARSKI, A Euology of Athens, (89-100).
Reviews:
JOHN D. LEWIS, Early Greek Law Givers. AND Solon the Thinker. Political Thought in Archaic Athens. (Gunnar Seelentag), (101-104).
MICHEAL GAGARIN, Writing Greek Law. (David Whitehead), (105-106).
LOREN J. SAMONS II (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Pericles. (A.J. Podlecki). (107-109).
FIONA MCHARDY. Revenge in Athenian Culture. (Edwin Carawan), (110-111).
W. HECKEL, L. TRITTLE, AND P. WHEATLEY (eds.). Alexander’s Empire: formulation to decay. (John Atkinson), (112-117).
CLEMENTE MARCONI, Temple Decoration and Cultural Identity in the Archaic Greek World. The Metopes of Selinus. (H. A. Shapiro), (118-119).
MARY EMERSON, Greek Sanctuaries. An Introduction. (John Griffiths Pedley), (120-121).
PAUL CHRISTESEN, Olympic Victors and Ancient Greek History. (James Roy), (122-125).
MARIA PRETZLER, Pausanias, Travel Writing in Ancient Greek History. (James Roy), (125-127).
A.-F. CHRISTIDIS (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek: from the Beginnings to Late Antiquity. (Shane Hawkins), (127-130).
ANTHONY KALDELLIS. Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformation of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition. (Kelly L. Morris), (130-132).
JOHN ROBERTS (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. (Avi Avidov), (132-134).
CHRISTOPHER STRAY (ed.), Remaking the Classics: Literature, Genre, and Media in Britain 1800-2000. (Norman Vance), (134-136).
N. MCKEOWN, The Invention of Ancient Slavery? (Avi Avidov), (136-139).
SUSAN TREGGIARI, Terentia, Tullia, and Publilia: The Women of Cicero’s Family. (Fanny Dolanksy), (139-142).
JILL HARRIES, Law and Crime in the Roman World. (Michael Lovano), (142-143).
JOY CONNOLLY. The State of Speech: Rhetorics and Political Thought in Ancient Rome. (Kathryn Tempest), (143-145).
J. KÖNIG AND T. WHITMARSH (eds.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire. (Teresa Morgan), (145-149).
OLIVER HEKSTER, GERDA DE KLEIJN, DANIËLLE SLOTJES (Hrsg.), Crises and the Roman Empire. (Udo Hartmann), (149-152).
L. DE BLOIS AND E. LO CASCIO (eds.), The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC- AD 476): Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire. (Hugh Elton), (152-153).
S. GILLESPIE AND P. HARDIE (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Lucretius. (Katharina Volk), (154-155).
TERESA R. RAMSBY, Textual Permanence: Roman Elegists and the Epigraphic Tradition. (Stacie Raucci), (156-157).
ISMENE LADA-RICHARDS. Silent EloquenceL Lucian and Pantomime Dancing. (Marie-Hélène Garelli), (157-160).
KIRK FREUDENBURG (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Satire. (Catherine M. Schlegel), (160-164).
JENNIFER A. REA. Legendary Rome: Myth, Monuments, and Memory on the Palatine and Capitoline. (Steven J. Green), (164-167).
CELIA E. SCHULTZ, PAUL B. HARVEY (eds.), Religion in Republican Italy. (Jörg Rüpke), (167-169).
IZZET, VEDIA. The Archaeology of Etruscan Society. (Albert J. Nijboer), (170-173).
RALPH M. ROSEN AND INEKE SLUITER, City, Countryside, and the Spatial Organization of Value in Classical Antiquity. (Victoria Emma Pagán), (173-175).
RAY LAURENCE. Roman Pompeii: Space and Society, 2nd Edition. (Roger Ling), (175-178).
JOHN T. RAMSEY, A Descriptive Catalogue of Greco-Roman Comets from 500 BC to AD 400. (Richard B. Stothers), (178-181).
MARK W. CHAVALAS (ed.). Current Issues and the Study of the Ancient Near East. (Matt Waters), (182-184).
DAVID GOLDENBERG. The Origins of Judaism: From Canaan to the Rise of Islam. (Michael Lovano), (189-190).
JOHN R. HINNELLS (ed.), A Handbook of Ancient Religions. (Martin S. Jaffee), (190-192).
KATE COOPER AND JULIE HILLNER (eds.), Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in early Christian Rome, 300-900. (John Martens), (192-194).
BIRGER A. PEARSON. Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature. (John Martens), (194-196).
JOHN T. FITZGERALD (ed.), Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. (Douglass Cairns), (196-198).
SILKE TRZEIONKA. Magic and the Supernatural in Fourth-Century Syria. (C. Robert Phillips, III), (198-202).
NORMAL RUSSELL (ed.), Theophilus of Alexandria. The Early Church Fathers. (John A. McGuckin), (202-203).
JACLYN L. MAXWELL. Christianization and Communication in Late Antiquity. John Chrysostom and his Congregation in Anotioch. (Hagith Sivan), (203-207).
Volume 23: 2009
JACEK RZEPKA, Conspirators — Companions — Bodyguards: A Note on the So-Called Mercenaries’ Source and the Conspiracy of Bessus (Curt. 5.8.1-11), (19-31).
RAPHAEL SEALEY, The Drakontian Law of 409/8 B.C., (32-37).
SABINE MÜLLER, In the Favour of Aphrodite: Sulla, Demetrius Poliorcetes, and the Symbolic Value of the Hetaira, (38-49).
LAWRENCE A. TRITLE, Inside the Hoplite Agony, (50-69).
ALDO SETAIOLI, Review Article: A Recent Book on Seneca and his Conception of the Self, (70-84).
Volume 24: 2010
EGIDIA OCCHIPINTI, Political Conflicts in Chios between the end of the 5th and the first half of the 4th Century B.C., (23-43).
VIVIEN HOWAN, Chabrias and Egypt, (44-60).
SALVATORE VACANTE, Alexander’s Realpolitik in action: The Mission of Alcimachus son of Agathocles in Aeolis and Ionia, (61-70).
GRAHAM WRIGHTSON, The Nature of Command in the Macedonian Sarissa Phalanx, (71-92).
SANDRA OTTLEY, The Coup of Nymphidius Sabinus, (93-110).
SERENA CONNOLLY, A Grammarian Honors the Emperors, (111-123).
CHRISTIAN LAES, Children in the Philogelos, (124-141).
Volume 25: 2011
MARINA FISCHER, The Hetaira’s Kalathos: Prostitutes and the Textile Industry in Ancient Greece, (9-28).
GAIUS STERN, The Rarely Heard Voices of Rome’s Lower Classes in Consular Elections, (29-46).
NICK REYMOND, Poverty, Class and the Formation of the Poetic Identity in Petronius, (47-64).
AVI AVIDOV, Were the Romans a Mediterranean Society (and Why Should the Jews Have Cared)?, (65-72).
MORRIS SILVER, Contractual Slavery in the Roman Economy, (73-132).
MATTHEW PERRY, Quintus Haterius and the “Dutiful” Freedman: The consideration of sexual conduct between patrons and freedpersons in Roman Law, (133-148).
Volume 26: 2012
WALDEMAR HECKEL, The Royal Hypaspists in Battle: Macedonian hamippoi, (15-20).
TIMOTHY HOWE and SABINE MÜLLER, Mission Accomplished: Alexander at the Hyphasis, (21-38).
CHARLOTTE DUNN and PAT WHEATLEY, Craterus and the Dedication Date of the Delphi Lion Monument, (39-48).
EDWARD M. ANSON, The Macedonian Patriot: the Diadoch Craterus, (49-58).
DIANE HARRIS CLINE, Six Degrees of Alexander: Social Network Analysis as a Tool for Ancient History, (59-70).
SALVATORE VACANTE, Alexander the Great and the “Defeat” of the Sogdianian Revolt, (87-130).
JOSEPH ROISMAN, Royal Power, Law and Justice in Ancient Macedonia, (131-148).
JOHN WALSH, Antipater and Early Hellenistic Literature, (149-162).
Volume 27: 2013
Abstract: At the first “Many Faces of War” conference Larry Tritle offered a thought- provoking essay, entitled “Inside the Hoplite Agony” (published in AHB 2009), on the real-life experience and agony of hoplite fighting, challenging many accepted views and urging us to discuss this topic not from a detached outside perspective but from that of the men and societies involved. My paper intends to show that the Iliad offers us many opportunities to meet Larry’s demands, although in a few cases it might force him to modify some of his views. In the first part I explain why and to what extent it is possible to find in Homer’s battle descriptions evidence of an early form of mass fighting in somewhat dense formations. The importance of this possibility is obvious: the Iliad contains by far the longest, most detailed, and most intense depiction of battle in all of Greek literature; if this depiction is at least in part (and in identifiable parts) realistic and historical, the gain for our understanding of the real-life experience of Greek battle is potentially enormous, even if this concerns a form of fighting that stands at the very beginning of the development of the hoplite phalanx. In the second part I will use epic evidence to support, illustrate, and in some instances challenge Tritle’s criticism of established views of hoplite fighting. In the third part I will present evidence that allows us to gain an insider perspective on the agony of those fighting in an intense infantry battle and thus to illustrate those aspects of battle that are rarely visible in other ancient sources and usually neglected in modern scholarship.
ARLENE ALLAN, ‘Thanks, but No Thanks’: Oikêia Kaka and Theramenes’ Failed Dokimasia, (23-28).
Abstract: Some thirty years ago George Adeleye suggested that Theramenes’ failure to successfully pass his dokimasia and enter the office of strategos, to which he had been elected, should come as no surprise: his former political association with the oligarchs of 411 BC would have automatically disqualified him from holding any office, based on the law proposed by Demophantes and ratified by the Assembly in 410/9 (Andoc. 1.96-98). Steven Todd, however, strongly rejected this explanation, in part because he did not accept Adeleye’s argument about the purpose of the dokimasia.As I hope to demonstrate in the following discussion, although there may have been very good grounds on which to suspect Theramenes’ commitment to the democracy after the battle of Arginousai and its aftermath, the strongest motivation for Theramenes’ rejection may be far less politically grounded than has been previously thought.
BRUCE LAFORSE, Praising Agesilaus: the Limits of Panhellenic Rhetoric, (29-48).
Abstract: Shortly after the death of the Spartan king Agesilaus c. 360, Xenophon wrote an encomium of his old friend and patron. As one of the two kings in the unique Spartan dual kingship, Agesilaus had played a crucial role from 400 to 360 BC, a period which saw Sparta both rise to the pinnacle of power and then collapse. The Agesilaus is one of the earliest surviving examples of a prose work written in praise of an historical figure. In such an encomium the object was not to present a strictly accurate portrait of the subject; rather it was to praise his character, glorify his achievements and, on the other hand, to anticipate or defend against any potential detractors. Omission, exaggeration and bending of the truth were not only allowed but, indeed, expected. Its purpose, therefore, was far different from that of a modern biography; nor, despite the idealization of the subject’s character, did it attempt primarily to uplift and instruct, as did Plutarch’s later moralizing biographies, by presenting positive and negative models to emulate or avoid. It was designed to praise, to put the best possible face on the subject’s life, career, background and character. It is not, then, strictly speaking, a work of history, and thus scholars must exercise caution when using it as an historical source.
GARY FARNEY, The Trojan Genealogy of the Iulii before Caesar the Dictator, (49-54).
Abstract: In one of his last publications, the late Ernst Badian detailed the history of the patrician Iulii from its beginnings to the time of Caesar the Dictator. There he discussed what others have also long noticed: that the Dictator was not the first Iulius or the only Iulius in his own time to claim a Trojan ancestry. This paper proposes to add to Badian’s insightful remarks and examine in more detail the Julian claims that Caesar and Augustus inherited— rather than invented—that are visible in the surviving literary, epigraphic and numismatic sources.
BENJAMIN HICKS, The Prosecution of M. Plautius Silvanus (pr. 24), (55-64).
Abstract: The trial of M. Plautius Silvanus, as recorded by Tacitus at Ann. 4.22, has long been a point of confusion within our understanding of Roman legal procedure. While there can be no absolute certainty in a case where there are so few relevant ancient sources extant, the hypothesis that M. Plautius Silvanus committed a double crime of both murder and incest makes for a compelling explanation of Tacitus’ account. It conforms to what we know of senatorial procedure and criminal jurisprudence under Tiberius, as well as the functioning of the quaestiones during the early Principate, including the not infrequent use of the quaestio de adulteriis during Tiberius’ reign. Likewise, Tacitus—perhaps out of sympathy for a fellow member of the senatorial class—attempted to brush over the event in his account of the year 24. Although this argument can be made too strongly—certainly Tacitus was willing to acknowledge every charge against the senator Piso except the death of Germanicus, such a tendency might nevertheless have been at work in the case of PlautiusSilvanus. A downplaying of the situation would therefore have produced the confusion over process at Ann. 4.22. It also provides some backing for Maggiulli’s philological work on the identification of the Saevius Plautus mentioned in the Chronicon. This explanation requires us to posit no novel use of senatorial commissions under Tiberius and provides a coherent narrative for the trial of M. Plautius Silvanus that fits the best available evidence.
KORNEEL VAN LOMMEL, The Terminology of Medical Discharge and an Identity Shift among the Roman Disabled Veterans, (64-74).
Abstract: According to the Digest, a part of the Roman civil law issued under Justinianus I, there were three types of military discharges. The honorable discharge (honesta missio) was granted after the completion of one’s military service or as a special imperial gift (ante ab imperatore indulgetur), which is a sign of gratitude for a soldier’s commitment. Soldiers who became unfit for service due to a mental or physical defect were entitled to a missio causaria or a medical discharge. Finally, the dishonorable discharge (ignominiosa missio) was issued to soldiers who did not comply to the military discipline and law. These persons would lose their reputation (inter infames efficit) and they did not receive any of the veteran privileges (a piece of land or a donation of money, citizenship and the right to marry). The introduction of both the honorable and dishonorable discharge can be dated to the end of the republic or the beginning of the imperial era. The period when the medical discharge took effect, however, is uncertain and modern scholars have not reached a consensus up until now. The key issue in the debate is the seemingly contradictory combination of causarius or ex cause (terms that are associated with an early medical discharge) and missio honesta (terms that are associated with the completion of one’s service) in the documents of causarii of the first and second centuries AD. The Roman legislators, however, made a clear distinction between the status of a causarius and the status of a honorably discharged soldier. The question then arises as to why the same distinction was not consistently made for the use of terminology in documents of causarii. First, we will glance through the different opinions and explanations for the peculiar choice of words in the current modern research. Then we will, with the help of new and neglected source material, point to some inaccuracies in previous argumentations and propose another suggestion. The main argument of this article is based upon a possible identity shift among the disabled veterans (causarii), who no longer associated themselves with the honorable discharged soldiers (emeriti) from the early third century AD onwards.
FEDERICO RUSSO, The Oscans in the Greek and Roman Tradition: Some Notes, (75-82).
Abstract: This paper will show that the term ̓Οπικόϛ and its Latin equivalent Opicus have a double meaning in the ancient tradition: on the one hand it refers to a specific ethnic group, on the other hand it becomes a way of indicating a person or, more generally, a people incapable of speaking Greek correctly, with a meaning similar to that of βάρβαροϛ.
JEREMY LABUFF, Who(‘)s(e) Karian Language, Names, and Identity, (86-107).
Abstract: This paper suggests that ethnic identity was not a primary, or at least a highly infrequent, category of self-identification among those whom we identify as ancient Greeks and Karians. Even if, and precisely because, these were not at play in most of the exchanges between those whom we would identify as Greek and Karian, we can better understand and articulate the processes of assimilation that occurred, for it is the lack of expression of an ethnic self-consciousness in most contexts that have traditionally been described as Hellenizing moments which enabled the negotiation of difference in terms other than a Greek/non-Greek dichotomy.
GABRIEL BAKER, Sallust, Marius, and the Alleged Violation of the Ius Belli, (87-129).
Abstract: In the Bellum Iugurthinum Sallust portrays Marius’ treatment of Capsa as unlawful by calling it contra ius belli. Other comments in the narrative suggest that Capsa’s destruction was perhaps strategically unwise, and that it may have been accomplished for the sake of fame and to reward the soldiery with plunder. This paper suggests that the assertion that Marius acted unlawfully should be viewed as part of a larger effort to depict Marius as a general with imperfect virtus: bold and competent but also driven by ambitio, a lax disciplinarian whose desire for personal glory and overreliance on fortune could lead to ill-advised decisions in war.
ANDREW W COLLINS, Alexander the Great and the Kingship of Babylon, (130-148).
Abstract: In this paper I intend to analyze Alexander’s relations with the Babylonian elite and his immersion in Babylonian traditions of kingship, by examining (1) the native form of kingship in Babylon, (2) Alexander’s actions at Babylon in 331 BC, and (3) Alexander’s return to Babylon in 323 BC.
NIKOS KARKAVELIAS, Phrynichus Stratonidou Deiradiotes and the Ionia Campaign in 412 BC: Thuc. 8.25-27, (149-161).
Abstract: The figure of Phrynichus, the son of Stratonides from the deme Deiradiotai, became one of the most controversial ones in late fifth century Athens. Through his wholehearted involvement in the oligarchic revolution of 411 B.C. the oligarch might have emerged as one of the most prominent figures in the Athenian political scene during the oligarchic revolution, but this engagement precipitated his violent death as well. The next generations of Athenians remembered him as an arch-traitor, a hated symbol of a tyrannical regime, which in its short life did everything it could to weaken the strength of the Empire, and reduce Athens to a mere compliant follower of its enemy, Sparta. Yet, despite the almost unanimous agreement in other sources Phrynichus is presented in Thucydides (the present case under examination included) in an objective, neutral, if not outright positive light. The historian draws a picture of a man with outstanding intellectual capabilities, sound judgement, great logical faculty, rhetoric dexterity, and leadership talent. Accordingly, in this paper I shall undertake to examine Phrynichus’ capabilities as a military commander in the Ionia campaign. I hope to demonstrate that, despite criticism levelled at the Athenian commander by modern scholars, Thucydides’ judgement of his performance during that campaign, and in particular Phrynichus’ decision to decline battle at sea, against a Peloponnesian fleet that unexpectedly arrived in the vicinity of Miletus, and withdraw instead to Samos in safety, was sound and correct.
VINCENT ROSIVACH, Funding Jury Pay in Athens c. 461 BC, (162-167).
Abstract: In the Athēnaiōn Politeia Perikles, unable to match Kimon’s private generosity to the citizenry and the political benefit it bought, instead uses public funds to the same end, “giv[ing] to the many what was already theirs” (διδόναι τοῖς πολλοῖς τὰ αὑτῶν, AthPol 27.4) by sponsoring the legislation which provided pay for jurymen. In time misthos – state pay for civic service – became the practical and (at least in the eyes of its enemies) the ideological cornerstone of Athenian democracy. This paper examines the sources of Athenian jury pay throughout the latter 5th century.
Review Article:
THOMAS A. J. MCGINN, Hire-Lease in Roman Law and Beyond, (168-187).
Abstract: A review essay of Paul J. du Plessis. Letting and Hiring in Roman Legal Thought: 27 BCE – 284 CE (Leiden: Brill, 2012)
Volume 28: 2014
Abstract: Strabo’s best known work is his Geography in 17 books, and 19th century critics, who despaired of his amateurism in the areas of maths and astronomy, pointed out that even in the Geography, his most obvious strengths seem to lie rather in the field of history. But Strabo did start with an earlier historical work, which owed conspicuous debts to Polybius, including conceptualising the work as a continuation of his famous predecessor. This paper aims to examine the fragments of the earlier work, and try to isolate some prominent characteristics, in so far as this is possible. Limitations include the small number of surviving citations from the work, and the motives of the restricted number of authors employing it. Strabo’s historical work appears most frequently in Josephus, generally in the Antiquities, but these references do not always clarify the shape of the original. Some investigation of how and why Josephus cites Strabo may help to comprehend this.
PAUL MCKECHNIE, W.W. Tarn and the philosophers, (20-36).
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to show that W.W. Tarn’s principal hope as a historian across the first half of the twentieth century was to identify a philosopher king and to expound his history for the edification of his readers. In a narrative long enough to encompass some decades, I will propose that this agenda crystallized in the context of Tarn’s response to his own education. Therefore the philosophers considered will be, first, the philosopher and university reformer whose abiding influence on Tarn is demonstrated by their extant correspondence, and afterwards the ancient philosophers who were listened to by Tarn’s two successive candidates for the philosopher-king accolade.
MONICA D’AGOSTINI, The Shade of Andromache Laodike of Sardis between Homer and Polybios, (37-60).
Abstract: When reading the long fragment of Polybios 8.15.1-21.11, about Antiochos III’s siege of Sardis, it is impossible not to be amazed by the favourable attitude of the historian towards Laodike, the wife of the Seleukid usurper Achaios. Contrary to what might be expected from an historian who tends to be markedly indifferent towards women, Polybios gives us more information about Laodike than about any other Seleukid woman. Achaios’ Laodike is an exemplar of the loyal and brave wife and her portrait has clear epic echoes. As Polybios was no newcomer to associating Homeric topoi with unexpected situations and portrayals, it is indeed possible to detect in the words of Polybios on Achaios and Laodike a clear reference to the well-known Homeric couple, Hektor and Andromache.
JOHN SHANNAHAN, Two Notes on the Battle of Cunaxa, (61-81).
Abstract: In Xenophon’s account of the battle of Cunaxa, fought between Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger in 401BC, a succinct description of the soldiers facing the Greeks is provided: there were Egyptians present, carrying wooden shields reaching to the feet. No other source mentions the presence of Egyptians. Nonetheless, they warrant attention. The following establishes the trustworthiness of Xenophon, his shield vocabulary, and the relation of his description to other evidence. The second note challenges Ehrhardt’s thesis of the intentional retreat of Artaxerxes’ left wing at the battle, published in this journal in 1994.
LARA O’SULLIVAN, Fighting With the Gods: Divine Narratives and the Siege of Rhodes, (84-98).
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to explore the ways in which narratives of warfare in the Hellenistic period employed “the divine realm.” Focusing on Demetrius’ siege of Rhodes, I will explore the ways in which the Rhodians insinuated that their survival in their tussle with one of the Hellenistic world’s new mortal divinities, Poliorcetes, owed much to the lineage of the island and to the favour of its old and traditional Olympian gods.
MICHAEL CHAMPION, The Siege of Rhodes and the Ethics of War, (99-111).
Abstract: There is certainly a sense in which war’s formless, violent chaos, the lust for domination so often at its core or its sheer unexplainable evil, breaks through all cultural attempts to moderate or contain it. Yet culturally constructed moral norms and expectations about how war should be waged can and do have an effect on decisions about going to war and how to fight once a conflict has begun. This article is an attempt to listen to ethical discourses about war that emerged from the particular and rapidly changing political and social events of the early Hellenistic period, focusing on the Siege of Rhodes (305/4 BCE).
ALEXANDER K. NEFEDKIN, Once More on the Origin of Scythed Chariot, (112-118).
Abstract: In the present article I point out that Jeffrey Rop’s arguments for the Assyrian origin of the scythed chariot are not based on the historical evidence. The only note of Ctesias on Assyrian scythed chariots is questionable. The Assyrian hypothesis is not supported either by Mesopotamian cuneiform or the abundant Assyrian iconography. The Persian origin hypothesis remains more probable and widespread among modern scholars. It is based on more reliable ancient sources (Xenophon, Arrian) and should be supported.
DAVID LUNT, The Thrill of Victory and the Avoidance of Defeat: Alexander as Sponsor of Athletic Contests, (120-134).
Abstract: In ancient Greece, founding and presiding over athletic festivals augmented an individual’s prestige and position. This paper explores roles founding and sponsoring of athletic festivals maintained Alexander the Great’s important role as a military and political leader throughout his campaign against Persia. In addition to the benefits that games offered to the soldiers in his army, Alexander sponsored athletics in order to associate himself with victory without risking defeat.
Volume 29: 2015
Abstract: In this paper, I draw attention to the ancient world’s experience with insurgency warfare specifically through an analysis of the Lamian War, which swept the Greek mainland after the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BC, when the Macedonian general Antipater faced a revolt of the Greek city states. Antipater’s decision to fall back on Lamia was a calculated tactic to hold a fortified position and accumulate resources, and this was consistent with modern counterinsurgency strategy. The skillful use of the Exiles’ Decree allowed Antipater to divide and isolate his opponents. Antipater also showed mastery of asymmetric strategy, and was capable of managing crises and holding positions with minimal cost. His overall victory was achieved by methods familiar to modern counterinsurgency strategists.
NIKOS KARKAVELIAS, The End of the Four Hundred Regime, (28-56).
Abstract: Widely accepted modern reconstructions of the post Four Hundred era take as point of departure Michael H. Jameson’s ingenious proposal, that the collapse of the oligarchic regime did not come about suddenly, as Thucydides suggests, but gradually through a series of political trials, the outcome of which determined the political orientation of the regime of the Five Thousand, which superseded that of the oligarchy of the Four Hundred. This reconstruction, however, despite offering a neat and plausible picture of the political situation in Athens at the time, cannot stand close scrutiny. It does not tally with what we know about constitutional and juridical procedures in classical Athens, nor does it do justice to our main and most important source Thucydides. An attempt therefore to critically re-examine the relevant sources and to assess anew the military and political situation in Athens in the autumn of 411 is badly needed.
ELOISA PAGANONI, Bithynia in Memnon’s Perì Herakleias: A Case Study for a Reappraisal of Old and New Proposals, (57-79).
Abstract: In this paper it will be shown that Memnon deals with the history of the Heraclea but places it in a broader context, which allows us to understand many aspects of general history. In addition, it will be demonstrated, through an analysis of Memnon’s Perì Herakleias, that local histories dealt primarily with historical events, and that if surviving, they would have given an inconceivable contribution to our understanding of the ancient history. While we might greatly regret the loss of the local histories, at the same time it is important to highlight the importance of Memnon, not only for the history of Heraclea, but also for the study of local histories.
Review Article:
THOMAS SCANLON, Satan’s Business or the People’s Choice: The Decline of Athletics in Late Antiquity, (80-90).
Abstract: A review essay of Sofie Remijsen, The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
BENJAMIN SCOLNIC, The Villages of the Carians in Diodorus Siculus and Seleucus I’s Route to Babylon in the Winter of 312/311 B.C.E., (91-114).
Abstract: The text of Diodorus renders the Greek name of the location as Κάραις in both 17.110 and 19.91 and Καρῶν κώμαις (Karôn Kômai) in 19.12: “the villages of the Carians” and not Karrha. In this paper I suggest that these references to Κάραις (Carae) should be linked to long-established settlements already utilized by Alexander in his army’s route from Susa to Opis during his campaign in Persia and Babylonia in 324 (Diod. 17.110), and by Eumenes as a winter quarters in 317 during the Second War of the Successors (Diod. 19.12.1). Since the existence of these settlements bears on the historical question of the placement of Carians in Babylonia before and after Alexander, I will bring several chronological and geographical arguments to support this theory. In particular, I will examine the sequence of events in 312/311 in the context of the Third Diadoch War and in so doing explore the nature of Diodorus’s account of Seleucus’ march to Babylon and how the general raised an army on the way. In the end, I hope to offer deeper context for the term “Mesopotamia” and its relation to the villages of the Carians in Diodorus.
ANDREW G. SCOTT, Leadership, Valor, and Spartan Death in Battle in Xenophon’s Hellenica, (115-133).
Abstract: This paper examines the application of a specific phrase, namely μαχόμενον ἀποθανεῖν (to die fighting), throughout the works of Xenophon. As the majority of applications occur in the Hellenica, and specifically in a Spartan context, I assess the import of its usage, arguing that Xenophon applies the phrase when he wishes judgments, primarily negative, of both Spartan valor and leadership to be made. This finding has implications for Xenophon’s view of Spartan hegemony more broadly.
GUGLIELMO BAGELLA, Il Metodo Compositivo di Plutarco per la Vita di Crasso, (134-156).
Abstract: This article aims to give a new reading to the concluding events in Plutarch’s Crassus by employing a broader comparison between the Nicias and the Crassus in order to distinguish the historical facts from the literary artifices adopted by Plutarch, which, according to the author, help illuminate the nature of their his characters. Through a combination of Plutarch studies, neo-parthiká and ars militaris, I will attempt to expand the discourse identified by Braund (i.e., the link between Plutarch and Dionysus, Crassus and Bacchus) and develop the method put forth by Zadirojniy (on the “symmetry of polarities” use of Euripides in the Crassus and Nicias).
ALEXANDER YAKOBSON, Cicero, the Constitution and the Roman People, (157-177).
Abstract: This paper suggests that the idea of imposing essentially new and untraditional limits on the legislative competence of the assemblies with an avowed aim of restricting the power of the Roman People to “will and command” as it pleases would have been beyond the realm of political feasibility. The people were prepared to hear that their fundamental rights as Roman citizens and free men could not be taken away from any them even by a decree of the People as a whole; but political realities did not allow the Roman elite to use this potentially promising notion in order to further limit the people’s power of legislation. As long as the Republic lasted, the Roman people—with all the necessary qualifications that the use of this term requires, and without forgetting that we are not speaking about anything remotely resembling a modern democratic electorate—were, for the Roman ruling class, a force to reckon with.