Caesar (Classics)

In Caesar's Civil War: Historical Reality and Fabrication, Westall combines literary analysis of Caesar's Bellum Civile with a concern for the socioeconomic history of the Roman empire. The Bellum Gallicum and the Shakespearean play are better known, but Caesar's partisan account of the Roman civil war culminating in the battle of Pharsalus offers a historical text of perennial interest and relevance. Two introductory chapters contextualize this book and offer a traditional narrative of political and military history for 49-48 BCE. There follow seven chapters that are dedicated to each of the geographical theatres of civil war. These chapters show how Caesar's testimony sheds important light upon the nature of Roman rule in the Mediterranean, but also explore the problems to be encountered in using potentially tendentious testimony.

But concerning friendship, all, to a man, think the same thing: those who have devoted themselves to public life; those who find their joy in science and philosophy; those who manage their own business free from public cares; and, finally, those who are wholly ...

Abstract
This article examines the longstanding rivalry of Rome and Parthia, which began as an unintended consequence of Crassus’ decisive defeat at Carrhae in 53 BCE. It synthesizes the accounts and opinions of numerous Graeco-Roman writers from the Augustan Age to late antiquity in order to help illustrate the new and interconnected post-Carrhae world and its legacy. The rivalry of the Romans and Parthians became a primary focus of their foreign policies and drastically expanded their perceptions of the world in which they interacted. Even after the fall of the Parthians to the rebellious Sassanid Persians in the 220s CE, the Romans continued to find their three-century-long rivalry with the Parthians of interest and relevant to the changing world of late antiquity.

This book provides a definitive account of the history of the Roman calendar, offering new reconstructions of its development that demand serious revisions to previous accounts. It examines the critical stages of the technical, political, and religious history of the Roman calendar, provides a comprehensive historical and social contextualization of ancient calendars and chronicles and highlights the unique characteristics which are still visible in the most dominant modern global calendar.

A lo largo de sus tres siglos de historia en la época imperial romana, la función principal de la Guardia Pretoriana fue la protección de la figura del emperador allí donde este se encontrara, ya fuera actuando permanentemente como su escolta y guardia personal  en el palacio imperial o como última línea de defensa en el ámbito militar. Pero como cuerpo de élite del ejército romano acantonado en la capital del Imperio también se les encomendó el mantenimiento y, en su caso, restablecimiento del orden allí donde fuera necesario. Así, la Guardia Pretoriana se conformaría como una de las piezas clave en la historia imperial romana como uno de los actores principales no solo a nivel militar sino también a nivel político, papel este último muy alejado de las funciones iniciales para las que fue creada pero que poco a poco fue cobrando especial relevancia tanto por su cercanía a la figura de los sucesivos emperadores como por su acantonamiento en la capital imperial. Consciente de su poder, no fueron pocas las ocasiones en que los pretorianos utilizaron su posición e influencias para dirigir y aprovechar los habituales cambios políticos en la cúspide del poder . Pero, aun siendo menos conocida, no sería menor la importancia bélica que en los campos de batalla protagonizarían los pretorianos en numerosas ocasiones como unidad militar y que a la postre les consagraría como uno de los pilares fundamentales del régimen imperial prácticamente desde su creación, en tiempos de Augusto , hasta su desmantelamiento llevado a cabo por el emperador Majencio.
Como cuerpo de élite del ejército, reconocidos como los mejor entrenados y preparados como demostraron en no pocas ocasiones, y en base a su especial misión recibían una paga superior al del resto de soldados; y su tiempo de servicio era varios años menor, por lo que resultaban ser la envidia del resto de unidades militares y en particular de aquellos que servían en el limes del imperio . Es por ello que trataremos aquí de realizar un estudio esquemático sobre su formación, estructura, actuaciones, etc. con el fin de ahondar en el conocimiento de esta institución muchas veces denostada por algunas de sus intervenciones.

"Recall to your mind and ponder the fact that C. Caesar, while engaged in a most formidable war in Gaul, wrote ... two books of the most meticulous character On Analogy, discussing amid flying darts the declension of nouns, and the aspiration of words and their classification mid the blare of bugles and trumpets [Fro. Parth. 9 transl. Haines]."

In a letter to the emperor Marcus Aurelius, the grammarian and rhetorician Fronto refers to Caesar to encourage his former pupil to dedicate some of his time to intellectual activities. Fronto’s passage is one of the few testimonies to Caesar’s linguistic interests, which culminated in the writing of a treatise in two books, De Analogia. Suetonius (Jul. 56) reports the episode in less romanticized terms, confirming the title and the number of books of the work, and also adding detail about its composition, namely that it was written “while crossing the Alps and returning from Hither Gaul, where he had held the assizes”. Caesar’s treatise is also mentioned by Quintilian (1.7.35) and Gellius, who also transmits two important quotations. The first (1.10.4) is a fortunate aphorism:

[fr. 2]1 Avoid, as you would a rock [scopulum], every unheard and unusual word [inauditum atque insolens verbum].

The second piece, quoted by Gellius, is found in an anecdotic passage (19.8.1-8), in which the same Fronto, engaged in a grammatical discussion, invites his audience to read an excerpt of the De Analogia. The passage quoted is a rhetorical question, in which Caesar apparently opposes a naturalistic conception of language:

[fr. 11B] Surely you do not think that it happens from the nature of these things that we say ‘one land’ and ‘several lands’ ... and that we cannot convert quadrigae into a singular nominal form or harena into a form of the plural, do you?

Another important testimony to De Analogia is found in Cicero. In his rhetorical work Brutus (253), finished in 46 BC, Cicero attests that in the midst of the most absorbing activities (in maxumis occupationibus) Caesar wrote with great care (accuratissime), and dedicated to Cicero himself a treatise on the method of “speaking correct Latin” (de ratione loquendi).
Cicero also quotes two passages from the text. The first, short and paraphrased, is a summary of what seems to be Caesar’s theory of eloquence as presented in De Analogia

(fr. 1A “[Caesar] affirmed that the choice of words is the source of eloquentia”), to which Cicero makes further allusion in a later passage (Brutus 258 = fr. 1C).

The second quotation, in Caesar's own words (his verbis), is a convoluted and flattering (and probably ironic) extract from Caesar's dedication to Cicero:

[fr. 1B] And if, to the task of giving brilliant expression to their thought, some have devoted study and practice - and we must recognize that you [i.e. Cicero] have deserved well of the name and prestige of the Roman people as almost the pioneer and inventor of this resource - yet are we now to consider that the
knowledge of this easy and everyday speech may be neglected [facilem et cotidianum novisse sermonem nunc pro relicto est habendum]?

The dedication to Cicero and the reference to rhetoric are important elements for the reconstruction of the work. They suggest that the treatise was somehow related to Cicero’s rhetorical discourse, and in particular, as will be discussed below, that in all likelihood De Analogia is a ‘response’ to De Oratore (published in 55). Combining these elements with the information on the assizes reported by Suetonius (which excludes 53 and 52), one can suggest the spring 54 as a probable date of composition.
The final piece of evidence for De Analogia consists of a number of passages from grammatical treatises quoting linguistic views of Caesar.
This slight but yet intriguing evidence raises some crucial questions. Why did Caesar dedicate some of his precious time, in such a momentous period, to write a grammatical treatise? What was the content of this work? What was its background? To whom did Caesar address his treatise? What grammatical theory did he adhere to and why? Is there any relation between Caesar's grammatical stance and his other cultural enterprises, such as his reform of the calendar or his supposed Epicureanism? Did De Analogia have a role in Caesar's political agenda?
In this chapter I will address these questions: first I will analyze the fragments of De Analogia and discuss the grammatical background, in order to reconstruct the content and aims of the treatise. I will then explore the relation of these with Caesar’s other intellectual achievements and with the rhetorical, philosophical and political discourse of the late Republic, focusing in particular on the position of the De Analogia in the controversy with Cicero.

The death of Caesar’s legates, Sabinus and Cotta, with their fifteen cohorts in 54 BC is the most significant defeat of Roman armies in Gaul. In his Commentarii, Caesar presents this setback as the result of one man’s fault : his legate Q. Titurius Sabinus. Behind Caesar’s propaganda, the tale of the clades Tituriana provides a rich source of information for an analysis of Roman legionaries combat experience. As it tells the story of an inevitable defeat, Caesar’s text provides details shaping the contours of this experience. The use of modern military psychiatry combined with an anthropological approach allows the reader to better identify the efficiency of the Roman legions and also their weaknesses and vulnerability.

Caesar’s geographies of Gallia and Britannia as set out in the Bellum
Gallicum differ in kind, the former being “descriptive” and much indebted to the
techniques of Roman land surveying, the latter being “scientific” and informed
by the methods of Greek geographers. This difference results from their different
contexts: here imperialist, there “cartographic.” The geography of Britannia is
ultimately part of Caesar’s (only passingly and late) attested great cartographic
endeavor to measure “the world,”

It is difficult to determine a precise date for the Gospel of Mark’s composition, even if it is widely believed to have been written during the decade spanning 64–73 CE. This article suggests that the academic disagreement arises due to heavy reliance upon Mark’s ambiguous temple-and-war passages (esp. 13:1-23), which can be read realistically in disparate historical contexts. This article proposes to supplement such work with a focus upon the taxation episode (12:13-17), a pericope with subtle indicators of Mark’s historical context, including geopolitical administration, coinage circulation, and tax policies. The article suggests that these data cumulatively indicate Mark was not written earlier than 29 August 71 CE.

Acknowledgements-I am grateful to Dr Dominic Berry for his help and guidance in creating this dissertation. The all too brief melanges in his office were invaluable for me as he kindly allowed me to drain from him his wisdom of both the period, and that most eloquent of Caesar haters-Marcus Tullius Cicero.

Souvent qualifiée de « célèbre » ou de « fameuse », cette unité est sans doute la moins bien connue des légions césariennes.

Au détour d'une phrase de sa biographie de César, Suétone nous apprend qu'il a formé à ses frais une légion appelée Alauda (Alouette). Ses soldats étaient des pérégrins issus de Transalpine, qui n’ont reçu la citoyenneté romaine que bien après leur enrôlement. Comme aucune autre source  n’en parle jamais, à commencer par César lui-même, cette légion atypique a fait l’objet de nombreuses  hypothèses. En s’appuyant sur des sources épigraphiques d’époque impériale, on a ainsi supposé qu’elle devait correspondre à la Legio V mobilisée par César dans sa campagne africaine.

Un réexamen des sources permet toutefois de remettre en cause la pertinence de cette identification. Tandis qu’aucun élément ne permet d’affirmer qu’il a existé une Legio V Alaudae du vivant de César, un faisceau d’indices fait clairement pencher la balance en faveur d'une origine hispanique de la Legio V du Bellum Africum. Il y a en réalité de fortes chances pour que la « légion » gauloise évoquée par Suétone n'ait jamais été considérée comme une légion régulière de l'armée romaine.

La deuxième partie de ce travail de recherche s’efforce de comprendre qui étaient les soldats d’Antoine désignés par le terme « Alaudae » dans plusieurs textes de Cicéron. La façon dont cet auteur s’y prend pour critiquer leur accession à la troisième décurie judiciaire, sous l’impulsion d’Antoine, permet de déduire qu’il s’agissait sans doute de soldats d’origine italienne et non de Transalpins fraîchement promus citoyens. La  Legio V Alaudae pourrait avoir été créée par le triumvir, mais après les événements de 44 et 43 av. J.-C.

La troisième partie de cette étude se penche sur l’épineuse question des Legiones Quintae qui ont existé dans la période charnière entre République et Empire. Les données épigraphiques nous permettent de savoir qu’elles ont été associées à différents surnoms : Alaudae, Gallica, Macedonica et Urbana. Cette ultime partie s’intéresse ensuite plus particulièrement à la Ve légion impériale qui fut stationnée en Hispanie puis en Germanie, dont les sources semblent indiquer qu’elle n’a véritablement porté le nom de Legio V Alaudae qu’à partir du règne de Claude.

For know the controversial history of the Druids in the Celtic world, will investigate the sources of its origin, through stories of classic texts and medieval legends of Gaul, Britain and Ireland. His role in Celtic society surpassed the religious sphere, covering war, politics, medicine and the law. Almost unknown is the participation of women in this institution.

The medieval Latin poem ‘Waltharius’ is a Germanic saga transformed into a traditional Latin epic. This transformation has been effected, not just by the use of Latin hexameters, but also by the appropriation of complete lines and half-lines from ancient Latin epics, first and foremost Virgil’s Aeneid. In contrast, the opening of the Waltharius is curiously unepic. Instead of indicating the general theme and invoking a divinity, as the ancient poets did, our poet opens with an ethno-geographic overview that would not be out of place in a scientific or historical treatise. In this paper I will argue that the ethno-geographic opening of the Waltharius, together with the subsequent description of Attila’s conquest of Gaul, have been modelled on Caesar’s De bello Gallico, with Attila playing the parts of Orgetorix and Caesar himself. (in Dutch)

Roma İmparatoru Julius Casear M.Ö. 47 yılında Zile’de, Pontus Kralı II. Pharnakes’i mağlup etmiş ve böylece Anadolu topraklarında bin yıl sürecek Roma hâkimiyeti önündeki en önemli engeli bertaraf etmiştir. Sezar’ın “Veni, Vidi, Vici” sözleri ile hafızamıza kazınan ve Anadolu’nun tarihinde bir kırılma olarak kabul edilebilecek bu savaşın önemini takdir eden bazı seyyahlar ve araştırmacılar Zile’ye gelerek savaş yerinin tespiti hususunda incelemeler yapmışlardır. Buna rağmen savaşın yapıldığı nokta bugün dahi bir muamma olarak kalmıştır. Öte yandan antik dönemde cereyan eden, özellikle büyük tarihi şahsiyetlerin rol aldığı savaşların bilgileri, tarih ilmi kadar askeri-strateji açısından da önemsenmiştir. Bu çalışmada Avusturya-Macaristan ordusundan emekli Albay Georg Veith’in Zela Savaşı’nın yerini tespit ederek savaş haritasını oluşturmak üzere 1925 yılında Zile’de yürüttüğü ve ne yazık ki hayatına mal olduğu tetkikat konu edinilmiştir. Çalışmamızda Veith’in incelemesi üzerinden konu yeniden değerlendirilmiş ve elde edilen sonuçlarla Zela Savaşı’nın muhtemel savaş alanı seçenekleri analiz edilmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Roma Tarihi, Zile, Zela Savaşı, Sezar, Georg Veith

Roman Emperor Julius Casear, BC. In 47, he came to Zile, he defeated II. Pharnakes, the king of Pontus and thus thwarted the most important obstacle in front of a thousand years of Roman domination in Anatolia. Some travelers and researchers who came to Zile, who understood the importance of this war, which we remembered with the words “Veni, Vidi, Vici’ of Caesar and accepted as a turning point in the history of Anatolia, came to Zile and examined the location of the war. Nevertheless, the point where the war took place has remained an enigma even today. On the other hand, the knowledge of the wars that took place in the ancient period, in which the great historical figures played a role, was considered as important as the military-strategy as well as  the science of history. In this study, ın Zile, ın 1925, the etude of Colonel Georg Veith, retired from the Austro-Hungarian army,  in order to determine the location of the Battle of Zela and to create a map of the war was examined but unfortunately this etüde in Zile, cost his life. In our study, the subject was re-evaluated through Veith's analysis and the results obtained were analyzed with regard to the possible battlefield options of the Battle of Zela.
Keywords: Roman History, Zela, Zela Battle, Julius Caesar, Georg Veith

"Although it is well known that Lucan’s Libya is a wild and threatening place, its threat is not restricted to indigenous people, places and things, such as Hannibal, Cleopatra, the Syrtes, or the desert with its catalogue of horrifying snakes. He also associates Libya with anti-Republican Romans, above all Julius Caesar, who endangers the Republic with his excessive, animalistic energy and resembles the continent where he is trapped in the final book.
Although the gods as characters are removed from the world of the Bellum Civile, Lucan allows supernatural traces to linger in particular locations such as the Gallic grove in Book 3 or Thessaly in Book 6. Libya is by far the greatest of these reservoirs of frightening myth and fantasy, which do violence to the historical credibility of the narrative, just as Libya itself is presented as the origin or conduit of a number of historical characters who assault Italy and Europe.
Lucan’s two mythic narratives (Antaeus in Book 4 and Medusa in Book 9) are essential parts of the hostile Libyan landscape, but in very different ways. The male Antaeus, associated with lions, is connected with a region of solid rock where he was destroyed. The female Medusa, associated with snakes, is connected with a region of shifting sands where she left a deadly, everlasting legacy. To complicate matters further, even though Medusa’s snakes represent the annihilation of the Republican self, the logic of the narrative is undermined and there is even a sympathetic subtext.
As part of Libya’s historical and mythical legacy, these stories reveal that for Lucan, historical epic is linked with Republicanism, but mythical epic is in the service of dictatorship."

At the beginning of 62 B.C.E., Caesar was temporarily suspended from his praetorian duties. At about the same time, he was twice named among Catiline’s accomplices. This article aims to reveal the interconnections between these two episodes, their chronology and their political context. The results allow us to see the logic of permanent confrontation between Caesar and his conservative opponents in the 60s in a new light. The denunciation made by Curius was delivered on the day after Caesar's attempt to take the task of restoring the temple of Jupiter away from Catulus. Vettius denounced Caesar at the time when he was already suspended from the administration of the state. In both cases, Caesar succeeded in escaping thanks to his popularity among the people.

The article aims to reconcile Suetonius’ evidence about 6000 talents Caesar received “in his own name and that of Pompey” from Ptolemy for the latter’s establishment on the throne of Egypt, and Plutarch’s evidence that at the moment of his death Ptolemy owed Caesar a half of that sum (17 500 000 drachmas). The article argues against the view of M. Gelzer and M. Siani-Davies, according to which this debt originated in 54 BC, when a Roman banker Gaius Rabirius transferred unpaid debentures of Ptolemy to Caesar’s name. Additional arguments are proposed in favour of H. Heinen and R. Westall’s view that in 59 BC Caesar received only a promissory note but no payment in cash from Ptolemy. An attempt is made to clarify the roles of Pompey and Rabirius in this transaction.

In his edition of Caesar's Gallic Wars, Andrea Palladio imagines that the ancient model could bring military skill back to contemporary Italy. through many drawings (large engravings) he tries to represent Caesar's great battles. The article studies Palladio's intention and the precision of the images.

Für die Klassische Philologie wie die Alte Geschichte bietet die antike Geschichtsschreibung den direktesten Zugang zur Lebenswelt und Geschichte Roms. Fast zwei Jahrtausende haben Caesar und Sallust, Livius und Tacitus, Sueton und Ammianus Marcellinus, aber auch Dionys von Halikarnass und Cassius Dio als Quellen für das Bild Roms und des Römischen Reiches gedient. Diese Einführung fragt nach der Überzeugungskraft dieses, ja jeden historisches Erzählens. Sie beschreibt die Formen und die Entwicklung geschichtlicher Dokumentation und Darstellung, von dürren Chroniken über anekdotenvolle Biographien bis hin zu Universal- und Kirchengeschichten und der Lektüre der Bibel als Geschichtswerk.

In anschaulichen Bildern und einprägsamen Beispielen werden die Techniken und Strategien der Texte wie die kulturellen und historischen Voraussetzungen ihrer Verfasser beleuchtet. Jörg Rüpke erschließt ebenso die historische Quellenlage wie literaturwissenschaftliche Zugänge zu diesen Texten.

Dans les parties de la Vie d’Auguste qui nous ont été conservées, Auguste est, assez discrètement, placé en contre-point de César. Ce dernier est dépourvu des qualités qui, pour un Aristotélicien, servent de socle à une monarchie (charisme personnel, capacité à incarner l’unité de l’État et usage réfléchi de la clémence), qualités qu’Auguste, lui, possède bel et bien. En outre, le vainqueur de Pompée, incapable de contrôler ses passions, se laisse déborder par des émotions qu’il est incapable de maîtriser : sa colère est trop souvent erratique ; sa compassion dégénère en lamentations ; sa peur se transforme en panique, même pour des événements futiles, mais ne le protège pas des complots tramés par ses ennemis. Octavien, lui, n’est nullement exempt de ces passions, mais il sait les transformer en actes vertueux, ainsi que le veut la doctrine péripatéticienne : la colère et la crainte que lui inspire Antoine le poussent ainsi à agir avec courage et discernement. Lire les événements rapportés par Nicolas de Damas à la lumière de son aristotélisme aura donc montré comment l’historien établit un contraste entre César et Auguste pour mettre délibérément ce dernier en valeur.