Search Results

This chapter focuses on 1st-century CE Roman historical narrative, with a view to understanding to what extent Josephus may have been influenced by such writing. It is argued that works such as Valerius Maximus’ Memorable Words and Deeds, Tacitus’ Annales, and Frontinus’ Strategemata all displayed a similar tendency towards the use of exemplarity (exempla) as a principal technique of understanding the past. The increasing emphasis on ‘great figures’ by 1st-century Roman historians, a phenomenon catalyzed by and pulled towards the figure of the Emperor, was a literary tactic which underlined individuals as unique actors in history. It also, however, portrayed individuals’ actions and behaviours as relatively fixed paradigms, to be imitated or eschewed by posterity. This chapter maintains that this technique of exemplarity is to be seen as inextricably linked with the increasing influence of biography on Roman historical writing, sometimes, as in the case of Tertullian’s and Jerome’s references to Tacitus’ work, actually becoming conflated with it.

The closing chapter examines the military techniques of Muhammad, both in insurgency and conventional operations, by placing him within the known military science of his era and beyond. His field craft, organization, training, and logistics are evaluated in relation to ideas posited by the best military minds of the era, among them Frontinus, Polyaenus, Maurice, Onasander, and Sun Tzu. Additional comparisons are made of Muhammad's techniques to those calculated by more modern observers of the military art, such as Carl von Clausewitz, Waldemar Erfurt, and Hugo von Freytag-Loringhoven, while analyses by Eric Hoffer and Saul Alinsky are marshalled to an evaluation of Muhammad's political acumen. Chapter 8 concludes with a final assessment of Muhammad as a military commander and of why he ranks among the other great leaders of his era.

This chapter provides detailed information about the Roman aqueducts, ranging from the position and importance of the water sources to the course and volume of the aqueducts and the number and organization of the personnel employed in this critical branch of the Roman public administration. It presents the summary created by Frontinus about the history of how Rome's citizens obtained water during the centuries stretching from the city's foundation to the creation of the aqueducts.

This chapter examines the extent to which Hellenistic compilations were known at Rome and whether these literary forms were imitated in Latin. It considers the Memorable Words and Deeds of Valerius Maximus and the Stratagems of Frontinus, which combine features of the Hellenistic collections into a thematically arranged handbook of historical material apparently unknown in the Hellenistic era.

The strong correspondence between laudatory rhetoric in poetry and panegyric and the images that appear on Nerva’s coins allows a reinvestigation of the age-old debate regarding the agency behind the creation of Roman imperial coin iconography. The evidence available, at least in Nerva’s reign, suggests that the emperor was not the agent; instead, a prominent individual in charge of the mint was responsible for the selection of the imagery. By attending to Trajanic records, it appears that such individuals were very close to the emperor and known to him. This suggests that prominent equestrians in charge of the mint thus were part of the emperor’s inner circle and walked in the same social circles as the people who inked praise directed at the emperor: Martial, Frontinus, Tacitus, and Pliny. These prominent equestrians were thus in a position to visualize the rhetoric used to praise the emperor.

This Chapter Looks at Coins made and used by peoples on the edge of the Roman world in Britain just before and just after their conquest. In it I want to ask what the evidence of the coinage, its inscriptions, designs, and findspots, can say about various kinds of collective identity in Britain in the late pre-Roman Iron Age and early Roman periods, how they were constituted, and how they changed. The reason for focusing on Britain in this period is not merely that I know more about it than anywhere else. It provides a well-attested external case for comparison with contemporary developments within the Roman empire discussed elsewhere in this volume, especially with regard to such overarching and perhaps overused narrative themes as ‘Romanization’. It also allows us to explore certain current propositions about how to exploit coins as a source for understanding ancient identities. In recent scholarship in ancient history and archaeology, particularly English-language scholarship, ‘identity’ and its kindred concepts have become a major focus of thought and debate, particularly with regard to questions of ‘ethnic identity’, or ‘ethnicity’. So intense has been the focus and so absorbing the debate, however, that certain important aspects of human identity often tend to be left out of the picture. As an instance of this, I might cite the notion of ‘identity’ underlying this very volume, which seems essentially restricted in range to those aspects of identity which we think Roman provincial coin-types are able to tell us about—ethnic, civic, and political. These are important, of course, but they aren’t by any means the whole story. There is perhaps also a general presumption that provincial coin-types take us straightforwardly into the shared symbolic world of the civic communities in whose names they were made. The possibility that the coins and their designs might rather be selectively representing symbols associated with certain groups, the sponsors or adherents of a particular local temple depicted on a city’s coins, or the wealthy participants in a festival whose prize-crowns were adopted as a civic coin-type, is not generally taken into account.

The origins of Nabataean Petra began c. 300 BCE from nomadic settlement origins and extended to later Roman administration of the city at 106 CE with final Byzantine occupation (Basile 2000) to the 7th century CE. Trade networks that extended throughout much of the ancient orient and Mediterranean world intersected at Petra and brought not only strategic and economic prominence but also the impetus to develop water resources to sustain increasing population and city elaboration demands. City development was influenced by architectural, cultural, and technological borrowings from Seleucid, Syro-Phoenician, Greek, Roman, and Far Eastern civilizations. The city water distribution system utilized many hydraulic technologies derived from these contacts that together with original technical innovations helped to maintain a high living standard throughout the centuries. Analysis of Nabataean piping networks indicates that design criteria were employed that promoted stable flows within piping, employed sequential particle settling basins to purify potable water supplies, promoted open-channel flow within piping at critical (maximum) flow rates that avoided leakage associated with pressurized systems, and matched spring supply rates to the maximum carrying capacity of pipelines. This demonstration of engineering capability indicated a high degree of skill in solving complex hydraulics problems to ensure a stable water supply and is a key reason behind the many centuries of flourishing city life. Because of Petra’s location between Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian territories, many exterior influences dominated the Nabataean cultural landscape over time. The sacred spring created by Moses, as described in Exodus accounts, has been equated with the Ain Mousa spring outside of Petra although controversy exists as to its location (and historical accuracy) with contending Sinai sites. Biblical and Koranic references to areas around Petra relate to the use of water channels and springs by the inhabitants to maintain agriculture and settlements; Assyrian texts ascribed to the Sargonic era (715 BCE) mention tent cities in this area. The earliest proto-Nabataean period (6th century BCE) is derived from Edomite agriculturalists assimilating with nomadic tribal groups familiar with caravan-based trade activities. Although the origins of the Nabataeans remain controversial (Gleuck 1959, 1965; Taylor 2001; Guzzo and Schneider 2002), their final consolidation in areas around Petra in the early 3rd century BCE is evident from the archaeological record.