Band 12, Heft 1

This paper proposes a comparison between Xenophon’s Memorabilia and Greek historiography, with the aim of further illuminating Xenophon’s literary techniques. I pursue this comparison in two parts: in the first part, I deal with the verbs ἤκουσα (“I heard”), ὁρῶ (“I see”), and οἶδα (“I know”) and the expression δοκεῖ μοι (“it seems to me”), examining their uses in Xenophon and his most important historiographical predecessors respectively (Herodotus and Thucydides); in the second part, I turn to the section about Critias and Alcibiades ( Mem. 1.2.12–48) and suggest some possible connections with Greek historiography. Throughout my analysis, I highlight both similarities and divergences between Xenophon’s techniques and certain historiographical methods and principles. I suggest that reading the Memorabilia in the light of Greek historiography enables a better evaluation of Xenophon’s literary techniques and that the manifold ways in which Xenophon evokes or differentiates himself from historiographical practices form part of an original apology.

The Macedonian phalanx, invented by Philip II, is considered to have been a pikeman-phalanx. However, a detailed analysis has shown that the full pikeman-phalanx must have been a later military innovation which was introduced at the beginning of Antigonus Dōsōn’s reign. Before this, the phalanx can only have been one of spearmen, although it is probable that the rear ranks were already armed with pikes. Following a deeper investigation, and taking into consideration forgotten archaeological material from Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article argues that this reform of the Macedonian heavy infantry’s armament occurred as a consequence of Demetrius II’s major military defeat in a pitched battle against the Dardanians in 229 BC.

Triumphal policing in the 60 s and 50 s BCE was unusually intense. During this period, nearly all triumphatores were forced to wait for years ad urbem (outside the pomerium ) while their petitions were obstructed by their opponents, a trend that certainly contributed to an historically low rate of processions (an average of around one every three years). No figure appears as frequently in our evidence for triumphal policing and obstruction in the late Republic as Cato the Younger. Whereas scholarship has previously discussed his triumphal interventions through familiar (and problematic) lenses (e. g., Cato the “arch-conservative,” Cato the “political nemesis of Caesar,” Cato the “unrealistic citizen of Plato’s Republic”), this piece offers a new reading of Cato’s letter on the topic ( Fam. 15.5), contending that Cato’s interest in the triumph was motivated by his anxiety over the use of military achievement to legitimize aristocratic political power. When read correctly and in context, Cato’s beliefs and actions regarding the triumph were revisionist, not conservative; ideological, not personal; and genuinely interested in bringing about tangible change in Roman political culture.

Roman historiography’s pervasive biographical tendency created a “biographical distortion field” wherein items of praise and blame bundled with the names of prominent individuals were passed down and recycled by authors. The affective potency of moral judgments in these rhetorical packages prompts readers to jump to simplistic explanations and distracts them from evidence supporting more holistic historical arguments. This article re-examines events of the year 22 BCE to demonstrate the impact of this biographical distortion. It seeks to show that, contrary to accounts blaming individual aediles and censors for problems in this year, popular unrest in Rome in response to various disasters and to Augustus’ retirement from the consulship necessitated adjusting the duties of certain magistracies to meet the crisis.

Frontinus’ De aquaeductu urbis Romae is a profoundly political document written in part to assist Nerva at a perilous moment of dynastic rupture and uncertainty in the imperial court. A highly respected senator, Frontinus was a key figure both in legitimizing Nerva’s reign and in engineering Trajan’s succession. His tenure as curator aquarum was also fitted to this role. After the Praetorian uprising in summer 97 CE, his reforms of the aqueduct system took on greater urgency as he found ways to use water as a tool to sway senatorial opinions toward Nerva and, by fall of that year, toward Trajan. Yet he was adopting reforms and expansions of the system that had begun under Domitian. The large aqueduct projects Domitian had begun—including, it is argued, the early phases of the Aqua Traiana—were occupying Frontinus’ watermen when he entered office; this led him to misrepresent their efforts on Domitianic projects outside the city as petty thievery and corruption. He probably suspended the incipient Aqua Traiana but continued more advanced projects that promised a quicker political reward.

This article takes a fresh look at the identification of the East Roman consul for 460 CE. Although recent scholarship has favored a military candidate over a civil candidate of the same name, the author suggests that there is a better argument for the civil candidate based on an examination of East Roman political and religious issues in the 440 s and 450 s. If so, the choice may also shed new light on Aspar’s political strategy in the late 450 s and early resistance to the advancement of his son, Patricius.