Roman historians

This paper gives a whole new insight into the tribunate of the plebs before the Licinian Sextian reform (367-366 BC).

According to the tradition transmitted by the narratives of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rome was, in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, a young Republic, the main characteristic of which was to be the duality of its society. Moreover, this social dualism patriciate/plebs would have been coupled with an institutional dualism consuls/tribunes of the plebs. Now recent studies (in particular those of T.P. Wiseman) tend to show that the consulate would definitively have been established only during the licinian-sextian reforms (367 BC). Under these conditions, the traditional representation of the tribunate makes no sense anymore. The present study aims at redefining the identity of the original tribunes, which in all probability would have been military leaders until consuls were definitely created. The various arguments tackled are the famous testimony of Varro (LL, 5, 81), the cases of opposition to the dilectus (military recruitment), the second secession of the plebs, the progressive increase of the tribunes number in a political and military perspective and, the last but not the least, a fundamental testimony of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (X, 43 and 45), which has often been forgotten.

Si l’on en croit la tradition que nous ont transmise les récits de Tite-Live et de Denys d’Halicarnasse, Rome était, aux Ve et IVe siècles av. J.-C., une jeune république, dont la caractéristique principale se trouvait être la dualité de sa société. Ce dualisme social patriciat/plèbe se serait en outre doublé d’un dualisme institutionnel consuls/tribuns de la plèbe. Or de récentes études (notamment celles de T. P. Wiseman) tendent à montrer que le consulat n’aurait été définitivement instauré que lors des réformes licinio-sextiennes (367 av. J.-C.). Dans ces conditions, la représentation traditionnelle du tribunat perd tout son sens. La présente étude vise à redéfinir l’identité du tribunat originel, qui selon toute probabilité, aurait été une magistrature militaire jusqu’à la date de création définitive du consulat. Les différents arguments abordés sont le célèbre témoignage de Varron (LL, 5, 81), les cas d’opposition au dilectus (recrutement militaire), la deuxième sécession de la plèbe, la remise en perspective de l’augmentation progressive du nombre de tribuns dans son contexte politique et militaire et surtout un témoignage fondamental et oublié de Denys d’Halicarnasse (X, 43 et 45).

As explained in the earlier parts of this work, I have always seen Augustus as a product of his time. In this final part of my 20,000+ examination of Augustus’ early career I look first at how, and why, Mark Antony repeatedly sought to impede Octavian’s early moves to have his adoption by Caesar recognised, and to claim his inheritance.  I consider the problems this caused for both Octavian and Antony, and how the cycle of reconciliations and rifts drove Octavian to side with Cicero and the conservative factions in the Senate.  In this, I look at both the political and other inducements offered by the Senate to win Octavian to their side, and the way the conservatives then attempted to recant their promises after the battle that saw Antony defeated and the consuls Hirtius and Pansa dead on the field, leaving Octavian in sole command of the conservative factions army.
These last betrayals were what pushed Octavian, now much better placed politically and militarily, back towards the Caesarian faction and the foundation of the Second Triumvirate.
I should also note that a great part of this paper is taken up with resolving the confused chronology of Appian’s account, through careful use of corroborating evidence from Cicero’s letters from that time.  This section covers events from April to October 44.  I have made some significant restructuring of this section prior to publication here.
The last part of my paper was rather rushed, simply because – when I originally wrote it – I was running out of time.  The key events are covered, albeit briefly.

The Battle of Adrianople has been presented as a turning point in history by classical as well as by modern authors. In this paper, classical sources, especially the res gestae, are being set into context together with modern works, trying to point out a balanced view on historical events and their interpretation by historians. Special attention is being paid to legal aspects as the foedus and dedictio within the limits of the Roman ius gentium. In light of the sources, the Roman-Gothic conflict, even if having resulted in a devastating defeat for the Romans, did not yet challenge the ideal of the Roman state as a hegemon power. The Goths did not seek to infiltrate the Roman Empire in order to carve out their own realm, but even after the battle rather sought to gain permanent and secure settlement within the system of the Roman state. This research focuses on a critical analysis of the events as presented in the res gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus.

William Gurnee Sinnigen was a Classicist and Roman historian, active in the mid-to-late 20 th century. Trained at the University of Michigan by noted Roman administrative historian Arthur E. R. Boak, Sinnigen continued his mentor's work in administrative history, producing several articles on different aspects of Roman and Byzantine administrative topics. Sinnigen was also responsible for the revision and update of Boak's acclaimed textbook on Roman history, as well as Charles Alexander Robinson's textbook on Ancient history. This article will provide a brief biography of Professor Sinnigen, along with a bibliography of his published works and reviews by other scholars of his work.

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology Vol. 3, No. 1 (2016) pp. 47-51.

Improved argumentation of what was published in my paper "Tribuni plebis ou tribuni militum?" (see above). A lot of clues tend to show that there existed an original tribunate cumulating civil and military powers up to the licinian-sextian reform (367 BC). These powers would have been split up only at this moment, with a distinction between tribuni plebis and tribuni militum, in the same time the consulship would have been definitely created (see T. P. Wiseman). Later on, when the early Roman history started to be written, the ancient reality of the original tribunate, of which the Romans themselves didn't have an accurate idea anymore, was progressively reinterpreted by anticipating a later reality. The influence of the Gracchan and Sullan times on the process of historiographical distortion is manifest.

RESUMO
A história dos pictos é envolta por enigmas e mistérios, um deles é sua origem: esta tem sido tratada como a rápida tomada de consciência de um comum pertencimento por parte das diversas sociedades que habitavam o norte da Grã-Bretanha devido ao confronto com um inimigo maior - os romanos, o que os teria levado a perceber suas similaridades. Porém, de acordo com a teoria de James E. Fraser, especialista no assunto, a identidade picta seria uma construção exógena. Seguindo esta hipótese e tomando como apoio o conceito de “atribuição categorial” de Frederick Barth, o presente trabalho tem como objetivo constatar que elementos desta construção exógena são possíveis identificar nas obras de escritores do Império Romano.

ABSTRACT
The history of the Picts is shrouded in riddles and mysteries, one of them is their origin: this has been treated as the rapid awareness of a common belonging by the various societies that inhabited northern Britain due to confrontation with a major enemy - the Romans, which would have taken them to realize their similarities. However, according to the theory of James E. Fraser, an expert on the subject, the Pictish identity would be an exogenous construct. Following this hypothesis and building upon Frederick Barth's concept of "categorical attribution", this work aims to note what elements of this exogenous construction are possible of being identified in the works of the Roman Empire writers.