Thesis (Ph. D.)--York University, 2001. Graduate Programme in Political Science. / Typescript. Title on thesis acceptance page: Bringing the ancient world back in: elements of a critical realist international relations theory. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 214-228). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://wwwlib.umi.com/cr/yorku/fullcit?pNQ66347.

The study of Roman military administration has largely been limited to the Prinicipate following the discovery of documents at Vindolanda and Dura-Europos. The origin of this administration is either attributed to Augustus’ military reforms or considered older but irrecoverable based on a perceived lack of evidence. This thesis aims to demonstrate that, far from irrecoverable, it is possible to reconstruct the development of a relatively complex and well-structured bureaucratic system supporting the army during the Middle Republic. This bureaucracy developed in parallel with the military as the scale and scope of Rome’s wars increased during the period, and is reflected in the evolution of an administrative complex on the south-eastern slope of the Capitol. It is argued that in Rome and within the legion detailed records were kept and, within reason, every effort was made to keep them as accurate as possible. The Capitol functioned as the administrative hub, where census declarations and the census list, stored in the atrium Libertatis, served as the central authority for military records. Other military documents kept in the aerarium Saturni provided support. Lists such as the tabulae iuniorum were created from the census records, with exemptions and served terms noted. From these, legion lists with the same details could be created by military tribunes or scribae at the dilectus, the military recruitment levy, in the area Capitolina. One copy of this list was taken with the legion, and from 204 BC another was left in Rome. These parallel documents enabled a degree of cooperation between the administrative authorities within the legions and at Rome. The legion lists allowed commanders (or their subordinates) to act as devolved satellite bureaucracies, with more exact information from being on the spot. Frequent letters and embassies from the legions to the senate meant that these satellites could communicate not only their tactical position but also administrative information. In the field, legion lists provided commanders with a record of their men. Additional information on rank was added once the legion was organised. Using this list the quaestor calculated the pay for each individual, marking the separate deductions to be made from each soldier. Commanders took care to keep the record of their numbers accurate, noting casualties in as much detail as time and injuries allowed. This information was transmitted to the senate in order to keep the legions up to strength, not only by replacing casualties but also those who had served the ideal maximum term of six years. Overly long service was for the most part thus avoided. It appears that every effort was made to keep the records as up-to-date as possible, but it was recognised that errors could occur. The lustra conducted by new generals provided the opportunity to correct any omissions or mistakes as well as ritually purifying the army under a new commander. The emergency levy circumvented any errors in the census so that Rome could mobilise effectively in a crisis. It was not Augustan invention but these Mid-Republican developments which presaged the bureaucratic system known under the Principate.

This dissertation examines the relationship between the Arkadian city of Megalopolis and the Achaian koinon in the Hellenistic period. By arguing that Megalopolis was a polis which used its own local identity to carve out a prominent position for itself within the Achaian federation, this thesis is able to provide new insights into the study of the wider topic of the relationship between federations and their member states. To support this argument, the thesis is divided into three parts. In part one of the dissertation, the Megalopolitan identity is clearly established by identifying its basic components, which were the result of the city's foundation by the Arkadian koinon around 368 BC as well as its Achaian membership of 235 BC. The Megalopolitan identity was marked by a complex structure; it was characterised by a deep and traditional hatred for Sparta, longstanding relations with the Macedonian kings, a clear understanding of the mechanisms of a federal state and multi-ethnic politics, and, by Polybius' time, a connection to both Arkadia as well as Achaia. The second part examines the influence of this local identity on the koinon through the direct relationship of Megalopolis with the federal government via its Achaian membership. Within the Achaian League, Megalopolis was an active member, taking part in the federal institutions and minting coins. However, through its interactions with other members of the federal state, Megalopolis used its relationship with the federal state to its own advantage. Finally, the last part of the thesis explores the role of Megalopolis and its local interests in Achaian foreign politics. The polis seems to have influenced these through the emergence of a series of influential statesmen (such as Philopoimen and Lykortas) as well as several new policies pursued by the Achaians after Megalopolis' membership. Examples of these new policies are the Achaian alliance with Macedon of 225 BC and the increased focus of the koinon on Sparta in the second century BC, something that also shaped Achaian interactions with Rome. Throughout the thesis particular attention is paid to the narrative of the historian Polybius and the problems his writings pose, since he was an important source for the history of the Achaian koinon and who, as a Megalopolitan, was an excellent example of this distinct Megalopolitan identity. By shedding light on the various ways in which Megalopolis affected the Achaian koinon and its politics, this thesis shows that Megalopolis merits more attention than it has received in the past, as it was more than just an Arkadian city that was a member of the Achaian koinon. Furthermore, the intricate analysis of the distinct Megalopolitan identity makes a novel contribution to the wider study on the interaction between the polis, as a civic unit, and the federal state, as a developing political structure.

Ce travail consiste en un commentaire ad locum, à caractère à la fois historique et historiographique, de la première moitié du livre XXXI de la Bibliothèque Historique de Diodore de Sicile, parvenu jusqu’à nous de façon fragmentaire. L’analyse recouvre 34 fragments, correspondant aux chapitres 1-17b de l’édition Loeb de F.R. Walton et issus du récit annalistique de la première olympiade successive à la bataille de Pydna (168/7-165/4 av. J.-C. = Ol. 153). Le choix du sujet se dessine dans le cadre d’un renouvellement général d’intérêt pour les deux dernières décades fragmentaires de l’œuvre diodoréenne, et pour les livres proprement ‘romains’ en particulier (XXIII-XL). Leur étude semble aujourd’hui centrale pour une meilleure appréciation de la personnalité de l’historien d’Agyrion, du fait de la proximité de l’époque de l’auteur aux événements relatés et de l’importance réservée aux deux cents dernières années d’histoire romaine dans l’économie globale de l’œuvre. La double perspective adoptée vise aussi bien à centrer la question de l’interprétation que l’historien sikéliote donne aux faits narrés qu’à envisager de manière novatrice les enjeux caractérisant la phase historique considérée, à la lumière des apports et des sollicitations de la recherche scientifique la plus récente. A côté de l’intérêt porté à l’écriture de Diodore – ici considérée en particulier du point de vue de son rapport avec la tradition polybienne –, une place privilégiée est ainsi accordée à la réflexion sur les causes et les procédés de l’expansion romaine en Orient, à un moment clé pour la redéfinition des équilibres de pouvoir entre l’Urbs et le monde gréco-hellénistique. / This work consists in an ad locum commentary, both historical and historiographical, on the first half part of the XXXI book of Diodorus Siculus’ Historical Library, that has reached us in fragments. This analysis is about the 34 fragments corresponding to the chapters 1-17b of F.R. Walton’s Loeb edition and to the remaining annalistic narration of the first Olympiad following the battle of Pydna (168/7-165/4BC = Ol. 153). The choice of the subject fits within a new general interest for the two last fragmentary decades of the Historical Library, and particularly for the so called ‘Roman’ books (XXIII-XL). A study of this section of Diodorus’ Bibliotheke seems nowadays essential for a better appraisal of the personality of the historian of Agyrion: this is because of the proximity of the author’s time to the events related and because of the great importance of the two last centuries of Roman history into the global economy of his work. The double perspective adopted aims to point out the historian’s interpretation of the facts narrated, but also to reconsider in an innovative way the problems characterizing the period analyzed, specially under the new light offered by the most recent contributions of the scientific research. Therefore, a privileged place is granted to the reflection on the causes and the procedures of the Roman expansion in the East, in a key-moment for the redefinition of the balance of power between the Urbs and the Greco-Hellenistic world, together with a particular attention to Diodorus’ writing, here considered in its relation with the Polybian tradition.

The Second Punic War, fought between the Romans and Carthaginians, lasted for seventeen years. During this time the Carthaginians inflicted several devastating defeats upon Roman armies. In addition to the cost in human lives, these defeats left a legacy of shame which the Romans were anxious to extirpate. An important part of this process lay in the public perception of these events, and the ones most responsible for shaping this perception were the historians who recorded and wrote about them. Historiography in Rome was in its infancy as the Second Punic War drew to an end, and none of the accounts written by men who lived through the war have survived intact. The fullest and most detailed account of these years is that of Livy who, writing two centuries later, inherited the fruits of two centuries of historiography on the subject. Yet contrary to the belief that has persisted too long, Livy was not merely a collator and copyist, but a moralist and an artist with a vision of his own. For Livy, the period of the Second Punic War represents the Romans at their greatest, before the evils of foreign immorality and luxury took root and led eventually to the excessive greed and intense rivalry which tore the state apart. Thus it is not only patriotism, but also nostalgia, that colours Livy’s memorable presentation of these events and the people involved. Nobody denies Livy’s literary artistry, but it is the choices he has made in his interpretation of people and events that are of more interest to me. It was Livy’s cherished belief that the Romans of old, exemplars of courage and strict morality, were well nigh unbeatable in a fair fight, which makes the presentation of episodes of defeat and disgrace so much more challenging for him. A close examination of the ancient evidence, and in some cases a re-evaluation of modern perceptions concerning episodes of defeat and disgrace and the people involved, has allowed me to better grasp the extent of Livy’s artistic licence and reinterpretation. The evidence and opinions of Polybius have played a crucial role in this process, not only because of his closer proximity to the events in question, but because Livy is known to have read and used his work. Polybius’ influence on Livy’s later decades concerning Rome’s involvement with Greek states is undeniable, but although Polybius wrote about the Second Punic War also, Livy has remained remarkably independent of Polybius’ account. A comparison of these accounts reveals the difference in the choices made by each author and serves to illuminate what makes Livy’s history his own.

The Second Punic War, fought between the Romans and Carthaginians, lasted for seventeen years. During this time the Carthaginians inflicted several devastating defeats upon Roman armies. In addition to the cost in human lives, these defeats left a legacy of shame which the Romans were anxious to extirpate. An important part of this process lay in the public perception of these events, and the ones most responsible for shaping this perception were the historians who recorded and wrote about them. Historiography in Rome was in its infancy as the Second Punic War drew to an end, and none of the accounts written by men who lived through the war have survived intact. The fullest and most detailed account of these years is that of Livy who, writing two centuries later, inherited the fruits of two centuries of historiography on the subject. Yet contrary to the belief that has persisted too long, Livy was not merely a collator and copyist, but a moralist and an artist with a vision of his own. For Livy, the period of the Second Punic War represents the Romans at their greatest, before the evils of foreign immorality and luxury took root and led eventually to the excessive greed and intense rivalry which tore the state apart. Thus it is not only patriotism, but also nostalgia, that colours Livy’s memorable presentation of these events and the people involved. Nobody denies Livy’s literary artistry, but it is the choices he has made in his interpretation of people and events that are of more interest to me. It was Livy’s cherished belief that the Romans of old, exemplars of courage and strict morality, were well nigh unbeatable in a fair fight, which makes the presentation of episodes of defeat and disgrace so much more challenging for him. A close examination of the ancient evidence, and in some cases a re-evaluation of modern perceptions concerning episodes of defeat and disgrace and the people involved, has allowed me to better grasp the extent of Livy’s artistic licence and reinterpretation. The evidence and opinions of Polybius have played a crucial role in this process, not only because of his closer proximity to the events in question, but because Livy is known to have read and used his work. Polybius’ influence on Livy’s later decades concerning Rome’s involvement with Greek states is undeniable, but although Polybius wrote about the Second Punic War also, Livy has remained remarkably independent of Polybius’ account. A comparison of these accounts reveals the difference in the choices made by each author and serves to illuminate what makes Livy’s history his own.

Diss.--Freiburg i.B. / Bibliography: p. [186]-188.

Thesis--Göttingen.

Thesis--Bonn. / Includes bibliographical references.

No description available.