Dio Cassius Puns

Does anyone know if there is a complete set of fully translated paper books (hard or soft cover) for Cassis Dio's histories? I cannot seem to find any complete physical collections anywhere

Doing some cursory searching online, it seems like the only print versions of Dio Cassius's writings are in the Loeb Classical Library editions. They're only available from used booksellers, and the prices can vary quite a bit. I know the books are available online, but I much prefer having an actual book in hand. Is the Loeb edition the only option, or are there more modern versions available?

“Caesar received many honours before, when the resignation of the monarchy and the division of the provinces were under discussion: it was then that it was voted that laurels should be placed in front of his royal residence, and the oak crown hung above it, on the grounds that he was always victor over enemies and saviour of the citizens. [--- --- ---] When he had carried out these suggestions, the name Augustus was bestowed on him by the Senate and the People. They wanted to give him a special name, and various proposals were made and received support. Caesar very much wanted to be called Romulus, but, when he realized that this made people suspect that he wanted to be king, he stopped pressing for it, and took the name Augustus. This name implied that he was more than human, for all the things that are most precious and sacred are called augusta. For the same reason they addressed him in Greek as Sebastos, meaning someone revered, from sebazesthai, ‘to revere’.” [Cassius Dio, Roman History 53.16.4,6-8]

When I recently read this passage it really caught my attention and got me very interested. I was wondering many things about this passage. One thing is why is the information presented in this way? Also, is this the only account of this information and what makes this passage so unique? Where can I find more information about historians thoughts on Cassius Dio and his account of Augustus Caesar? Thanks.

I often wondered whether Romans sincerely believed in the persistance of the republic after they came to be ruled by emperors. Cassius Dio helpfully confirms that the answer is no, they did not. They were remarkably clear-eyed about the reality that they now lived under a monarchy in actuality. He describes the constitutional arrangements through which emperor is made absolute. Though we might expect a senator to despair of these changes, he honestly concedes that "the government was changed at that time for the better and in the interest of greater; for it was no doubt quite impossible for the people to be saved under a republic".

>In this way the power of both people and senate passed entirely into the hands of Augustus, and from his time there was, strictly speaking, a monarch; for monarchy would be the truest name for it, no matter if two or three men did later hold the power at the p same time. The name of monarchy, to be sure, the Romans so detested that they called their emperors neither dictators nor kings nor anything of the sort; yet since the final authority for the government devolves upon them, they must needs be kings. The offices established by the laws, it is true, are maintained even now, except that of censor; but the entire direction and administration is absolutely in accordance with the wishes of the one in power at the time. And yet, in order to preserve the appearance of having this power by virtue of the laws and not because of their own domination, the emperors have taken to themselves all the functions, including the titles, of the offices which under the republic and by the free gift of the people were powerful, with the single exception of the dictatorship. Thus, they very often became consuls, and they are always styled proconsuls whenever they are outside the pomerium. The name of "imperator" is held by them all for life, not only by those who have won victories in battle, but also by those who have not, in token of their independent authority, and this has displaced the titles of "king" and "dictator." These last titles they have never assumed since the time they first fell out of use in the conduct of the government, but the functions of these offices are secured to them under the appellation of "imperator." By virtue of the titles named they secure the right to make levies, to collect funds, declare war, make peace, rule foreigners and citizens alike everywhere and always,—even to the extent of being able to put to deat

This may seem pedantic but I was curious.

Im currently reading Cassius Dio’s history of Rome once more and Cassius Dio is a really interesting historian because he is just extremely cynical and interested in some of the little details other historians arent. I’ve always liked him.

But recently I became hurt over what he said about Seneca. A man I truly truly admire. Seneca is a man whose wisdom gets me through hard times in my life and here comes Cassius Dio portraying him as an extravagant and leisurely boy-lover. As for Seneca having sex with some guy, I dont really care what he does, but its how Dio relates it, he almost makes it seem like Seneca is this extravagant man full lf slave boys and always having sex and lavishly spending money when nothing could be farther from the truth. Where did he even get this idea? I understand Seneca was rich but how can such an upright man possibly fit the mold that Dio is painting of him? I place Seneca on the level of Cicero, of Polybius and many other great men. It would indeed be a shame if Dio’s comments are true but I dont know why Dio would even say something like this. I do like how Dio gives everyone a fair shot of portraying themselves, he remains pretty unbiased for the most part, but I feel that this is attacking the honor of a true Roman. Is there anywhere else that mentions Seneca as some flashy debauched rich perv?

From what I understand, most historians discount this census because of it's asymmetrical placement (3 years before 8BCE and 7 years after a lectio) and the lack of outside information confirming this census. Are these the only reasons for rejecting it?

Are there arguments in support of this census' existence, excluding his reference?

I searched the internet and Dio's source, but I can't find out how the Romans transported the elephants to Britannia. They must've used boats, but how do they load elephants onto boats, and what kinds of boats could support that weight? And are we supposed to believe that these elephants were brought from Africa all the way up through Europe to Britannia? Is there any other evidence that elephants were brought to Britannia?

The English Channel, at its shortest point, is about 21 miles. Hannibal brought his elephants over the Strait of Gibraltar, which is under 8 miles at its shortest point.

Were there elephants in Italy in the first century CE, and did Didius Julianus or anyone else attempt to use them in battle?

What do you recommend as the best modern editions for Cassius Dio, The Annals of Tacitus, Florus, and Paterculus.

Although they are easily accessible on he internet, I am looking for some copies with modern translations. Thank you for your time.

I came across this from Cassius Dio book 77:

"There are two principal races of the Britons, the Caledonians and the Maeatae, and the names of the others have been merged in these two. The Maeatae live next to the cross-wall which cuts the island in half, and the Caledonians are beyond them. Both tribes inhabit wild and waterless mountains and desolate and swampy plains, and possess neither walls, cities, nor tilled fields, but live on their flocks, wild game, and certain fruits...They dwell in tents, naked and unshod, possess their women in common, and in common rear all the offspring. Their form of rule is democratic for the most part, and they are very fond of plundering; consequently they choose their boldest men as rulers...."

How reliable would his observation about democracy amongst the British be?

He doesn't seem too far out about his other observations (exaggerated but not crazy), and the calmness of his observation about democracy seems to make his statement more valid.

There's a fragment in Cassius Dio's History of Rome (Book 68, p. 375) in which the Dacians send a message by a large mushroom, of which I was taught about back in 5th grade. I am quoting the English translation under: >"When Trajan in his campaign against the Dacians had drawn near Tapae, where the barbarians were encamped, a large mushroom was brought to him on which was written in Latin characters a message to the effect that the Buri and other allies advised Trajan to turn back and keep the peace.

I always found the idea of writing Latin on a giant mushroom both amuzing and disconcerting.

So, /r/AskHistorians, how common was the use of such organic means throughout history, when it came to actually writing on them? Do we know of any other occurance of mushrooms in particular?

LE: typos; the title is still crappy...

Livy, Cassius, and Polybius all released histories of Rome. But they seem to conflict in some areas, due to what I would think is a bias or twist on their writing. Are any of them truly trustworthy, or is there a significant amount of bias found in each one?

I know that, generally speaking, Livy seems heavily biased against Carthage in his writings about the 2nd Punic War. But I'm looking for more specific answers. Thanks.

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

I give you my list for the human fighters (the passing is not necessarily in this order, this is the order of how I selected them) :

1. Boudicca (Date of birth unknown - 60/61 AD) Celtic Queen

The queen of the Celtic Iceni tribe. After her husband's death to the hand of the Roman Empire and her humiliation to the hand of Emperor Claudius, she raised an army of over 230.000 warriors with many other tribes and was responsible for the death of over 80,000 Romans.

>!She died, maybe of suicide, after the battle of Watling Street when her army was beaten by the Romans, while heavily outnumbered, they had discipline and whiped the celts.!<

She was decribed as "very tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips; around her neck was a large golden necklace"

I imagine some kind of feral warrior for her, kind of like Lu Bü, especially when we take a look at her description by Dio Cassius, battling with a lance or a small sword and having an impressing aura.

Something interesting about her is the few number of sources about her : only two Roman historians : Dio Cassius and Tacitus, provide records of her. There is no grave, no monument, no representation, and some of their records are contradicting each other.

Her name also mean "Victory". There is also Boudicca from "The Victors Project", if you liked the Hunger Games books, you have to take a look at it.

Concept art of Boudicca

2. Vlad Țepeș of Wallachia (1428-31 - 1476/1477) Romanian Warlord

As a child, the young prince of Wallachia (in Romania) was sent as an hostage to the Ottoman Empire. After the fall of the Constantinople in 1453 he went back to his birthplace and took the throne by force. He mostly fought the Ottomans around 1462, escpecially during the "Night Attack at Târgoviște" where between 10,000 and 23,000 Turks were killed and impaled during one night. The numbers are variying but hundred of thousand of people died during his wars.

>!He was murdered between december 1476 and January 1477 under mysterious cirumstances, his head being sent to the sultan Mehmed II who impaled it as proof of his death!<

For his fight, maybe I am influenced by the Alucard of Hellsing but I imagine him as his Dracula form at the end of the serie. Also, if you watc

Do your worst!

Hi. Looking for solid accounts on the five good emperors, doesn’t have to be all of them - just at least one. I would prefer for this to be from Romans. I am aware of Cassius Dio’s books, and am looking for something beyond this. Thanks.

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

We all know the infamous story of Nero killing his pregnant wife by a kick in the belly.

>He dearly loved Poppaea, whom he married twelve days after his divorce from Octavia, yet he caused her death too by kicking her when she was pregnant and ill, because she had scolded him for coming home late from the races.
>
>– Seutonius, Nero 35.3

>Sabina also perished at this time through an act of Nero's; either accidentally or intentionally he had leaped upon her with his feet while she was pregnant.
>
>– Cassius Dio, Epitome of Book LXII.27.4

>After the close of the festival, Poppaea met her end through a chance outburst of anger on the part of her husband, who felled her with a kick during pregnancy.
>
>– Tacitus, Annals XVI.6.1

Tacitus further adds that some writers claimed Nero poisoned her, though he does not believe them.

>That poison played its part I am unable to believe, though the assertion is made by some writers less from conviction than from hatred; for Nero was desirous of children, and love for his wife was a ruling passion.
>
>– Tacitus, Annals XVI.6.1

Many people do not know that apart from Nero, Persian King Cambyses II (Son of Cyrus the Great), Periander (Second Tyrant of the Cypselid dynasty that ruled over ancient Corinth) and Herodes Atticus (Athenian sophist and teacher of young Marcus Aurelius) have been attributed to have killed their pregnant wives by a kick in the belly during pregnancy. Cambyses and Periander killed their pregnant wife in the same manner as Nero, whereas Herodes was accused by his brother-in-law of having his freedman kick his pregnant wife in the belly but was later exonerated by Aurelius.

>But the Egyptian tale is that as the two sat at table the woman took a lettuce and plucked off the leaves, then asked her husband whether he [Cambyses] liked the look of it, with or without leaves; "With the leaves," said he; whereupon she answered: "Yet you have stripped Cyrus' house as bare as this lettuce." Angered at this, they say, he leaped upon her, she being great with child; and she died of the hurt he gave her.
>
>– Herodotus, Histories 3.32.4

>By her [Lysida] he [Periander] had two sons, Cypselus and Lycophron, the younger a man of intelligence, the elder weak in mind. However, after some time, in a fit of anger, he killed his wife by throwing a footstool at her, or by a kick, when she was pregnant, having be

Lore context: this takes place during the Shadow Crusade and sometime after the attack on Calth

> ‘Armatura,’ his voices said. ‘This world is suicide. The Armaturan Academy Guard. The Thirteenth’s barracks-cities, for its initiates and Evocati overlords. The Titan Legio Lysanda. We’re going to die down there, you know.’

> Khârn wasn’t sure he disagreed. He’d read the analytics and studied the reports. He’d led half a dozen briefings himself, outlining the expected resistance to other World Eaters centurions and subcommanders.

> And damn it, his skull ached today. The headache to end all headaches. Argel Tal always had this effect on him. The Word Bearer was as bad as Esca or Vorias.

> ‘The numbers are exaggerated,’ Khârn said with a pained grunt. A billion human soldiers. A billion. Not even counting Titans or Mechanicum skitarii. Not even considering the tank battalions stationed down there. Not even adding in the thousands of Ultramarines Evocati. The numbers had to be exaggerated, or they were all dead.

> Argel Tal gave a bitter laugh. ‘You don’t actually believe that, do you?’

> No. He didn’t. The geo-conflict analytics came from Ultramar’s own census archives. A handful of years out of date, certainly, but they were still facing a billion soldiers. Even if a tenth of them were teenage youths in the earliest stages of gene-implantation, there was no sense pretending this was going to be a bloodless triumph.

> Khârn didn’t answer.

>

TLDR: the twelfth and seventeenth legions are about to descend on the Ultramarines administered planet of Armatura. Kharn and Argel Tal are not particularly looking forward to the upcoming clusterfuck.

A/N: fortunately for the 12th and 17th, and unfortunately for everyone else, they had overwhelming naval (and by extension, aerial) superiority, if not total supremacy during the course of the invasion of Armatura.

A/N.2: for those of you who don't know what is meant by "Evocati", they are "from these men was constituted the corps of evocati, which one might translate the "recalled," because after having ended their military service they were recalled to it again." (Source: Cassius Dio, Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἱστορία, Historia Romana, book 45)

A/N.3: It is worth noting that the short story 'Butcher's Nails' elaborated a bit more on what the 12th and 17th had at their disposal at the onset of the Crusade

> Forty thousand warriors in Word Bearers crimson, and seventy thousand in World Eaters w

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

On this day, 16th January 27 BC, Octavian reads a speech to the senate laying down his potestas (official powers), the senators react with the First Constitutional Settlement, a set of honours granted to him including the title of Augustus and control of the newly established 'Imperial provinces', beginning Rome's transformation from Republic to Principate.

The ancient sources differ on their interpretations of this event with Cassius Dio presenting his actions as a manipulation designed to assure he could establish a monarchy while outwardly claiming to have restored the Republic and Velleius Paterculus, in his usual fashion, being highly supportive of the official story in claiming the Republic was restored to its former greatness.

The debate continues among historians as to if Augustus restored the Republic or used traditional titles and deception to conceal the slow introduction of a monarchy, however, it is safe to suggest he restored elements of the Republic while laying the foundations for the reign of the Emperors.

Is Augustus the restorer of the Republic he was so often portrayed as or were his actions manipulative and his motives immoral?

Should he be a figure we look up to and praise for his successes?

Is he the shining example of good traditional Roman values Suetonius presents him as? Or was this image carefully forged to hide his true intentions?

They’re on standbi

I feel like the rulers of the Empire are such interesting figures, each one likely having moved at least the internal culture of the city forward or backwards with their rule. We know essentially nothing about day to day rulings for many emperors, and some of these people are survived by none of their written works.

Take Marcus Aurelius and his body of work for example; Meditations is still in print today and this figure is regarded quite well, at least academically. This alone says much about the people of the time, whom lived under the rule of Aurelius, for it shows that there was a perceived value and one of a positive nature. He is not seen negatively for owning slaves with which he surely acted sexually upon in the oppressive way Roman aristocrat men oft did.

All of this is to say that should the emperor himself be fit to rule, the fruits of his rule shall be enjoyed and passed down, unlike the unworthy who leave behind only suffering and shame and bloodshed.

No emperor besides perhaps Caligula comes to mind when shame and evil are conjured up in the mind. Why is that?

None of Nero’s plays survive, and for an emperor who died in disgrace and as an enemy to Rome itself, that makes sense in theory. Is it fair to assume the end of Nero reflects fairly of the way he lived?

Is it not possible that Nero was no bloodthirsty sociopath, but a powerful enemy of those who would one day bring about his doom would be very interested in painting him as treacherous.

We hear stories of Nero fiddling while Rome burnt and we know it’s untrue. In fact many tales about the burning of Rome seem to be categorically untrue. Nero was at his villa when he received word of the

Suetonius, L Cassius Dio, and Tacitus are writers we largely look to for any information they might have but as far as Nero is concerned perhaps it is best to remain healthily skeptical. Why would the writers, lost to us now, but so influential to these three men record such horrible deeds committed by the Emperor?

Perhaps Christians, as they viewed him to be the Antichrist, colored the pages about this man. Perhaps embittered Senators or aristocrats hired these men of letters for their propaganda.

It is clear that Nero was an evil man, but how is his evil original and distinct from other Roman men with power? Why is the the image of the Anti-Roman?

Pilot on me!!

Nothing, he was gladiator.

“Caesar received many honours before, when the resignation of the monarchy and the division of the provinces were under discussion: it was then that it was voted that laurels should be placed in front of his royal residence, and the oak crown hung above it, on the grounds that he was always victor over enemies and saviour of the citizens. [--- --- ---] When he had carried out these suggestions, the name Augustus was bestowed on him by the Senate and the People. They wanted to give him a special name, and various proposals were made and received support. Caesar very much wanted to be called Romulus, but, when he realized that this made people suspect that he wanted to be king, he stopped pressing for it, and took the name Augustus. This name implied that he was more than human, for all the things that are most precious and sacred are called augusta. For the same reason they addressed him in Greek as Sebastos, meaning someone revered, from sebazesthai, ‘to revere’.” [Cassius Dio, Roman History 53.16.4,6-8]

When I recently read this passage it really caught my attention and got me very interested. I was wondering many things about this passage. One thing is why is the information presented in this way? Also, is this the only account of this information and what makes this passage so unique? Where can I find more information about historians thoughts on Cassius Dio and his account of Augustus Caesar? Thanks.