Fred K. Drogula – författare

Marcus Porcius Cato ("the Younger") is most famous for being Julius Caesar's nemesis. His sustained antagonism was in large part responsible for pushing the Romans towards civil war. Yet Cato never wanted war even though he used the threat of violence against Caesar. This strategic gamble misfired as Caesar, instead of yielding, marched on Rome, hurling the Republic into a bloody civil war. Refusing to inhabit a world ruled by Caesar, Cato took his own life. Although the Roman historian Sallust identified Cato and Caesar as the two most outstanding men of their age, modern scholars have tended to dismiss Cato as a cantankerous conservative who, while colorful, was not a critical player in the events that overtook the Republic. This book, in providing a much-needed reliable biography of Cato, contradicts that assessment. In addition to being Caesar's adversary, Cato is an important and fascinating historical figure in his own right, and his career-in particular, his idiosyncrasies-shed light on the changing political culture of the late Republic. Cato famously reached into Rome's hallowed past and found mannerisms and habits to adopt that transformed him into the foremost champion of ancestral custom. Thus Cato did things that seemed strange and even bizarre such as wearing an old-fashioned tint of purple on his senatorial toga, refusing to ride a horse when on public business, and going about barefoot and without the usual tunic as an undergarment. His extreme conservatism-which became celebrated in later ages, especially in Enlightenment Europe and revolutionary America--was actually designed to give him a unique advantage in Roman politics. This is not to claim that he was insincere in his combative promotion of the mos maiorum (the way of the ancestors), but his political manipulation of the Romans' reverence for their traditions was masterful. By providing a new, detailed portrait of Cato, the book also presents a unique narrative of the age he helped shape and inadvertently destroy.

Marcus Porcius Cato ("the Younger") is most famous for being Julius Caesar''s nemesis. His sustained antagonism was in large part responsible for pushing the Romans towards civil war. Yet Cato never wanted war even though he used the threat of violence against Caesar. This strategic gamble misfired as Caesar, instead of yielding, marched on Rome, hurling the Republic into a bloody civil war. Refusing to inhabit a world ruled by Caesar, Cato took his own life. Although the Roman historian Sallust identified Cato and Caesar as the two most outstanding men of their age, modern scholars have tended to dismiss Cato as a cantankerous conservative who, while colorful, was not a critical player in the events that overtook the Republic. This book, in providing a much-needed reliable biography of Cato, contradicts that assessment. In addition to being Caesar''s adversary, Cato is an important and fascinating historical figure in his own right, and his career-in particular, his idiosyncrasies-shed light on the changing political culture of the late Republic. Cato famously reached into Rome''s hallowed past and found mannerisms and habits to adopt that transformed him into the foremost champion of ancestral custom. Thus Cato did things that seemed strange and even bizarre such as wearing an old-fashioned tint of purple on his senatorial toga, refusing to ride a horse when on public business, and going about barefoot and without the usual tunic as an undergarment. His extreme conservatism-which became celebrated in later ages, especially in Enlightenment Europe and revolutionary America--was actually designed to give him a unique advantage in Roman politics. This is not to claim that he was insincere in his combative promotion of the mos maiorum (the way of the ancestors), but his political manipulation of the Romans'' reverence for their traditions was masterful. By providing a new, detailed portrait of Cato, the book also presents a unique narrative of the age he helped shape and inadvertently destroy.

Marcus Porcius Cato ("the Younger") is most famous for being Julius Caesar''s nemesis. His sustained antagonism was in large part responsible for pushing the Romans towards civil war. Yet Cato never wanted war even though he used the threat of violence against Caesar. This strategic gamble misfired as Caesar, instead of yielding, marched on Rome, hurling the Republic into a bloody civil war. Refusing to inhabit a world ruled by Caesar, Cato took his own life. Although the Roman historian Sallust identified Cato and Caesar as the two most outstanding men of their age, modern scholars have tended to dismiss Cato as a cantankerous conservative who, while colorful, was not a critical player in the events that overtook the Republic. This book, in providing a much-needed reliable biography of Cato, contradicts that assessment. In addition to being Caesar''s adversary, Cato is an important and fascinating historical figure in his own right, and his career-in particular, his idiosyncrasies-shed light on the changing political culture of the late Republic. Cato famously reached into Rome''s hallowed past and found mannerisms and habits to adopt that transformed him into the foremost champion of ancestral custom. Thus Cato did things that seemed strange and even bizarre such as wearing an old-fashioned tint of purple on his senatorial toga, refusing to ride a horse when on public business, and going about barefoot and without the usual tunic as an undergarment. His extreme conservatism-which became celebrated in later ages, especially in Enlightenment Europe and revolutionary America--was actually designed to give him a unique advantage in Roman politics. This is not to claim that he was insincere in his combative promotion of the mos maiorum (the way of the ancestors), but his political manipulation of the Romans'' reverence for their traditions was masterful. By providing a new, detailed portrait of Cato, the book also presents a unique narrative of the age he helped shape and inadvertently destroy.

Marcus Porcius Cato ("the Younger") is most famous for being Julius Caesar's nemesis. His sustained antagonism was in large part responsible for pushing the Romans towards civil war. Yet Cato never wanted war even though he used the threat of violence against Caesar. This strategic gamble misfired as Caesar, instead of yielding, marched on Rome, hurling the Republic into a bloody civil war. Refusing to inhabit a world ruled by Caesar, Cato took his own life. Although the Roman historian Sallust identified Cato and Caesar as the two most outstanding men of their age, modern scholars have tended to dismiss Cato as a cantankerous conservative who, while colorful, was not a critical player in the events that overtook the Republic. This book, in providing a much-needed reliable biography of Cato, contradicts that assessment. In addition to being Caesar's adversary, Cato is an important and fascinating historical figure in his own right, and his career-in particular, his idiosyncrasies-shed light on the changing political culture of the late Republic. Cato famously reached into Rome's hallowed past and found mannerisms and habits to adopt that transformed him into the foremost champion of ancestral custom. Thus Cato did things that seemed strange and even bizarre such as wearing an old-fashioned tint of purple on his senatorial toga, refusing to ride a horse when on public business, and going about barefoot and without the usual tunic as an undergarment. His extreme conservatism-which became celebrated in later ages, especially in Enlightenment Europe and revolutionary America--was actually designed to give him a unique advantage in Roman politics. This is not to claim that he was insincere in his combative promotion of the mos maiorum (the way of the ancestors), but his political manipulation of the Romans' reverence for their traditions was masterful. By providing a new, detailed portrait of Cato, the book also presents a unique narrative of the age he helped shape and inadvertently destroy.

The origins and development of early Rome had already faded into legend by the time its people began writing down the history of their city. Rome's first historians relied heavily on cultural memory when reconstructing the past, but memory constantly reinterprets and reshapes the information it preserves to keep it relevant and meaningful to successive generations. The stories familiar to those first historians had already gone through many generations of reworking and adaption, a process that disguised change and caused the historians to present the government of early Rome as being anachronistically similar to the government of the later Republic. This gradual recontextualization resulted in the surviving narrative tradition, which minimizes and even conceals developments and presents the Roman government as remaining largely unchanged over five centuries. In Spheres of Control, Fred K. Drogula argues first that understanding Roman historiography makes it possible to identify and remove many of the most common errors, anachronisms, and fictions that appear in these narratives. He also argues that--once any erroneous material is removed from traditional accounts--the remaining information not only maps easily onto the new historical framework, but doing so creates a more logical and cohesive reconstruction of Rome's early development and resolves many problems that scholars have identified with the existing narrative tradition. Drogula shows that a new reconstruction of the development of government in early Rome can be found by removing material from the traditional narratives that is likely to be erroneous and by recontextualizing the material that remains into a framework based on archaeological discoveries and new readings of ancient texts.

The origins and development of early Rome had already faded into legend by the time its people began writing down the history of their city. Rome's first historians relied heavily on cultural memory when reconstructing the past, but memory constantly reinterprets and reshapes the information it preserves to keep it relevant and meaningful to successive generations. The stories familiar to those first historians had already gone through many generations of reworking and adaption, a process that disguised change and caused the historians to present the government of early Rome as being anachronistically similar to the government of the later Republic. This gradual recontextualization resulted in the surviving narrative tradition, which minimizes and even conceals developments and presents the Roman government as remaining largely unchanged over five centuries. In Spheres of Control, Fred K. Drogula argues first that understanding Roman historiography makes it possible to identify and remove many of the most common errors, anachronisms, and fictions that appear in these narratives. He also argues that--once any erroneous material is removed from traditional accounts--the remaining information not only maps easily onto the new historical framework, but doing so creates a more logical and cohesive reconstruction of Rome's early development and resolves many problems that scholars have identified with the existing narrative tradition. Drogula shows that a new reconstruction of the development of government in early Rome can be found by removing material from the traditional narratives that is likely to be erroneous and by recontextualizing the material that remains into a framework based on archaeological discoveries and new readings of ancient texts.

The origins and development of early Rome had already faded into legend by the time its people began writing down the history of their city. Rome's first historians relied heavily on cultural memory when reconstructing the past, but memory constantly reinterprets and reshapes the information it preserves to keep it relevant and meaningful to successive generations. The stories familiar to those first historians had already gone through many generations of reworking and adaption, a process that disguised change and caused the historians to present the government of early Rome as being anachronistically similar to the government of the later Republic. This gradual recontextualization resulted in the surviving narrative tradition, which minimizes and even conceals developments and presents the Roman government as remaining largely unchanged over five centuries. In Spheres of Control, Fred K. Drogula argues first that understanding Roman historiography makes it possible to identify and remove many of the most common errors, anachronisms, and fictions that appear in these narratives. He also argues that--once any erroneous material is removed from traditional accounts--the remaining information not only maps easily onto the new historical framework, but doing so creates a more logical and cohesive reconstruction of Rome's early development and resolves many problems that scholars have identified with the existing narrative tradition. Drogula shows that a new reconstruction of the development of government in early Rome can be found by removing material from the traditional narratives that is likely to be erroneous and by recontextualizing the material that remains into a framework based on archaeological discoveries and new readings of ancient texts.

In this work, Fred Drogula studies the development of Roman provincial command using the terms and concepts of the Romans themselves as reference points. Beginning in the earliest years of the republic, Drogula argues, provincial command was not a uniform concept fixed in positive law but rather a dynamic set of ideas shaped by traditional practice. Therefore, as the Roman state grew, concepts of authority, control over territory, and military power underwent continual transformation. This adaptability was a tremendous resource for the Romans since it enabled them to respond to new military challenges in effective ways. But it was also a source of conflict over the roles and definitions of power. The rise of popular politics in the late republic enabled men like Pompey and Caesar to use their considerable influence to manipulate the flexible traditions of military command for their own advantage. Later, Augustus used nominal provincial commands to appease the senate even as he concentrated military and governing power under his own control by claiming supreme rule. In doing so, he laid the groundwork for the early empire''s rules of command.

In this work, Fred Drogula studies the development of Roman provincial command using the terms and concepts of the Romans themselves as reference points. Beginning in the earliest years of the republic, Drogula argues, provincial command was not a uniform concept fixed in positive law but rather a dynamic set of ideas shaped by traditional practice. Therefore, as the Roman state grew, concepts of authority, control over territory, and military power underwent continual transformation. This adaptability was a tremendous resource for the Romans since it enabled them to respond to new military challenges in effective ways. But it was also a source of conflict over the roles and definitions of power. The rise of popular politics in the late republic enabled men like Pompey and Caesar to use their considerable influence to manipulate the flexible traditions of military command for their own advantage. Later, Augustus used nominal provincial commands to appease the senate even as he concentrated military and governing power under his own control by claiming supreme rule. In doing so, he laid the groundwork for the early empire’s rules of command.

In this work, Fred Drogula studies the development of Roman provincial command using the terms and concepts of the Romans themselves as reference points. Beginning in the earliest years of the republic, Drogula argues, provincial command was not a uniform concept fixed in positive law but rather a dynamic set of ideas shaped by traditional practice. Therefore, as the Roman state grew, concepts of authority, control over territory, and military power underwent continual transformation. This adaptability was a tremendous resource for the Romans since it enabled them to respond to new military challenges in effective ways. But it was also a source of conflict over the roles and definitions of power. The rise of popular politics in the late republic enabled men like Pompey and Caesar to use their considerable influence to manipulate the flexible traditions of military command for their own advantage. Later, Augustus used nominal provincial commands to appease the senate even as he concentrated military and governing power under his own control by claiming supreme rule. In doing so, he laid the groundwork for the early empire's rules of command.

In this work, Fred Drogula studies the development of Roman provincial command using the terms and concepts of the Romans themselves as reference points. Beginning in the earliest years of the republic, Drogula argues, provincial command was not a uniform concept fixed in positive law but rather a dynamic set of ideas shaped by traditional practice. Therefore, as the Roman state grew, concepts of authority, control over territory, and military power underwent continual transformation. This adaptability was a tremendous resource for the Romans since it enabled them to respond to new military challenges in effective ways. But it was also a source of conflict over the roles and definitions of power. The rise of popular politics in the late republic enabled men like Pompey and Caesar to use their considerable influence to manipulate the flexible traditions of military command for their own advantage. Later, Augustus used nominal provincial commands to appease the senate even as he concentrated military and governing power under his own control by claiming supreme rule. In doing so, he laid the groundwork for the early empires rules of command.