War and Peace in the Roman World

War and Society in the Roman World edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley was published by Routledge in 1993 (hardcover) and in 1995 (paperback). Since 2002 it has been available as a download for Amazon Kindle. First a few words about the editors:

** John Rich was, at the time of publication, Senior Lecturer in Classics at the University of Nottingham. I can add the following information: he is the author of a chapter in Private and Public Lies edited by A. J. Turner and others (2010). His contribution (which is available online) is called “Deception, Lies, and Economy with the Truth: Augustus and the Establishment of the Principate.”

** Graham Shipley was, at the time of publication, Lecturer in Ancient History and Head of the Ancient History Division at the University of Leicester. I can add the following information: he is co-editor and co-author of The Cambridge Dictionary of Classical Civilization (2006, 2008)

This book and its companion volume - War and Society in the Greek World - are the product of seminars jointly organized by the Classics Departments of Leicester and Nottingham Universities. ‘War and Society in the Ancient World’ was the theme of a series of seminars held in Leicester and Nottingham between 1988 and 1990. The two volumes contain substantially revised versions of a selection of papers from that series.

The volume about the Roman world opens with a brief introduction by one of the editors (Rich). The main text is divided into 12 chapters written by 12 scholars, including one of the editors (Rich). Here is the table of contents (the affiliation of each contributor at the time of publication is added in brackets):

1. The Roman conquest of Italy

By Steven Oakley (Fellow and Director of Studies in Classics at Emmanuel College, Cambridge)

2. Fear, greed and glory: the causes of Roman war-making in the middle Republic

By John Rich

3. Urbs direpta, or how the Romans sacked cities
By Adam Ziolkowski (Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Warsaw)

4. Military organization and social change in the later Roman Republic
By John Patterson (Fellow of Magdalene College, Cambridge, and University Lecturer in Ancient History)

5. Roman poetry and anti-militarism
By Duncan Cloud (Associate Senior Lecturer in Ancient History at the University of Leicester)

6. The end of Roman imperial expansion
By Tim Cornell (Senior Lecturer in History at University College, London)

7. Roman peace
By Greg Woolf (Andrew and Randall Crawley Fellow in the History of the Ancient World at Magdalen College, Oxford)

8. Piracy under the principate and the ideology of imperial eradication
By David Braund (Lecturer in Classics at the University of Exeter)

9. War and diplomacy: Rome and Parthia, 31 BC-AD 235
By Brian Campbell (Lecturer in Ancient History at the Queen’s University of Belfast)

10. Philosophers’ attitudes to war under the principate
By Harry Sidebottom (doing post-doctoral research at Corpus Christi College, Oxford)

11. The end of the Roman army in the western empire
By Wolfgang Liebeschuetz (Emeritus Professor of Classics and Ancient History at the University of Nottingham and a Fellow of the British Academy)

12. Landlords and warlords in the later Roman Empire

By Dick Whittaker (Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge, and University Lecturer in Ancient History)

Each chapter (except chapter 11) is divided into shorter sections by subheadings, which is very reader-friendly. Each chapter has its own bibliography. References and additional comments are given in notes placed at the bottom of the page, which is also very reader-friendly. At the end of the book there is an index.

What about illustrations? There is a picture on the front cover of the book. It is a picture of a terracotta relief from the first or the second century AD showing prisoners of war in a triumphal cart, probably Roman, now in the British Museum. But there are no pictures inside the book. There are three figures in chapter 2 and a chart in chapter 1, but there is not a single map and not a single picture inside the book. The visual aspects are not exactly the strong side of this book. The contributors and/or the editors could and should have paid more attention to this aspect.

Many locations are mentioned in the text, not only in Italy, but also in the Roman provinces. That is why we need a map of the Roman Empire plus maps of several smaller sections of the empire. To give just one example: the city of Olbia is mentioned three times in chapter 10. That is why we need a map of the Black Sea area.

The lack of relevant illustrations is disappointing. Here are three examples:

** The temple of Janus, the doors of which were closed during peace, is mentioned by Duncan Cloud in chapter 5 (page 134). But there is no picture to illustrate this tradition. The temple does not exist anymore, but it is shown on coins, for
instance a sestertius issued during the reign of Nero (54-68).

** The Altar of Pax Augusta, known in Latin as Ara Pacis, is mentioned by Greg Woolf in chapter 7 (page 177). But there is not a single picture of this unique monument. For more information, see AWOL (The Ancient World Online) 11 July 2014: Ara Pacis Augustae.

** Notitia Dignitatum is mentioned by Wolfgang Liebeschuetz in chapter 11 (pp. 265-267). But there is not a single picture of this important map of the empire which tells us where the Roman civilian and military units were stationed around AD 400. For more information, see the Medieval Sourcebook by Fordham University.

When you look at the table of contents, you can see that the 12 chapters follow a chronological line, moving from the early republic to the age of Augustus and ending with the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. Each chapter covers a period of Roman history and/or a topic connected with it. However, you should know that this book is not a traditional history of the Roman Empire, and that is why it is not recommended for the beginner. Each contributor assumes the reader already has a basic knowledge about Roman history. Each chapter is a research paper. The authors ask questions. They do not ask what happened. They ask why it happened. If we have information about a certain change, they will ask: what is the reason for this change? Or perhaps a better question: what are the reasons for this change? In many cases we need to take account of more than one factor when we want to explain and understand a certain change.

A good example is Roman imperialism. It is a well-known fact that Roman territory expanded very fast during the Roman Republic. Why did this happen? The traditional interpretation, which goes back to the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20thcentury, says the Romans were reluctant imperialists; they had to defend themselves against attacks from the outside. Most modern scholars reject this interpretation. For one thing it is not supported by the ancient evidence. In addition, there is a hidden agenda: the traditional interpretation tries to justify the Roman expansion.

In many cases, a modern interpretation of ancient history is a reflection of the time in which it was conceived and published. For instance, books about Caesar and Augustus which were published during the age of British colonialism tend to present these characters in a positive light, while books written during the age of decolonization tend to be more critical of them.

War and Imperialism in Republican Rome by W. V. Harris is mentioned several times. This book, first published in 1979, was an important milestone (a second edition appeared in 1985). After this book was published, it was difficult (or impossible) to maintain the theory about the reluctant imperialists. Harris is very convincing when he is demolishing the traditional interpretation of Roman imperialism. But his book can be criticized as well, because he claims Roman territory expanded because of greed. His interpretation is economic, and he sees only one factor, it is mono-causal. A more modern approach would take more than one factor into account, as John Rich says in his contribution (chapter 2).

War and Society in the Roman World received a positive review in the academic journal Greece & Rome. On the back cover of the paperback version there is a brief excerpt from this review:

“The papers are of a high standard of originality and scholarship and form an important contribution to a field of study increasingly at the centre of ancient history.”

I agree with the positive words. The 12 chapters are well-written. It is interesting to see how the contributors discuss the ancient evidence and modern interpretations of it. The editors have done a good job. There are several cross references from one chapter to another. Sometimes the purpose is to give additional information; in other cases the purpose is to introduce a different point of view.

I like this book, but I have to mention a few things which bother me. First, there are three unfortunate misprints:

** On page 121 Duncan Cloud says: “This legislation in described in a way that cannot possibly be accurate.” The second word in this sentence should be “is” and not “in.”

** On page 149 Tim Cornell places the conquest of Dacia in 106-108. But the wars against Dacia took place in 101-102 and 105-106.

** On page 196 David Braund says: “Bandits took to the sea, while pirates operated on land.” Obviously, the two key words were inverted. What he wants to say is: Pirates took to the sea, while bandits operated on land.

Secondly, and more importantly, the title of the book is misleading. The title War and Society in the Roman World is inaccurate. It should be: War and Peace in the Roman World. Why? Because this is a book about war and peace; about the role these two types of reality played in Roman society. It is not a book about Roman society in general. A look at the index confirms my claim. There is an entry for “war” with several references. There is an entry for “peace” as well as “pax Romana” again with several references. But there is no entry for “society,” because none of the 12 scholars writes about Roman society in general. It goes without saying that the same objection applies to the companion volume about the Greek world. The title of the companion volume should have been War and Peace in the Greek World.

There is much to like in this book. But the lack of relevant illustrations is a serious flaw. And the misleading title is unfortunate. If you ask me, it is a good book, but not a great book. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

PS. This book was published some twenty years ago. Since then, other scholars have explored some of the topics discussed here. The Roman triumph is mentioned in chapter 2. A full-scale study is The Roman Triumph by Mary Beard (2007, 2009). Bandits are mentioned in chapter 7. A full-scale study is Bandits in the Roman Empire by Thomas Grünewald (2004, 2008). Piracy is discussed is chapter 8. A full-scale study is Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World by Philip de Souza (1999, 2002). The relations between Rome and Parthia are discussed in chapter 9. A full-scale study is Rome and Parthia by Daryn Graham (2013).

* * *

John Rich and Graham Shipley, editors,

War and Society in the Roman World,

Routledge, hardcover 1993, paperback 1995, 315 pages

* * *

Ara Pacis (the Altar of Peace) in Rome

The English version of this guide to Ara Pacis (the Altar of Peace) in Rome is published by the Italian publishing house Electa: first edition 2006; second edition 2007; third expanded edition 2012 (143 pages). The format is 23 x 26 cm, i.e. larger than a typical book. The English translation is done by Stefano Fox and Sylvia Notini.

The text is written by Orietta Rossini, who is the director of the new Ara Pacis museum – known as Museo dell’Ara Pacis Augustae - which opened in April 2006. The text is divided into 14 chapters. Here is the table of contents (some headings have been modified):

CHAPTER 01 - The Ara Pacis in antiquity
CHAPTER 02 - From oblivion to reassembly
CHAPTER 03 - The architecture of the altar

CHAPTER 04 - Panel # 1: Aeneas (4 pages)
CHAPTER 05 - Panel # 2: Lupercal (2 pages)
CHAPTER 06 - Panel # 3: Tellus (10 pages)
CHAPTER 07 - Panel # 4: The goddess Rome (2 pages)

CHAPTER 08 - The procession (more than thirty pages)
CHAPTER 09 - The great vegetal frieze (more than ten pages)
CHAPTER 10 – The residual fragments
CHAPTER 11 - Reliefs of an altar of the age of Claudius: from the so-called Ara Pietatis to the Ara reditus Claudii

CHAPTER 12 - The Res gestae divi Augusti
CHAPTER 13 - The Ara Pacis from Morpurgo to Meier
CHAPTER 14 - The colours of the Ara Pacis

At the end of the book there is a bibliography. Most of the works listed here are in Italian, but there are a few items in German and in English, for instance The Ara Pacis Augustae by David Castriota (1995) and Artists of the Ara Pacis by Diane Atnally Conlin (hardcover 1997, paperback 2011).

Among the English works I also want to mention Art and Architecture in the Service of Politics edited by Henry Armand Millon and Linda Nochlin (1978). A chapter in this book written by Spiro Konstantine Koslof (1936-1991) is called “The Emperor and the Duce: The Planning of Piazzale Augusto Imperatore in Rome,” pp. 270-325.

The text is illustrated with numerous photos, maps and drawings; many of them are quite large: one picture often gets one page. Some illustrations are new, while others are old. All the new ones are in colour, as they should be, while the old ones are in black-and-white, which is not surprising.

Some of the old pictures are very interesting, because they show an important moment in time, for instance the picture on page 18 which was taken in Rome in 1903. The caption says: “Excavation of the Ara Pacis, rescue of a large slab with scrolls.” Another example is the picture on page 116 which was taken in Rome on 23 September 1938. The caption says: “Inauguration of the Ara Pacis.” In this picture we can see Benito Mussolini and other fascist leaders as they inspect the monument on the day the old museum was opened.

Some of the new pictures show the new museum from the outside and from the inside. In short: the quality of the illustrations is extremely high.

Now a few words about the monument and its history:

The decision to build an altar for peace was announced in a decree issued by the Roman Senate on 4 July 13 BC. The altar was dedicated on 30 January 9 BC. It took more than three years to complete it. Obviously, a considerable amount of time and energy was invested in this monument (page 6).

Surprisingly, the ancient literary evidence about this monument is very limited (page 12).

The monument was discovered in modern times and re-assembled in the 1930s. The restored monument was inaugurated by Mussolini on 23 September 1938, the closing day of the Augustan year (1937-1938). Augustus was born on 23 September 63 BC. The fascist leader wanted to celebrate the 2000-year anniversary of Augustus, in order to show the connection between himself and the famous emperor (page 17).

The base of the monument almost forms a square: the western and eastern facades measure 11.6 m; while the southern and northern facades measure 10.6 m.

The western façade features an entrance flanked by two panels. On the right we have panel # 1 with Aeneas (chapter 4). On the left we have panel # 2 with Lupercal (chapter 5). Outside there are 10 steps and inside there are 8 steps, which lead to the interior table (mensa).

The eastern façade also features an entrance flanked by two panels. On the left we have panel # 3 with Tellus (chapter 6). On the right we have panel # 4 with the Goddess Rome (chapter 7). Outside there are no steps, but inside there are 4 steps, which lead to the lower level of the monument. There is no direct access to the interior table from this side.

The northern and southern façades feature a procession with 46 persons: both men and women, both adults and children. Some of these persons we can identify by name, in particular Augustus and Agrippa (chapter 8).

The exterior decoration is divided into a lower and an upper register. The four panels and the two processions are all located in the upper register. The lower register on all four sides of the monument is decorated with a vegetal frieze (chapter 9).

Augustus did something surprising and very brave when he decided to build the Ara Pacis: he tried to turn peace into something respectable in a society that was based on war; a society in which war was the normal thing and peace was the exception. That is why this monument is so significant. There is almost nothing like it anywhere in the ancient world.

For more information about this topic, see War and Society in the Roman World edited by John Rich and Graham Shipley (1993, 1995), in particular chapters 6 and 7. See also Rome and the Sword: How Warriors and Weapons Shaped Roman History by Simon James (2011, 2012)

When the monument was inaugurated in 1938, it was housed in a pavilion that was designed by the Italian architect Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo (1890-1966). From the outset this pavilion was intended as a temporary solution, but as it happened it was allowed to stand for a long period.

Around 1990, it was clear that the old pavilion from 1938 had outlived its time, and something had to be done. In 1996 the city of Rome decided to hire the US architect Richard Meier (born 1934) to design a new pavilion, which could replace the old one and at the same time turn the location into a modern museum.

The project was controversial and for this reason it was delayed several times, but finally in April 2006 the new museum was opened and the ancient monument was once again accessible to the public (chapter 13).

Electa has published an excellent guidebook about the ancient monument which is now housed in a modern pavilion. The author gives us the history of the altar; she analyses the four panels, the two processions and the vegetal frieze. But this is not all. She also covers several related issues, such as:

** The residual fragments (chapter 10)
** An altar from the time of Claudius (chapter 11)
** The Res gestae divi Augusti (chapter 12)
** The colours of the altar (chapter 14)

I like this book, I really do, but I have to mention that the English translation is flawed in several ways.

THE FIRST PROBLEM: the bibliography. One of the works listed here is a book by the German scholar Paul Zanker. The book is highly relevant, but the translators give us the Italian version that was published in 1989. They should list the English version: The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (hardcover 1988, paperback 1990).

THE SECOND PROBLEM: the Italian version of ancient names is not always translated. This seems to be a common problem when books about ancient Rome are translated from Italian to English. The publisher looks for an Italian person who knows some English. What they should do is to look for an English person who knows some Italian. In addition they should find a translator who is familiar with the history of the ancient world. Here are some examples:

** Page 12 – “Atti Arvales” – instead of “Acta Arvales.”

** Page 30 – “pater Enea” – instead of “pater Aeneas.”

** Page 48 – “littores” instead of “lictores.”

** Page 51 – “Cneus Domitius Ahenobarbus” who is person # 41 in the procession on the southern façade – but his first name is spelled “Gnaeus.” The same mistake appears on pp. 59, 66, 71 and 74. In fact, this name is always misspelled in this book.

** Page 57 – “Giulia” – but the Latin form of this name is Iulia, while the English form is Julia. The translators know the English form: on page 66 we find both forms, the Italian and the English, almost side by side!

THE THIRD PROBLEM: the translators seem to have difficulties with the order of words and with prepositions. Here are some examples:

** Page 12 – “… that actually Strabo did not describe…” – it should be: that Strabo actually did not describe…

** Page 12 – “Only in the Renaissance… the Ara Pacis was again recognized” – it should be: Only in the Renaissance… was the Ara Pacis recognized again…

** Page 17 – “Only in 1954 this item was donated by Pope Pius XII…” – it would be better to say: This item was not donated until 1954 when Pope Pius XII…

** Page 22 – “The Ara Pacis basically consists in a precinct…” – it should be: The Ara Pacis basically consists of a precinct…

** Page 36 – “This interpretation eventually prevailed…” – it should be: The latter interpretation eventually prevailed…

** Page 105 – “In one and only occasion the author seems to betray himself…” – it would be better to say: There is only one case where the author seems to betray himself…

** Page 118 – “Only when the Ministry of the Public Education definitely abandoned the idea of moving the Ara Pacis, the Town Administration began to work on the pavilion…” – it should be: Only when the Ministry of Public Education definitely abandoned the idea of moving the Ara Pacis, did the Town Administration begin to work on the pavilion…

** Page 118 – “On the contrary, new problems emerged since the mid-nineties.” – It would be better to say: On the contrary, new problems emerged in the mid-nineties.

These flaws are minor, i.e. they do not disturb the meaning or the message of the book. But they mar this work; they spoil the appearance and the impression of a volume that is, in so many other ways, a perfect product: excellent text, outstanding illustrations, and reader-friendly layout.

While this guidebook deserves a rating of five stars, I hope Electa will publish a fourth edition where these embarrassing blemishes have been corrected.

PS # 1: the following articles about the Ara Pacis are all available online: Alan Riding, “Richard Meier’s Home for the Ara Pacis, a Roman Treasure, Opens,” New York Times, 24 April 2006; Carolyn Lyons, “The Empire’s New Clothes,” Financial Times Magazine, 25 August 2007; Paulette Singley, “Roma Macchiata: The Stain of White,” LOG (observations on architecture and the contemporary city), Summer//Fall 2007, pp. 129-136; Maria Josè Strazzulla, “War and Peace: Housing the Ara Pacis in the Eternal City,” American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 113, no. 2, April 2009.

PS # 2: “Ara Pacis Augustae” is the title of an excellent website where you can find not only text and illustrations, but also links to some old newsreels recorded in the 1930s. The site was established on 15 April 2011 by Charles S. Rhyne (1932-2013), who taught Art History at Reed College for many years (1960-1997).

* * *

Orietta Rossini,
Ara Pacis Guide,
Electa, first edition 2006, second edition 2007,
Third expanded edition 2012, 143 pages

* * *

Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (1999)

Philip de Souza – School of Classics, University College Dublin – is the author of several books and articles about the history of the ancient world, including The Greek and Persian Wars, 499-386 BC (2003). He is co-editor of War and Peace in Ancient and Medieval History (2008). His book about piracy in the Graeco-Roman world was published by Cambridge University Press in 1999 (hardcover) and in 2002 (paperback). In 2009 it was transferred to digital printing, which means it is still available.

It is based upon a PhD thesis that was completed in 1992. The author explains:

“The book is considerably different in structure from the thesis on which it is based. There have also been some changes in the content where I have tried, albeit rather unevenly, to take account of new source material and scholarly publications which appeared after the summer of 1992. The text of the book was completed in the summer of 1998” (pp. ix-x).

The main text is divided into eight chapters which follow a chronological line from ca. 800 BC to AD 700, except for chapter 1 (introduction) and chapter 8 (conclusion). In all chapters (except the brief conclusion) the text is divided into shorter sections by several subheadings, which is very reader-friendly. Here is the table of contents:

1. Introduction
2. The origins of piracy from the Bronze Age to Alexander
3. Hellenistic piracy
4. Cilician piracy

5. Pompey and the pirates
6. Pax Romana
7. Piracy in Late Antiquity
8. Conclusions

References and additional comments are given in notes which are placed at the bottom of the page, which is very reader-friendly. At the end of the book we find a bibliography, a general index, and an index of ancient sources.

What about illustrations? Five maps are placed at the beginning of the book:

** Map # 1 – The Roman Empire

** Map # 2 – Greece and the Aegean

** Map # 3 – Southern Anatolia and Cyprus

** Map # 4 – Italy

**Map # 5 – Britain and France

[The Black Sea is shown on map # 1, but it is rather small here. I miss a separate map of this area, which the Romans called Pontus Euxinus.]

In addition, there are four plates. All illustrations inside the book are in black-and-white, even when the original is in colour. Since the number is so low, I can mention all of them here:

# 1 and 2 – Athenian Black Figure drinking cup of the mid sixth century BC, showing a merchant ship and a warship; page 24. This motive is also used on the covers on the book - front and back - where it appears in colour (which is much better).

# 3 – Silver denarius minted by Faustus Cornelius Sulla in 56 BC, in praise of his former commander Pompey the Great; page 174.

# 4 – Detail of a polychrome mosaic of the third century AD from Dougga in North Africa, showing Dionysos//Bacchus turning the Tyrrhenian pirates who tried to kidnap him into dolphins; page 217.

The author got some good reviews. On the back cover of the paperback version there are excerpts from two reviews of the hardcover version.

*** Cheryl Ward, Nautical Archaeology:

“Any reader interested in the development of the Mediterranean political or economic landscape, the literature of entertainment which often featured pirate attacks, and a history of piracy based on texts of the ancient world will benefit greatly by reading this volume.”

*** James Davidson, Times Literary Supplement:

“… it is pithy and to-the-point and should easily take its place as the standard work of reference in English and the launching pad for all further investigations.”

Kathryn Simonsen (University of Alberta, Canada) reviewed it in the online magazine Bryn Mawr Classical Review (2000.10.30). Her review opens with these words:

“It has taken more than seventy years, but finally someone has produced a rival to H. Ormerod’s 1924 Piracy in the Ancient World. Philip de Souza’s Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World is the first book in English since Ormerod’s to attempt to cover the topic of ancient piracy with the same breadth.”

Her review ends with the following conclusion:

“Piracy is an excellent, even ‘sexy’ topic. Pirates are still able to capture the imagination of readers and movie-goers: they remain both romantic and terrifying. The study of ancient piracy opens a number of windows onto life in the Graeco-Roman world, from the sufferings and fears of traders, travelers and the inhabitants of coastal settlements to the role of pirates in the mental landscape of rhetoricians, politicians and novelists. De Souza's work, particularly the chapters on Hellenistic and Roman piracy, touches on many of these subjects in an interesting and enlightening manner.”

If you ask me, the positive reviews are justified: Philip de Souza is a good scholar and a good writer. He knows his topic and knows how to write about it.

When he mentions an ancient source, he will (in many cases) tell us not only what it says, but also what he thinks about it. He will discuss its credibility: it is reliable? What does it say and why? What does it not say and why not? In short, he has a critical approach to the ancient evidence. Every historian should work in this way. Here are two examples:

** A Greek inscription from Astypalaia is presented and discussed (pp. 100-106)

** The so-called "Lex de provinciis praetoriis" is presented and discussed (pp. 108-115)

Scholarly publications are also evaluated: Dark Age Naval Power by John Haywood (1991) is mentioned on page 212. After a brief discussion of this volume, de Souza concludes: “Haywood has gone far beyond what is reasonable in his interpretation of the archaeological evidence.”

Haywood appears again on page 225 (the first page of chapter 7). This time de Souza is more positive. He adds a footnote where he says: “I am indebted to Haywood’s work for several of the more obscure references discussed in this chapter.”

For obvious reasons there are numerous references to Ormerod’s book from 1924. In some cases de Souza questions Ormerod’s interpretation of the ancient sources, and as far as I can see with good reason. Here are two examples:

(a) Did King Minos of Knossos on the island of Crete rule the sea so well that sailors and ships were not endangered by pirates? According to Ormerod, the answer is yes (page 80). The notion that Minos ruled the sea is known as “Minoan Thalassocracy.” Philip de Souza is sceptical. On pp. 15-16 he says:

“I do not subscribe to this view of an historical Minoan Thalassocracy… In short the Minoan Thalassocracy is a myth, and it has no sound historical basis.”

A footnote refers to an article by C. G. Starr, published in 1955.

(b) Did Pompey the Great clear the Mediterranean Sea of pirates in three months? According to Ormerod, the answer is yes (pp. 233-241, see in particular page 235). Philip de Souza is sceptical. He thinks this claim is exaggerated. Pompey and the pirates are discussed in chapter 5 (see in particular pp. 167-172). A surprising conclusion emerges: Pompey did not fight and suppress the pirates. He made a deal with them! On page 171, de Souza says:

“… in other words the secret of his remarkable success lay in his declared willingness to come to terms [with them] without a fight.”

For other cases where Philip de Souza raises doubt about Ormerod’s judgement, again with good reason, see pp. 30, 52, 54, and 99.

Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World is an academic book, but it is also accessible for the general reader who wishes to learn about this topic. The author does not assume that the reader already knows everything about the ancient world. When he begins a new point, he provides a brief introduction to make sure the reader can follow him. Here are three examples:

*** The Greek author Polybius is presented on pp. 73-76
*** Cicero’s case against Verres is presented on pp. 150-157
*** The Greek author Strabo is presented on pp. 200-204

Ancient sources are quoted again and again. If the quotation is short, it often appears twice: first time in the original, either Greek or Latin; second time in an English translation. If the quotation is longer, it appears only once, in an English translation. In other words, you do not have to be an expert in ancient Greek and Latin in order to read this book.

According to Kathryn Simonsen, de Souza makes a minor mistake regarding the chronology of the Minoan civilization. She quotes a passage from page 15 (the first page of chapter 2). But when I open my book and look at this page, I cannot see the mistake she mentions. What is going on here? I think I know what happened: Simonsen’s review is based on the hardcover version, whereas I have the paperback version. I suspect the author corrected the mistake, perhaps prompted by the review in BMCR, before the paperback version was published. However, a few minor flaws remain:

** On page 81 note 135 we have “repsonsible” instead of responsible

** On page 91 we have “… with or without Rome help…” instead of Roman help or Rome’s help

** On page 99 note 13 we have a reference to an article by A. Avidov published in 1997. According to the bibliography, it was published in the Mediterranean Historical Review, vol. 10, 1997. The year 1997 is correct, but the volume is wrong. It is volume 12.

** On page 124 note 134 we have “Casear” instead of Caesar

** On page 176 one word is missing. I have added the missing word in square brackets: “… seems [to] be a brilliant way…”

** The famous episode in which Mithridates VI Eupator (king of Pontus) was rescued by a pirate ship is mentioned three times: on pp. 125 and 127 it is dated to 73 BC, but on page 131 the date is changed to 72 BC.

[For more information about the king of Pontus, see Mithridates the Great by Philip Matyszak (2008) and The Poison King by Adrienne Mayor (2011).]

One important fact about the Graeco-Roman world which emerges from de Souza’s account is that the word “pirate” was often used as a term of political abuse. Accusing someone of being a pirate (or working with pirates) was a common element of the negative propaganda used in the ancient world. The rebel Sertorius is connected with pirates from Cilicia in Plutarch’s biography about him (page 132), and the rebel Spartacus is connected with pirates from Cilicia in Plutarch’s biography about Crassus (page 133). But not every accusation is true.

Piracy in the Ancient World was published in 1924. It is still an important book, but it has been replaced by Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World from 1999. Ormerod presents a huge number of cases, but he gives almost no details about them. De Souza has fewer cases, but he provides more details about them. In addition, he has a critical approach. He discusses the credibility of the ancient evidence. How reliable is this source? How much can we build on it? It is a pleasure to witness a professional historian working with the evidence and explaining his arguments step by step. His book is highly recommended.

* * * 

Philip de Souza,

Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World,

Cambridge University Press, hardcover 1999, paperback 2002,
Transferred to digital printing 2009, 276 pages

* * * 

 

 

 

 

 

Piracy in the Ancient World (1924)

Henry A. Ormerod (1886-1964) was professor of Greek at the University of Leeds, His book about piracy in the ancient world – with the subtitle An Essay in Mediterranean History - was first published by the University of Liverpool Press in 1924, almost one hundred years ago. Since then it has been reprinted several times, most recently by the Johns Hopkins University Press in 1997. The main text is divided into seven chapters:

* Chapter I - Depredations Committed on the Seas

* Chapter II – Piracy, Privateering and Reprisals

* Chapter III – The Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Wars

* Chapter IV – The Eastern Mediterranean from 480 to 200 BC

* Chapter V – The Western Seas, the Adriatic and Rome

* Chapter VI – The Pirates of Cilicia

* Chapter VII – The Empire

References and additional comments are given in notes placed at the foot of the page, which is very user-friendly. At the end of the book there is an index, but there is no bibliography, which is not user-friendly at all. I miss a list of the most important ancient sources used as well as a list of the most important modern works used.

What about illustrations? Two maps are placed at the beginning of the book. The first shows the western part of the Mediterranean Sea, while the second shows the north eastern corner of the same sea (with Greece and Asia Minor).

In addition, there is a drawing by E. Tankard, made from a vase in Athens National Museum. The drawing, which shows the practice of keel-hauling, is mentioned in the text on page 56. In the original version from 1924 this drawing appeared on the frontispiece. In the reprint from 1997 it is placed on the front cover.

Many inscriptions are mentioned in the text, but not one of them is shown in the book. Chapter VI opens with a detailed description of Cilicia. The author wants the reader to understand the geographical features of the coastline, but there is not a single picture of Cilicia in the book.

 

In chapter I, several pages are devoted to towers built by local residents in order to protect themselves from pirates, but there are no pictures, no drawings of these towers. A picture could show the reader what one of these towers look like today. A reconstruction drawing could show the reader what it might have looked like in ancient times. I guess, back in 1924, authors and editors did not understand the importance of good illustrations.

This is an academic book. It is not recommended for the beginner, for three reasons:

Reason # 1: the author assumes the reader has a solid knowledge about the history of the ancient world.

Reason # 2: many quotations are given in their original language, and they are not translated into English. There are several quotations from modern works in French and German and numerous quotations from ancient sources in Greek and Latin.

Reason # 3: questions of philology are often raised in the footnotes, for instance the specific meaning of an ancient Greek word.

For many years, Piracy in the Ancient World was the only book in English about this topic. It was considered an important work. That is why it was reprinted several times.

On the back cover of the reprint from 1997 the book is recommended by Lionel Casson, who describes it with the following words:

 

“Still the standard work on ancient piracy.”

Casson (1914-2009) was professor of classics at New York University 1961-1979. He is the author of several books, including Travel in the Ancient World (1974, 1994) and Libraries in the Ancient World (2001, 2002).

Piracy in the Ancient World was (in many ways) an important work (and it still is). If you read it, you will learn a lot. The author knows his topic, ancient sources as well as modern scholarship (until 1924). No doubt about it. But there are some serious flaws.

First of all, I am not happy about his approach: in chapter I, he tells us what pirates do and where they operate. Some examples are from the ancient world, but others are from modern times, the 17th and the 18th century, and these examples all mixed up. If he wants to add modern examples, I think he should separate them from the ancient examples. This is, after all, a book about the history of the ancient world.

In chapter III and IV, about the eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea, he mentions a large number of cases, but for each case he gives only the location and an approximate date. There are no details.

I do not want a list with 100 cases or more without any details. I prefer to have fewer cases and to have more information about each of them. I guess the author felt he had to give us every single case he had discovered in the ancient sources, even if the details about some of them were quite limited.

My second point: the author may know his topic, but perhaps his judgement is not always sound. Consider these cases:

(a) Did King Minos of Knossos on the island of Crete rule the sea so well that sailors and ships were not endangered by pirates? According to Ormerod, the answer is yes (page 80). The notion that Minos ruled the sea is known as “Minoan Thalassocracy.” Some modern scholars are sceptical about this notion. One of them, Philip de Souza, says:

“I do not subscribe to this view of an historical Minoan Thalassocracy… In short the Minoan Thalassocracy is a myth, and it has no sound historical basis.”

This statement is from his book Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World (1999, 2002), page 16. Philip de Souza refers to an article by C. G. Starr, published in 1955.

(b) Did Pompey the Great clear the Mediterranean Sea of pirates in three months? According to Ormerod, the answer is yes (pp. 233-241, see in particular page 235). Some modern scholars are sceptical. They think this claim is exaggerated. Philip de Souza covers Pompey and the pirates in chapter 5 of his book (see in particular pp. 167-172). German scholar Thomas Grűnewald is another sceptic. See his comment on pirates in Bandits in the Roman Empire (2004, 2008) pp. 22-24.

My third point: the index covers 16 pages. Many people and many places are listed here, but it is still incomplete, because ancient authors are not included, not even when they are mentioned in the main text. Five examples: Cicero is mentioned on page 249; Herodotus on page 142; Polybius on pp. 141 and 143; Strabo on pp. 127 and 129; Thucydides on page 80. None of them is found in the index.

My fourth point: On page 35 Ormerod mentions “The well-known inscription of Teos” which “contains imprecations against magistrates who harbour pirates.” No source is given here, but a footnote refers the reader to page 107 where the inscription is mentioned again. This time a source is given: “Dittenberger, Syll³, 37, 38.” What does this mean? The answer: Wilhelm Dittenberger (1840-1906) was a German scholar who specialised in epigraphic material.

He is the editor of Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (sometimes abbreviated as SIG). A third edition of this work was published in 1915. The inscription from Teos is # 37 and 38 in this volume. It is # 63 in Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War edited by Charles Fornara (1983). The evidence from Teos is discussed by de Souza in Piracy in the Graeco-Roman World pp. 29-30 and 68-71.

My fifth point: in his preface, the author expresses his gratitude to several persons, who helped him during his work on the book. One of them is M. N. Tod: “If the collection of epigraphical material is any way complete, it is entirely due to the notes which he has sent me.” Who is this person? The answer: Marcus Niebuhr Tod (1878-1974) was an ancient scholar, who specialised in epigraphic material. He is the editor of A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford University Press, second edition 1946). His work has been continued by two recent publications:

** PART ONE: A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions edited by R. Meiggs and D. Lewis (1989)

** PART TWO: Greek Historical Inscriptions 404-323 BC edited by P. J. Rhodes and R. Osborne (2004, 2007)

Piracy in the Ancient World was (in many ways) an important work (and it still is). But as you can see from the above, there are some serious flaws, and therefore I cannot give it more than three stars.

* * *

 

Henry A. Ormerod,

Piracy in the Ancient World:

An Essay in Mediterranean History,

University of Liverpool Press, hardcover, 1924,

Johns Hopkins University Press, paperback, 1997, 286 pages

 

* * *