Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Andrew McCabe, post: 3134005, member: 90666&quot;]I thought I posted a reply but it disappeared into the ether. Here goes again.</p><p><br /></p><p>My answer was to the question &quot;which scholars&quot; think the 480 issue was made before the Ides. Since both have published, and the scholars are well known,&nbsp; I sort of answered the question as asked. I think... There&#039;s then your follow-on question &quot;has there been a detailed rebuttal article published&quot; (my paraphrase). No there has not. One is certainly needed. Good prompt.</p><p><br /></p><p>Both studies that discuss in overview their views are readily accessed. They aren&#039;t hidden. Arma et Nummi was written in 2004 I think, and Ted&#039;s paper in 2015. <span style="font-size: 16px"><font face="Verdana"><span style="color: rgb(20, 20, 20)">Woytek&#039;s book is widely available. </span></font></span>The researchgate link to Buttrey&#039;s paper in the Journal of Ancient History is here:</p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284929646_Caesar_at_Play_Some_Preparations_for_the_Parthian_Campaign_44_BCE" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284929646_Caesar_at_Play_Some_Preparations_for_the_Parthian_Campaign_44_BCE" rel="nofollow">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284929646_Caesar_at_Play_Some_Preparations_for_the_Parthian_Campaign_44_BCE</a></p><p><br /></p><p>There&#039;s a difficult point about how scholars address findings that they have not fully researched but are on the back burner to be published later. Ted&#039;s main reasons for the pre Ides dating are (1) we have misinterpreted DICT IN PERPETVO, and he takes this from his knowledge of Latin use: his view is it always meant Prorogued (continued) until after the Parthian Campaign, not Perpetual. (2) the coinage only makes sense as a Parthian campaign finance - there would have been no earthly reason for the Rome mint to have calmly continued producing a massive coinage during a period of absolute chaos before Antony arrived (3) the awkward coin, with head of Caesar / Desultor, is almost certainly an accidental (or perhaps mischievously deliberate) mule (4) there&#039;s no reason given evidence prior that Rome couldn&#039;t produce a 200 die coinage in a couple of months, especially as they plainly seem to be from different parallel workshops (5) Alfoeldi offers no positive evidence in contrary except the point about the mule and the title. Woytek&#039;s view is the mule is clearly a mule, and the purpose of coinage must indicate a pre Ides date regardless of titles.</p><p><br /></p><p>However .. neither author sat down to specifically write a line-item rebuttal of Alfoeldi. They no doubt have/had all the arguments ready but they have more important things to work on. I discussed with both at end 2016 and neither had the time to do the heavy lifting for a full analysis that takes into account dies, workshops etc. I might do it. When I have time.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in