Polybius’ theory of anacyclosis

what you have written is rather confusing. Let’s start with the basics. What is Polybius’ theory of anacyclosis? Can you explain the theory? What according to Polybius is the distinguishing factor between good forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy and democracy) and bad forms (tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy)?

Reply:

, I am not quite sure how to respond. You seem to be basing your comments on a book review by Anton J. L. van Hooff (2009, not 2019) of Spartacus. Film and History by M. M. Winkler. This is not one of our required readings and is only partially pertinent to the subject we are discussing. Your only reference to Margaret Malamud betrays no evidence that you have actually read her article, the required reading. I suggest that you read the article and revise your post.

Reply

this is was the response for discussion 7:

, Velleius Paterculus [Roman History 2.33] wrote, “In fact Pompey, from the time when he first took part in public life, could not brook an equal at all. In undertakings in which he should have been merely the first he wished to be the only one. No one was ever more indifferent to other things or possessed a greater craving for glory; he knew no restraint in his quest for office, though he was moderate to a degree in the exercise of his powers.” Granted that the process of Rome’s political decay had started well before Pompey, how much was Pompey’s own character and personality responsible for accelerating the process?

Reply:

Discussion 8 response:

technically, the Maison Carrée is a pseudo-peripteral temple, a form that would not function well as a governmental office building. How did the temple actually function? That is, what activities occurred there and where in the building did they happen? What features make it seem, at least at first glance, impractical for adaptation to governmental/administrative use?