A scholium in codex Vaticanus graecus 156 provides evidence that Cassius Dio's Roman History once contained an explicit reference to the ludi saeculares of a.d. 204, something that has been denied in recent scholarship.

Charles and Singleton have explained why Cassius Dio's claim (60.21.2) that elephants were among the equipment prepared for use in Britain during the Claudian invasion of a.d. 43 is probably untrue, if one assumes that by ‘elephant’ he means the animal of that name. It is argued here that the best explanation of this apparent error is that Dio preserves a reference to a type of military machine, probably a siege-tower, rather than to the animal of this name.

Cassius Dio's fragmentary Roman History 15 contains an account of Archimedes’ role in defending Syracuse during the Roman siege of 213–212 b.c., incorporating a legendary tale about a solar reflector Archimedes constructed to burn Roman warships, and including details of his death when the city fell. The textual basis of this famous episode depends on two derivative twelfth-century works: Zonaras’ Epitome of Histories (9.4–5) and Tzetzes’ Chiliades (2.35). After clarifying the present state of enquiry, this paper introduces two new witnesses, overlooked by editors of Dio and extensive scholarship on Archimedes, and assesses their value for reconstructing Dio's text. Comparative analysis of corresponding Dio-derived material in Tzetzes’ Carmina Iliaca and Hypomnema in S. Luciam, especially verbal correspondences with Zonaras’ Epitome, demonstrates that they are independent and, sometimes, superior witnesses to Dio's wording and content, reflecting Tzetzes’ selective use of the Roman History in different verse and prose compositions over several decades. The study considers editorial implications for this section of Dio's work and general characteristics of Tzetzes’ writings as repositories of testimonia and fragments.

In 69 ce, the emperor Vitellius presented to dinner guests his ‘Shield of Minerva’, a platter filled with pike livers, pheasant and peacock brains, flamingo tongues, and lamprey milt. Just as Vitellius’ passion for food has been distorted into gluttony, so the Shield of Minerva has been misrepresented as a culinary abomination and the worst of the emperor's excesses. Modern scholarly reception of the Shield owes much to hostile ancient sources, but is also influenced by some modern culinary preferences. Critical reading of our sources reveals the dish as a mix of ingredients carefully chosen for their gustatory and visual appeal and for their political and military symbolism. Vitellius’ association of the platter with Minerva evokes her status not only as a martial deity, but also as a goddess of craft. The Shield of Minerva is revealed to be an intellectual exercise, not a symbol of gluttonous self-indulgence.

Narratives of the Claudian invasion of Britain in a.d. 43 have regularly referred to elephants being part of Claudius’ force, with some accounts even suggesting that Claudius paraded the beasts through Colchester (Camulodunum), or even rode on top of one. This study investigates these claims, which derive solely from a somewhat ambiguous reference in Cassius Dio's (60.21.2) description of the invasion. Temporal and logistical constraints, together with military and iconographic considerations, however, make it highly unlikely that the animals, even if they had been assembled on the Channel, made their way across to Britain. Overall, the study shows that Dio's testimony should be treated with extreme caution, and should be accorded only parenthetical importance in treatments of the Claudian invasion.

The focus of this article is on a curious episode at the end of the first book of Tacitus’ Annals. It is argued that Tacitus here is at his most metaphoric and allusive, allowing a senatorial debate on the possibly prophetic meaning of an inundation of the Tiber to become a debate about the overwhelming power of the river's namesake Tiberius. Parallels from Dio (and perhaps also from Livy) indicate that inundations of the Tiber by the end of the Republic had become prophetic warnings of the rise of the dynasts undermining the stability of the Republic. In Tacitus, procedural anomalies and suggestive wordplay bring to the fore the religious and constitutional issues that in the Senate's handling of this Tiberine prodigium reflect its submission to the ever more oppressive power of Tiberius.

Scholars have long doubted the historical accuracy of Cassius Dio's account of the consequences of the Bar Kokhba War (Roman History 69.14). According to this text, considered the most reliable literary source for the Second Jewish Revolt, the war encompassed all of Judea: the Romans destroyed 985 villages and 50 fortresses, and killed 580,000 rebels. This article reassesses Cassius Dio's figures by drawing on new evidence from excavations and surveys in Judea, Transjordan, and the Galilee. Three research methods are combined: an ethno-archaeological comparison with the settlement picture in the Ottoman Period, comparison with similar settlement studies in the Galilee, and an evaluation of settled sites from the Middle Roman Period (70–136 CE). The study demonstrates the potential contribution of the archaeological record to this issue and supports the view of Cassius Dio's demographic data as a reliable account, which he based on contemporaneous documentation.

Three aspects of Cassius Dio's account of the Claudian invasion of Britain are discussed. First, the convention, by which ancient historians routinely introduced their detailed narrative of military campaigns with a summary, allows the two first battles in the sequence to be eliminated as separate events. Secondly, the kings, Togodumnus in Cassius Dio and Cogidumnus in Tacitus' Agricola, are taken to be the same individual, who after defeat was reconciled to be Claudius' client-ruler. Thirdly, the argument is restated that the invasion took place through the harbours of West Sussex on a route suggested by the description given by Dio and by the evidence of place-names, known from the Geography of Ptolemy and the Antonine Itinerary.