phil25

A valid and timely corrective, Augusta. Phil

There have been elective Emperors - the Holy Roman Emperors were "elected", but gradually it became effectively and then totally hereditary in the Hapsburg family. Technically an "empire" simply denotes a state that is not tributary or subordinate to another power. Hence Henry VIII, breaking with Rome and the authority of the Pope, declared "this England is an empire" - meaning that the kingdom of England was no longer anyone's to command save it's own Government. The Queen wears the "imperial" State Crown (ie one with raised arches rather than depressed) after her Coronation and at the annual State Opening of Parliament because she is "sovereign" - ie subordinate to no one. Empire as a term for an assemblage of foreign territory ruled by a state comes, I rather think from the Roman "empire" which was ruled by men bearing the title/name Imperator. This is a more modern useage of the term - though it dates back many centuries - Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman "Emperor" (Imperator) in 800AD. I don't know how (say) Alexander's conquests were titled in Greek - that is before the Latin term came into use. Phil Phil

I was disappointed by Pharsalus too, but the series is focusing on character (IMHO) and we did get the wonderful "unease" of Cranham's Pompey - dolled up in his imperatorial finery but seemingly lost and overwhelmed. Compared to that Hind's fatalistic and calm Caesar, unruffled, but also conveying how much nervous energy he had expended. Given the choice between a half-baked battle simply to impress, and the great acting we got, I think we got the better bargain. Phil

Bonapartism was a form of republicanism - the ultimate outcome of the French Revolution as Napoleon saw it. From Augustus angle did the roman republic ever end? If so in what way - because all the elements of the old constitution continued to operate? He never claimed to have "conquered" an empire - just found a better way of running one. It's odd that titles a fashionable element to them These days it is president (as in Putin) where in effect he is the Tsar (and would have called himself that in C18th Russia). Once it was King or Emperor. Under the Communist spell the title of choice was "Chairman" (as in Mao, or Kruschev). Tsar and Kaiser are of course developments of the name Caesar!! Often translated Emperor, is that what they meant really when assumed as titles? Who is to say what the title of choice of the future will be? By the way, turning to fiction, the TV series Babylon 5 had the Centauri Republic which was headed by an Emperor!! Phil

So does this stamp pre-date the Penny Black then? Was it self-adhesive? Did postage prices increase as much then as they do now? Have they found the post box they put their scrolls in? Phil

Aegyptus The so-called Treasure of Helen is controversial for several reasons. It is not clear whether Schliemann found the treasure as or when he claimed (I think he said his wife was present when she was not). It certainly dates from a period EARLIER (around layers or levels 1 or 2) than that now normally ascribed to "Homeric" Troy (layers 6 or 7). It thus came from lower down within the mound or "tell" created by the successive levels of habitation. The treasure might just have been deposited from above as a BURIAL by later inhabitants, but I think stylistically this is considered not to be so likely. Phil

The title of the film is dumb (If he was the first emperor how did he inherit an empire?) The head of state does not have to be an "emperor" for a country to possess an empire. The Roman republic had an empire befre Augustus and the term "Imperator" (which he took as a name) had nothing to do with territory - it was the title given to a victorious general by his troops. The USA has an "empire" but not an emperor - so if George W got even bigger ideas, he could declare himself anything he wanted and "inherit" the empire from the previous republic. Sorry just being picky, but I don't think the title is that daft. As for the film, I thought O'Toole touched greatness once or twice (though at others he is as far off/or so static that it makes no sense). But on the whole, though the film does not touch ROME or I Claudius, I am of the opinion that it does have some good touches (the design is again quite impressive) though structurally all over the place. At least Agrippa and Maecenas (is he the one you thought a cook?) are there, and given their correct roles. As for Charlotte rampling - I thought she was a good corrective to Sian Phillips in I Claudius (though not such a technically proficient performance as the latter). I might wish for a better use of resources, but at least someone made the film and I don't regret that. Phil

But were the Minoans a separate culture, DC? Or did Sir Arthur Evans get it wrong? To me the "palaces" at Knossos (Crete) and Pylos (Greece) look awfully similar. Phil

Charles - as "1066 and All That" would have had it - was wrong but romantic!! He was a bit of a hero when i was younger - I see him now as a brave but very scheming, weak and duplicitous man, lacking all political judgement. Everett was far too tall to play him, and the script of To Kill a King was inept. The best Charles, probably never to be bettered was Guiness in Cromwell Spittle Fire Over England - with Flora Robson as Elizabeth (plus Olivier and Vivien Leigh) was made c 1937. I have never seen a video or dvd, but recorded my copy from TV years ago. Flora also played Elizabeth in Errorl Flynn's "The Sea Hawk" c 1940? - it should be around on dvd, I have a commercial video. Flynn played Essex to Better Davis' Elizabeth in "Elizabeth and Essex" (c1940?) - again this should be on dvd. Davis played Elizabetb again c 1950 in The Virgin Queen - I saw a dvd of this last week in a shop in London. The First Churchills is available as 2 BBC dvds, as is the first series of "By the Sword Divided" (Civil War). Have i missed anything? Returning to the Tudors, Richard Burton was a poor Henry VIII in "Anne of the Thousand Days" but that includes the best Cardinal Wolsey I have ever seen, a rounded performance of great command and strength by Anthony Quayle. If you want to see Michell's Henry - the film version of his performance "Henry VIII and his six wives" is out on dvd. Not bad. The TV series was available as six BBC videos but I have not seen it re-released as dvds. Phil

Age of Treason is not the worst fil ever made, but equally, it's similarity to the book is almost non-existant. I have a tape of it somewhere which i recorded when it was on TV. I seem to recall a female gladiator!! A TV series would be great, but to be done properly a la Miss Marple?Morse with the production quality and really good casting would need a budget the size of Rome. I don't think the print series is yet successful enough to warrant that. Even the Cadfael series of films petered out quite quickly and without all the books having been filmed. Phil

I don't think Caesar had an inkling he was going to die (I don't see him as suicidal for a moment), but I suppose if you are seeking to educate your heir-to-be then to have as his class-mates a soldier-in-the-making and a bright, politically-savvy lad makes sense. I referred earlier to something I had read (where i do not know) of unfounded rumours that Agrippa was Caesar's illegitimate son. If verified, that might be something Agrippa himself put about later to make his claim to the principiate more solid. But an alternative could be that Caesar had noted Agrippa's talent in some way and fostered him as a protege - intending he and Octavian to rise together. Is anything known of Agrippa and/or Maecenas BEFORE they emerge with Octavian at Apollonia? Phil

CiceroD - I am a great fan of these books. I bought the first one - "Silver Pigs" when it was first issued and loved the characters and idea at once. I love the mix of solid research, believable extrapolation and wit (parallels with modern life, raymond Chandler-type fiction etc etc). I haven't caught up with the latest - though they are on my shelves apart from Delphi, which I have not yet bought. I have been to so many of the places that Davis describes - not only in Rome but elsewhere (Petra, Pompeii, Palmyra) and her writing brings them to life. Recommended to anyone who has not yet found them. Phil

He was Bothwell - and very well cast with regards to looks, I think. It was the script and some of the acting that was lacking in that series - the casting was imaginative (a lad from Eastenders played Darnley and looked the part). Phil

Over the years I have become very suspicious of the coincidental in history. That's not to say that I see murder everytime there is a convenient death!!, but often what seems to the precise right thing, also seems to occur by happenstance, I tend to look again. With regard to Agrippa and Augustus was it luck that gave the former a friend who was fortunately a good general? Or did someone - Caesar maybe - arrange it? Do we know how and when the two men met, or how Agrippa - and one could Maecenas - happened to be with Octavian at exactly the right time? Could a military genius have spotted native talent in even a very young man? Phil

I can't see any sense or value in the approach - there's only one civilisation... Sorry but that avoids the question, may well be a misplaced (and very PC C21st) assumption, and most important fails to analyse or consider the implications. Personally I don't think that trends and attempts to ignore differences between sexes or races are moral, useful or well-based. At worst they are condescending. Ask an Egyptian whether an Atlantean was responsible for their ancient culture, and you'll soon get an answer. They are proud (rightly) of their heritage, and dismissive of western attempts (Bayval, Hancosk etc) to argue that they could not have done it themselves. But then, I suppose, we all know that it's the British who have to take the credit for the achievements of the US Founding Fathers. (Don't feel you have to pursue that JOKE!!). There was no ONE human race in 5000BC or whenever, and is not now. It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. All MHO of course, Phil

To me - the externals are often less important than the basic truth - with these TV series. As with an adaptation - does (say) a TV version of Pride and Prejudice give us something of what Jane Austen tried to convey, or some modern, sexed-up travesty? I rather disliked the latest version of that book (the famous one with Colin Firth) because i could not see a controlled gentleman like Darcy ripping off his clothes and jumping into a lake as he did in an invented scene. I have warmed to other aspects of the production since, but to me that was a betrayal. Equally the recent film with Keira knightly and Matthew Macfadden might have been renamed Shyness and Independence, since both charcaters were given modern rather than period defects of character to overcome. Thus, to me, the epitome of a good historical costume drama (ie one based on fact) are the 70s Six Wives of Henry VIII (Keith Michell) and the Glenda Jackon Elizabeth R. These were faithful to history (even if events were telescoped) to period look and feel; in casting and managed to cram in some of the complexity of politics and court in the period. By contrast the Ray Winston Henry had only one note - Henry was a sort of gangster/crime boss, let's show him as such. It altered history in unpardonable ways, and its portrayal of the period was grossly out of order. Here was a great Christian and Renaissance Prince, noted for his learning, a cultured, sophisticated man, whose splendid palaces were legendary, shown living in bare walled castles, speaking in a working class way and being generally venal and brutal. The real Henry (believe it or not) was a prude!! and fastidoius in matters of dress and ceremonial. Apart from that the acting was lamentable. Compare, if you are able, Michell's detailed chronicling of a man's descent from golden adolesence to obese physical corruption, with all the detail that makeup and characterisation could add. Winston was Winston with a bit of padding and powder at the end. Of course, series date and acting and editing styles change - but when I look at videos of the 2 series on the Tudors I have mentioned; on The First Churchills (Neville and Hampshire as John and Sarah); or By The Sword Divided - on the English Civil War - I see history recreated. It might not be perfect (and it was certainly studio bound and budget limited), but it looked and felt genuine. James Villiers' Charles II, as well as the James II (actor not known) and William III were superb (First Churchills) and you could use the series to give you a sound foundation in the period for academic purposes. As for the various Elizabeths - Glenda, I felt tried to subsume herself in the real woman. Mirren by contrast gave us Elizabeth as she would have been had she been the actress 9the truth was there but not the feel or look). The actress in the BBC Virgin Queen was simply awful. But all of them (Glenda least) lacked the feel for the demeanour that Flora Robson brought to the part. Hardly a beauty (as Elizabeth by any reasonable standard was not) Dame Flora understood what bearing and dignity, and the force of personality can do (she was also a believable Tzu Si in 55 days at Peking in the 60s). Her Tilbury speech in Fire Over England is unmatched IMHO. I'd also put in a word for Bette Davis (Elizabeth and Essex with Flynn and The Virgin Queen with Richard Todd. Way off in so many ways, dear Bette got the spitefulness and mean-mindedness of the woman exactly. In Essex the decor was superb too - a suggestion of Tudor architecture without the detail. I could go on, but will sign off before I bore everyone. Phil

Again, to defend (I suppose) both Gaius and Claudius, I think you'll find that the boat sunk to make the fioundations for the Ostian "pharos" was the ship used to transport an obelisk from Egypt - a feat in itself and the craft was now redundant - rather than a pleasure vessel. Gaius' floating palaces on lake Nemi remained in situ until burned probably in 69, and were excavated and preserved in the 1920s until destroyed in WWII bombing. I sense implicit criticism in comments about flaoting palaces. May I urge a word of caution about judgeing the past by todays standards. In the past, conspicuous expenditure by the elite was a major economic driver and means of passing "wealth" to areas outside the capital. Besides which other, then valid, assumptions may have inspired the building of such edifices and boats. We should, IMHO, view the past by its own standards and not our own, lest we be misled and reach incorrect conclusions. Phil Edited for spelling.

I thought the floating palace (on lake Nemi?) was one of Gaius' projects? Phil

Some VERY thought-provoking posts recently here. I must say I am intrigued and impressed by your remarks about Salvidienus, Ayugusta. Very possible, and he is indeed overlooked/overshadowed in retrospect. Phil

I thought Holland's book was a good read and enjoyed it. Good narrative history, not deep but well done. I'll but Everitt next month. Phil

It's news to me, but sounds plausible. Anyone any ideas on WHERE the tattoo would be placed - arm, shoulder? Visible in uniform/armour, or covered? Phil

With the Ancient Egyptians, because they did start civilization as Sumeria did at the same time. Ramses, what is your source or basis for that statement? I always worry about the pat Sumerian, or European answers, in that I wonder whether they are too western-centric. Can we be absolutely certain that China did not evolve earlier, or maybe some of the mezo-American cultures? It's not my field at all, but I seem to recall a great deal of DNA work being done on the basis of man's evolution and something about seven "Eves" - where did these womn originate and does that give us any clues? Where was wheat first grown and used for bread? I have no answers, only questions. Phil

Was Jean Simmons character, Varinia, specifically stated to have been British? I had always assumed her to be just another of Batiatus' domestic slaves. "Spartacus" is, in my view, best viewed as an impression of republican Rome, on the verge of the principiate. Olivier's Crassus bears less resemblance to the historical Crassus and more to Sulla, even though the character refers derogatorilly to the latter. Indeed, I think "Crassus" in the film is best seen as an amalgam of all the military adventurers who came to dominate and threaten the republic. In the same way, Laughton's "Gracchus" refers back to the actual Gracchi (actually a generation or more gone) and to other staunch defenders of the republic. In this way, I think the director and writers simply used the story of Spartacus to weave a parable of oppression, imperialism and the quest for freedom - and in ideological terms it is probably as much about Zionism (a common theme of Hollywood films of the time) and McCarthyism. Against that background, whether a woman was a Brit or not seems scarcely important. Phil

I don't think I can have meant to "accuse" Livia of Posthumus' murder, Augusta, because i don't think it likely. But it is an option, at that stage. We know she controlled access to seals and the Government apparatus sufficiently to influence policy - so if she felt there was a loose end... But my reading of Livia is as a political woman (certainly) but one who would not have used such direct methods. On Drusus' death (son of Tiberius) didn't Livilla admit to his poisoning? Phil

Well, given the character of several recent "great chess-players" an endorsement by one is not a tribute IMHO!! Velikovsky who promoted ideas that time changed and the world reversed its direction od spin "when worlds collided" was also Russian was he not? Those long cold, dark, winters have much to answer for. Phil