phil25

The sponsorship advertisements during the herald

Sir Ronald Syme (author of The Roman Revolution) used to work them out and then draw political conclusions from them. Roman Revolution is full of inferences about alliances and political associations based on who married whom and other familial relationships. His book The Augustan Aristocracy (Clarendon Press Oxford 1986)- which is at my elbow as I type - is fascinating, full of short essays entitled things like "The Nobilitas"; "Nero's Aunts"; "Descendents of Pompeius and Sulla"; "Sixteen Aristocratic Consuls"; "The Resplendent Aemilii" etc. Don't know whether this assists you in any way? Phil

My question is a simple one, but the answer, I think, is more difficult. It is this. At what moment in his early career did Octavian decide to aim for a (if not the) principal position in the Roman state? When Caesar was murdered we know that Octavian was across the Adriatic in Macedonia - presumably awaiting his great-uncle to join the invasion of Parthia. Almost at once, on receiving the news from Rome, Octavian (accompanied, if I recall correctly by Agrippa and Maecenas) returned to Italy. What were his aims, ambitions and aspirations at that moment? Surely he could not remotely have imagined the principiate, and sole rule so early? So what were his intentions? In Italia, he gathers his uncles legions about him using his new name. He gets rebuffed by Antonius when seeking his inheritance, but still with immense confidence seeks to place Caesar's throne in the Circus for the games. Does this signify that even so early Octavian glimpsed that he would - or wanted to - claim that position of single rule that his adoptive father had occupied so recently? Or was he seeking publicity - but for what? Octavian must have known that in the ordinary way he was years from joining the Senate, decades from a consulship - yet pompeius had reached the heights without occupying the intervening offices of state. At this stage was Pompeius, rather than Caesar, his model? Even when the triumvirate was formed - did Octavian foresee himself discarding Antonius and ruling alone? After actium, the constitution was altered at least twice as Octavian (by then Augustus) tweaked the rules to soften his dictatorship (though the title was abolished by then). But from what point had he started to re-work the board to suit his ambitions? Throughout his early career he played with names. Cicero was flattered by being allowed to call him Octavian as Phillipus did, rather than "Caesar". but beside those two names we had Imperator; and "tota Italia" offering him crowns before the Actium campaign. I suppose in essence my question is this: Was Octavian ALWAYS simply an adventurer, an opportunist, making use of what each day offered and turning it to advantage, but without a plan overall? Or did he have a plan from the start but it changed? Or was there a moment when opportunism changed to a vision - perceiving the possibility of autocracy one day? I have no firm view on this, and would be genuinely interested to hear the ideas an opinions of others among you. Thanks in anticipation, Phil

Alexander aspired higher; achieved more; inspired and led - or at least was perceived to by those who came after - to a greater degree than anyone before had done. It was a form of charisma. Hence Caesar wept before his statue, because Alexander had done so much more before the age that Ceasar had reached. Characters who have the epithet "great" applied to them are usually seen as epoch-making: Peter the Great transformed Russia; Alfred the Great saved England from the Danes; Gregory the Great set a new style for the Papacy etc. The term is hardly ever used now - Victoria or Elizabeth the "Great" never stuck, though people tried with both. But also, in a sense, I suspect Alexander was seen as somehow typifying that trait of personal glory that was so strong in the ancient world. He brought to life again something of the legendary Achilles -his own personal hero. Just my thoughts, Phil

I think that people in the past - while in some senses using the same emotional palette as us - would feel and act in wholly alien ways to those to which we are accustomed, with a very different frame of reference and experience. Take the Romans - it was a brutal and brutalised world. there was no Christian gospel of love to ameliorate the code of values or morals. Linking to something I'll perhaps discuss later - how would people in modern society feel about exposing a daughter to die or be claimed by another. That might be something that might happen in a Third World country, but not I think in the "West" (and I discount children abandoned in hospital or church doorways where a desperate mother KNOWS they will be cared for). Slavery (as more modern societies have shown) does something to the slave owners and the slaves. It changes attitudes to humanity, maybe dehamanises. The massive rates of child mortality must have done something to a parent's (especially a mother's )psyche - see above on exposure. Arranged marriage (especially older husbands and VERY young wives), the expectation of many to die amazingly young - especially women in childbirth - surely changed their outlook. No - I'm afraid i don't think we would understand Romans emotionally at any more than a basic level. We would be left shocked and scandalised by their behaviour and their attitudes. Hollywood, and to a lesser extent romatic novelists, as I so often say, have much to answer for!! Phil

Modern audiences would not take to realistic depictions of ancient (or other modern) cultural norms. We need what is familiar - at least that is the conventional wisdom in the film industry. Costumes, sets, dislogue and patterns of behaviour will all roughly equate (or conform to) the style of the day in the "west". Anyhting else would be seen as too risky and unsafe. Let's see how Mel Gibson's new Mayan epic - using a Mayan dialect I gather - fares at the box office and with "critics". I don't see it as impossible to depict Roman values and relationships on screen - but it would require a lot of explanation That is why, in ROME, as I see it, the producers gave us a simplified take on Roman religeon, ignoring Caesar at Pontifex Maximus. yet it gave glimpses of how strange Roman religious rites would probably seem to us - the bargaining with the gods, the bull-slaying ritual, Antony's vigil, etc. It cheated too on the family - probably correctly it saw the dramatic posibilities in a long separation between Vorenus and his wife, but avoided th complexities of the fact that a soldier could not marry. That said, literary licence probably allows that diversion from the accepted position becayse can we be sure that NO Roman soldier was ever married in that period? On political relationships, I don't see invective as an alternative to "indirection" - it could as easily be used alongside it - to divert attention. How does the Pompey/king fit, if it was said wittily; or with humour? Or was said by a friend? A heated argument might occur between friends with Latin (or any) temperaments; but could also occur between two men one of whom is secretly plotting against the other. Finally,to depict a past culture in completely realistic detail could cause offence - to ethnic groups (if shown as slaves or brutalised, demeaned or humiliated); to woman (whose status has changed); to those who dislike violence; even to those who see the past with liberal or rose-tinted spectacles on. Commercial film directors will always steer a careful course. But even if they did not - our view of the past, even of professional historians - is only a perception or an interpretation. It changes over time. Who is to say the film producers are, on balance, not as correct as the Regius Professor of History at Oxford (senior academics have their flaws too)? Phil

Down-playing things is nice sometimes, and probably more historically "accurate". I always think that much of history would be anti-climax if only we could travel back in time. Phil

I have already set out my views at least twice on this board, Caldrail. I am certainly not playing mind games with anyone. In short - and though I may be wrong, I thought I recalled you discussing them previously - I suggested that (and this is a hypothesis only) that Nero's domus may have involved elements of: Hellenistic palace design (in particular the palace quarter of Alexandria where there was a royal compound - this might also relate to my putative Antonian thread in early principiate rule a mixture of public, private and mixed elements which draw individuals into ever greater intimacy and thus honour (this draws on modern scholarship in the study of internal spacial relationships in Pompeiian domestic architecture new ideas of monarchical rule - Gaius and Domitian salso eem to have played with absolutist symbolism (but not JUST as extravagance) a new concept of Rome as imperial "capital"; a newer addition to my thinking, is the the creation of an imperial complex akin to that Hadrian later conceived at Tibur/Tivoli Now I do not claim any of this to be more than speculation, but all those suggestions are soundly based in the period and constitute more than design. But I see no purpose in continuing this discussion with you, frankly, given your tone. Phil

In the Naples region, there are of course amphitheatres at Pompeii and at Capua Vetere (a well-known centre of gladiatorial training with connections to Spartacus) and another with well preserved subterranean facilities at Puteoli. That this is the Puteoli amphitheatre is given away by the two rectangular shapes (actually openings) which can be seen on the oval of the arena. Nice pic. Phil

You allegation tht a "palace is just a palace" runs counter to all we know of the symbolism developed on the palatine by Augustus (relating to Apollo); to the work of Domitian and later Hadrian - all within the same broad cultural environment as Nero. Is the Temple of Venus & Rome (AMOR/ROMA) withoy symbolism or deeper meaning? Sorry, Caldrail but Nero and his advisers were much more sophisticated than you make out. Demonstrably so IMHO. Phil PS Is there any purpose in my continuing this dialogue with the deaF?

Is this the Peter O'Toole series from the 80s(?) which was screened in a movie version as "The Antagonists"? I have the edited for film version, if so, and rate it quite highly. I have seen in said that the scenes of Roman camp life in the mini-series - largely cut in the version I have on video - are some of the most precise and detailed made up to that time. Phil

But we know nothing of the context of that alleged remark, or the tone in which it was made - witty, cynical, joking, serious, heartfelt, ironic.... each tone could make the words mean something different. Like Gaius' alleged remark that his horse Incitatus would make a better Consul than many senators, the words can be made to have a different intent - perhaps wholly false - depending on who is quoting it. I find that ancient quotes can illumine or enliven a "fact" - but it is unwise to make them the sole basis on any contention. Phil

Thinking in terms of real-politik, the gestation of any major conspiracy almost "demands" a reaction from others - either to be sunned by them; joined; or used. look at later examples such as the July '44 plot against Hitler. While any evidence is likely always to have been slight, I think it quite likely - particularly in the circumstances of the dying Republic - that figures like Caesar, Pompeius or Crassus may have sought to use Cataline, or at least hedge their bets. But maybe I am just cynical. Phil PS - what is this word "Conspiratory" in the title? Do you mean "Conspiracy".

There are umpteen different theories about the whereabouts of the Temple treasures (Menora etc) seized by Titus. Aren't they supposed to have been buried under a riverbed by Alaric's Visigoths? I actually laughed out loud when i read in the newspaper yesterday that some thought them locked away in the Vatican's vaults!! Those vaults must be HUGE - as vast as the wharehouse at the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark and as secures as that seen in "X-files, no doubt - so much of the world's history is stored there away from view. No harm in treasure hunting, but the odds are that at some stage after 70AD these items were melted down for their value as bullion, or destroyed in a fire in Rome, or looted and broken up. They were always symbolic, always precious. Had they survived or been taken away we would have subsequent reports, sightings.... As ever, I wait to be convinced, but frankly the chances are slim that this story has any truth in it. Phil

But where, in surviving Egyptian records, is the slightest suggestion of Atlanteans? or the need for them to explain any aspect of Egyptian development? Do I not recall another aspect of Plato's legend as being that Atlantis was at war with Athens when it was destroyed? Yet at that date Athens would not have been in a position to wage such a war - neither is there any evidence for it. Phil

Norman Tebbit wasn't a politician - he was a crazy individual who conned his way into the House of Commons. If you link his name with them, politicians will get a bad reputation Phil

But Caesar's demand to keep his army wasn't for the republic--it was to threaten Rome should it displease Caesar. The senate did not intend to be blackmailed by Caesar--so they required that he disband his army like every other returning general. There was nothing in the interest of the republic that would have had generals doing otherwise. MPC - what should a man do if his rivals intend to ruin, if not kill, him? Caesar was not just [an]"other reurning general" was he? And the motives of the Boni were not immediate - they were ancient and of revenge, malice and hatred. They were little men confronting a force; last defenders of a broken system. They went under as the deserved to. Phil

I am open to other ideas on this but after fairly wide reading on the subject of Atlantis, I think Plato made it up "for arguments sake", or maybe as a jest!! He may have based it on odds and sods of knowledge. But seeking a factual basis would be to chase a Chimera. Phil

LOTS!!! Any Emperors or periods in which you have a particular interest? Phil

I think Conolly's work is brilliant and I find him inspiring. He uses Maximus as a starting point really to explore Trajanic military life. I thought them good value when I bought them years ago. Phil

Once you have the FACTS established, you might find some of the fiction fun to read. It can bring the dry and dusty chronicles to life and many fictional works are based on very full research. Allan Massie has done volumes on Antony, Caesar, Augustus, Tiberius and Caligula. Robert Graves, "I Claudius" was written by a man deeply immersed in his sources. Margaret Yourcenar did a much lauded volume on Hadrian. Coleen McCullough has done a huge six volume "saga" on the fall of the Republic which brings what I had always found a complex mess, very much to life. this series begins with "The First Man in Rome" about Marius and Sulla. these books are deeply fawed (the author is obviously besotted with Caesar) but are based on deep research and the voluminous notes at the back of each of the six titles are a resource in their own right. One of the fascinating things about fiction is that it can explore alternative readings of history and bring enigmatic characters to life. Historians need to be cautious, but novelists can speculate and suggest different readings. I find such books stimulating and they send one back to the sources with renewed dedication and interest. Phil

On the tombstone of TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS MAXIMUS, the man who killed Decebalus under Trajan, Peter conolly (well-known military illustrator and expert on Roman military subjects) published two books reconstructing his life (Oxford 1988). I can find no bibliography in either volume. The History Channel, as I recall, did a documentary on Trajan in Dacia and the evidence from the column, which mentioned the incident and the tombstone. Phil

Can I add my voice to the plaudits for M V Agrippa. A truely great man. He deserves more attention. I also think we tend to see him through an Augustan filter - always perceived as the loyal lieutenant, and less as the great general and administrator he clearly was. I suspect that without him, Augustus would have been defeated or had to settle for much less. As I recall, Syme (Roman Revolution) thought that the second Augustan settlement might have been the result of an in-house coup by Agrippa, who was concerned for his own position and power. I don't know how soundly based that hypothesis is, but it appeals because it allows Agrippa to emerge from the shadows as his own man, with a personal agenda and ambition. Even if untrue, I feel that a politician and public servant such as Agrippa would have had his own vision and the will to pursue it. But so much is speculative in the ancient world, and veiled by paucity of sources or veneers of others' propaganda. In Augustus' case we can scarcely make out the historical Antonius, let alone Agrippa!! Augustus lived longer and took good care to ensure that the drama of his career had only one star. There is a statue of him in Venice museum (I think) on which I looked for a long time. A fascinating face. In life his auctoritas and dignitas must have been amazing and awesome to behold. The man in the modern world whom I often thought might have been something like him, was Earl Mountbatten - Viceroy, Admiral, politician and schemer, though Mountbatten did not have Agrippa's victories behind him, and was a lesser (and less loyal) man overall. There was something about the features of the two also that reminded me one of the other. But that's just whistful!! Alma Tadema did a painting entitled "Agrippa's Morning Reception" (or something similar) which shows the great man descending a stairway in his house to meet his clients. The Prima Porta statue of Augustus is there, but the picture appeals to me because it gives Agrippa centre stage for once (however Victorian the ambience). Like Pompeius (Magnus) and Antonius, Agrippa is overshadowed by his contemporaries to the extent that we cannot see them as they were perceived and known in their own day; or as they might have shone in times where a Caesar or an Augustus was less dominant. If only Agrippa's personal diary or his confidential commentaries had survived. We might see the period in an altogether different light. Phil

I hope the wording of your title doesn't come from the course, LC!! If that is meant to be an interpretation of the motives of establishing the empire it sounds rather simplistic, not to mention anachronistic!! Phil

If we are all planning to stay overnight, it might be worth contacting York university to see whether they can offer any accommodation. If we plan to meet around Easter it might be when the university is down/on vacation and thus there are rooms to spare in halls of residence at cheap prices. We might even get a room to socialise in. A Tolkien group I was involved in have done that in Oxford and Manchester, I cannot see why it should not apply in York. Just an idea, Phil