phil25

Surely the points that there are two separate strands here: The RAF won the BofB which was an AIR battle. (In fact the germans lost it, by switching tactics from bombing airfields to bombing cities, but the outcome was the same.) The Raoyal Navy was the reason that hitler would have found it difficult to INVADE - a different point, since had the B of B been lost by Britain, a sea-borne invasion was only one option. As for revisionists being poppycock, I think the author of those words needs to think again. History is no more than perception. Each generation looks again at the past and sees something different. There never was an ABSOLUTE. All that those who dislike revisionism are doing is clinging to their familiar, loved view of the past. Nothing wrong with that - so long as one remembers that it was never RIGHT/CORRECT any more than any other view. It is an opinion - no more valid than any other, provided the facts are respected. To quote a line from the TV series I Claudius: "Things aren't what they were. No. And you know what, they never were what they were." Phil

Another line of enquiry might be to check current books on Roman uniforms/equipment such as the osprey line. Designers of figures, in my experience, often use such sources. I looked at my books to see - Osprey's revised "Roman Army from Casear to Trajan" only has mail clad soldiers for Caesar's day. But Peter conolly might have shown different - I'll check later. And what are re-enactor's doing? I'm sure the designer would have had a source as such people are artists first military experts second. Phil Further searching before going to work - I found in Osprey's "Roman Military Clothing (1) 100BC to AD 200" a black and white drawing of a sculpture. The caption reads: "Late Republican and early imperial tunics - soldiers from the arch at Susa...( seems only to be wearing a tunic with a fabric waistband. (This arch is dated as "Augustan"). On the same page (6) there is another darwing from the arch at Orange (in Gaul of course!!) which shows soldiers wearing no armour - just a tunic, clearly knotted between the shoulder blades. Don't know whether this helps?

How odd - did they wake up one day and think, "Oh I've been wrong all this time!!"?

The Romans themselves considered Trajan to be the Optimum Princeps didn't they? They knew him, so were probably better placed than us to judge - especially as we know comparatively little about Trajan domestically and politically. Exceptionally they buried him within the pomerium. Nero's first five years were said to be among the best of any. I'd also advance the claims of Augustus - probably the best politician of the lot Tiberius - yes him!! - who I think has an undeservedly bad reputation. He needs re-examining Marcus Aurelius (though he is probably over-lauded) Diocletian - who tried hard to stop the rot - an almost impossible task but he achieved a good deal of reformation. Just my thoughts, Phil

Can someone please tell me why Puerto Rico is maintained as a colony by America, but not made a State? Surely is has been a US possession for long enough. Would welcome it - and is not too disimilar from Hawaii in being non-continental and non anglo-saxon? The question has always puzzled me. Phil

I really question your conclusions Cato - and William was assassinated before 1588 (1584 - I think offhand - in the Pinzenhof, Delft). He was a truely great man, and I have stood both before his grave and in the place where he was shot. With his death, Elizabeth became the "sun" of the Protestant cause - and a reluctant one at that!! Had the Armada been successful and she captured - and one assumes beheaded (for crimes against monarchy maybe!!) then i think the Protestant cause would have lost its way. Spain would have gained a huge boost in morale. Parma would have set about the Low Countries with even more of a will, and i suspect England would have settled back into the old ways and the old faith - especially in the North which was still largely catholic anyway. But perhaps we'll just have to disagree. After all, neither of us can prove the other wrong!! But I take a pessimistic view of that particular counter-factual I think things stood on a knife-edge in 1588 and a single push could have changed things. NOT that I think the Armada ever had a chance, hence why I don't see it as the MOST "decisive" battle. Phil Kosmo The difference between us is that I don't believe that Hitler needed to continue very much of anything once the RAF had lost. the psychological impact of defeat on the British population would have been one factor. The other would have been politicians - many of whom had never wanted a war - seeing no prospect of and end to fighting, no way of winning and no war aims - what were they fighting for any more. If Hitler had offered the terms which were on the table - a free hand in Europe in return for not touching the empire of the Royal Navy - then I think a Halifax, a Butler or someone similar would have accepted them before long. probably sooner rather than later in fact. Later we might have had Edward VIII back, especially if a fascist Government had been elected at an early date in peacetime. Churchill would have gone the day the RAF could not fight back - he nearly went - in fact - before France had fallen!! Without him, I suspect, the nation would have lost its confdence and martial spirit. Remember, Hitler halted the panzers outside Dunkirk, did little really to prevent the evacuation. No REAL invasion plans were ever set up. Hitler did not expect to have to invade - nor did he want to. He half admired Britain (half resented and was jealous of her too) but his world view did not include a defeated Anglo-saxon power, and his eyes were on his true prey, in the East. So while continued bombing of cities might have helped soften up Britain had there been a delay in achieving an armistice and then a treaty, I don't see any of the rest of your points as relevant. The Government would not have attempted to re-arm, unless it was to send forces to Russia to assist Germany!! We were lucky - VERY very lucky. Phil

BTW, I thought the defeat of the Spanish Armada was the most important event. Without it, there would have been no Scottish Enlightenment, no John Locke, and no Adam Smith. Until now I had never thought that there might have been a GOOD side to the Armada!! Although...maybe Holland would then be what Britain is today? Perhaps the American Dutch colonies would have declared independence from Mother Netherlands? Hugo Grotius and William of Orange standing in the places of John Locke and Elizabeth? West Indies Trading Company Day in the US instead of Thanksgiving? Spinoza instead of Puritans? Hmmm....maybe the defeat of the Spanish Armada wasn't ALL good. In terms of 1588 - it was England's Elizabeth and a rather inept force under leicester which helped keep the United Provinces afloat. They had already broken away from the Spanish Netherlands under William the Silent. With the Armada successful, Parma would quickly have supressed the remaining embers of revolt. William of Orange (if you mean William III of England) was a Stuart in part. He would not have been born if the Armada had achieved Philip II's aims!! If you meant William the Silent - he was dead by 1588, assassinated in Delft. So none of what you hypothesise is remotely likely. A of S You picked up my question, "What oil and raw materials in the early 40s? " You missed my point I think. I was countering a suggestion that the US would not have abandoned ITS oil and raw materials. I don't think the US was active in Persia in the 30s/40s so in no way were the resources a particular US interest. Persia was part of the british sphere of interest. That was my point. Actually, the Third Reich didn't plan on opening a market for the U.S. They planned on taking over the U.S, not offer markets. Where did you read that? Hitler had no plans for such action - how could an invasion of the US have been mounted with 1940s technology? From what base? Hitler talked of many things and rambled in his Table Talk but that was not policy. besides for the next few years Germany would have been pre-occupied with Russia. tflex You question my statement, "the French threw out the Germans in the 40s without outside help did they - just through the efforts of the Maquis/resistance?" I was responding to your suggestion in an earlier post that a British resistance under German occupation might have been effective and eventually have gained independence. I simply pointed out, in rebuttal, that it was not the case in France in the period 1940-44 even with British and US aid. An invasion was necessary. You now write: Germany, simply did not have the vast resources of America and Russia, But it came very close to taking Moscow even with a war on two fronts!! ...then add to it a stiff British resistance assuming Germany occupied Britian..." But a stiff resistance based on what? Who would have supplied it? By what means? From what bases? besides, if you read my posts you'll see I argue strongly that occupation is NOT the most likely outcome of german victory in 1940 IMHO. An appeasing, pro-German Government in the UK is much more likely... and would probably have been more soundly based than Vichy. Any resistance would have been comparatively small scale in my view, akin to IRA terrorism. Sure the war might have taken longer, more casualties for the allies... What allies? With Britain out of the war and probably making paece with Germany? ...but the defeat of Germany would have been inevitable anyway. Only if a european War had continued. Russia might have been a lot to swallow and i could see a situation as set out in the novel "Fatherland" having developed. I just don't see how German troops could have kept England under control for too long... As i say no need, with Churchill out and either a Halifax or pro-fascist Moseley Government in. The bulk of the UK population might have considered the end of an unwinnable war; the end of bombing; the retention of the empire overseas, as good things. The Munich attitudes, pro-appeasement and ant-war would probably have re-emerged for pragmatic reasons. No opposition to speak of to Germany, no need for occupation!! ... the British would have put up a much stronger resistance than the French could ever hope. On what you base that other than prejudice I cannot think. It sounds sentimental rather than rational!! Also, I'm sure the U.S. and Russia would have found a way to penetrate from the east ... You assume a US in the war - which they did not join until December 1941. Britain stood alone from 1940 summer to June 1941 when Hitler invaded Russia. The US was only tangentially involved. If russia had been effectively knocked out in late 41, there might have been no one to ally with. ...or just a mass troop landing in Britian or France... From what base pray? ... and definately could count on British support on the ground once they landed. Tell me more. I wonder? GO - my comment on isolation got widowed from its parent thought. It was part of my rationale for why I don't think we can assume the US would necessarily have declared war on a Germany that showed no hostile intention and with Europe neutralised. Phil

But lend lease was very much of a Roosevelt-Churchill deal. Would FDR have been able to justify such a deal with a pro-German/ appeasing Government in London under Halifax or Moseley for instance? I doubt either would have asked for such aid. Without the 8th Army in Eqypt, or the threat from the Uk, Rommel would have been less starved of supplies. Indeed Hitler and OKW might have given him MORE as an attempt to drive across the Canal and up into Russia from the south - or to seize the Persian oilfields. On thew whole, I still find your arguments confusing GO. For instance, you state: This, of course, presupposes a successful landing by the Germans without the ships and material needed. And of course the British would have surrendered their empire. But if britain had lost the BofB there is no need to pre-suppose an invasion. Or not an immediate one. A halifax Government for instance, would probably have sued for peace, got favourable terms - free hand for Germany in Europe but retention of the empire. There would have been a cessation of hostilities. British forces might even have joined the invasion of Russia. We might have had Edward VIII back as King with Queen Wallis at his side!! So no immediate occupation. That might have followed, perhaps by invitation, if a pro-fascist Government under (say) Moseley had replaced Halifax; or with edward VIII as king. It would match the Anschluss as a tactic. You then argue: Montgomery's victory at El Alamein was as a result of the U.S. supplying the British with a massive amount of supplies and Sherman tanks. Rommel had to fight with what he had as he could not call upon any reserves. Once again, Rommel held that so long as the U.S. had a toe hold in Africa, Germany was finished - and he told Hitler so. I have already partly dealt with the Rommel argument earlier in the post. But with UK out of the war, there would have been no Montgomery to supply. The Pacific war was a side show to America and the Allies. Perhaps to the UK, but not, I think, to the US. Britain was successful in arguing that Germany presented the pre-eminent immediate threat, but no one suggested the Far east was not important. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the U.S. would have negotiated a peace with Germany or anyone else. I simply disagree with you here. There would have been no need for a negotiated peace with Germany, if there had been no declaration of war. And what would have been the casus belli for that from the US perspective? I would also argue that with Europe at peace, and Hitler secure, the US would have started to trade again sooner or later. The U. S. would never leave its oil and other raw material supplies in the hands of an enemy. What oil and raw materials in the early 40s? Nor would The U.S. leave its markets in their hands. What markets? The Greater Reich might have offered even greater markets and rewards? Winning the war was simply a matter of time. But what war in 1940 after the loss of the Bof B? The U.S. was in the war prior to any 'declarations'. Supplies and Lend-Lease. Sunken freighters. I have discussed this above. The pro-German lobby would have been managed. Would they, with a victorious germany. The US had eugenics policies in many states. The isolationist lobby prevented FDR from joining the war earlier. I would suggest the pro-German lobby would have swelled in influence if britain was knocked out. The Axis powers lost the war the day they started it. They had no chance of winning against the most powerful economy in the world. But in 1940 Hitler was not engaged with the US and he HAD won. It was only the resilience of Churchill and the victory of the RAF that kept resistance afloat. And Churchill was nearly toppled in late May 1940. Peace feelers may have been extended again by appeasrers in 1941 around the time of the hess flight. I think in short, you wear rose-tinted spectacles and are not realistic in your assessment of real-politic. Isolationism has always been attractive to the US. Phil

To me this smacks of elitism. I come here for fun and discussion. I simply don't have time for all the academic flummery. If this becomes the norm, it will be a case of "goodnight" from me. Phil

GO - If Hitler had won the BoB then britain would have surrendered. There would have been no British Forces in North Africa. In 1940 the US had not joined the war - it did not land in North Africa until 1943 and even when it did the Mediterranean strategy was largely the brainchild of the british Chief of the Imperial General Staff - Sir Alan Brooke. Why would the US land in North Africa anyway if Alamein had not happened and the Germans/Italians were not distracted? Surely there is a VERY large chance that with the UK defeated, the US would have negotiated a peace with Hitler - pre-occupied as they were with the Pacific? The pro-German lobby in the USA was considerable and influential (Lindburgh, Joe Kennedy etc). As it was, FDR would have had difficulty declaring war on Germany in 1941 (Japan was no problem after Pearl Harbor) and only Hitler's stupidity in declaring war on the US gave him the opportunity. Had The Fuhrer restrained himself FDR would have faced great opposition to getting involved - and it was the brits who persuaded him to give pre-eminence initially to the European theatre. So I do question your analysis I'm afraid. Phil

So tflex - the french threw out the Germans in the 40s without outside help did they - just through the efforts of the Maquis/resistance? With Britain occupied there was no where for anyone to invade from, even if the US had not turned further into isolationism or been preoccupied with a Pacific war. Would the US have supplied a british independence movement/resistance? I doubt it, frankly. Indeed, the US might have got a pro-German government at some stage if the Reich had been successful. I don't agree your analysis at all. Ramses - your British history is flawed - England had already had a Danish king - Cnut (or Canute as he used to be called - the one who tried to hold back the waves!!). It didn't change our system, and his reign was only around a generation before the Conquest. Phil

Sorry guys - but don't insult me about my analysis of my own country's political system. I am an historian of the English monarchy and follow British politics closely. It is you who are both slighting and wrong!! We can discuss the subject elsewhere in detail, if you wish. But just speaking constitutionally, Britain IS a "monarchy" and that element of the state is a major factor in the evolution and maintenance of a stable democracy. But then, as we all know, names mean little. The US system is essentially an elected monarchy with the president a "king" by another name!! Phil

Why should A republican Rome have been more capable of surviving than an imperial/monarchical Rome? That idea along smacks of modern political correctness and would have been anachronistic for any period before the C16th at the earliest. Second, even if the empire had survived - and others (including the Spanish, British, Holy Roman, Hapsburg and Russian etc) have not - it would be no more the empire of the first few centuries AD than Britain is now the Britannia of Agricola, the England of Alfred or William of Normandy or even of Henry VIII. Countries change, evolve. This sort of idea is OK as the basis for a Harry Turtledove novel, but won't stand scrutiny as an historical "what if". Even a more recent example - what if the American War of Independence had never happened? In my humble opinion things would probably not be very different. Like India, the US would by now be a self-governing, probably independent country. It might like Australia or canada still have a monarch as titular head of state, but would more likely be a republic, and perhaps a member of the Commonwealth. But the economic realities, the balance of power - even dare I say, the "special relationship" between the US and UK - would, I suspect, be little different from today. On what basis do you claim the the Roman Empire survived would have prevented the rise and impetus of Islam; or held the Mongol hordes better than did the Europeans; held the east better than did the Byzantines; or blunted the Ottoman incursions better than Charles V? Your case requires special pleading, I think, to be in any way valid. Phil Phil

Countries change with time, and peoples' attitudes and perceptions change with them. Look at Britain. In the C19th with a much smaller population and less wealth, we ruled the waves and gained and ran a vast empire. If that challenge arose today, I doubt whether many British people would answer the call (I would, I think, but I don't find many who would agree with me. What we see as praiseworthy or practical, moral or improper etc, has changed markedly. It isn't just down to immigration, but to a different style of living, better communications, and the fact that we have been there, seen it, done it - and doing it again seems inappropriate, etc. maybe the world has just got more complicated!! Ancient Rome would probably have faced similar changes over time though (given the nature of the world then) to a lesser degree. Their attitudes may also have been coloured by other pressures - self-sufficiency in food-stuffs, supply of slaves in a non-industrial age, even by plague and reduction in population/ lower birth rates (lead pollution?). It's just something that happens, and it's called history. Phil

tflex - your response to my points on Israel simply demonstrates what is wrong with that intolerant and racist state. IIf any country should have learned from the recent history of its inhabitants and their relations, it is israel, ironically enough - they have learned nothing. On monarchies - a constitutional monarchy can be even more democractic and stable than a republic, as Britain demonstrates. Don't knock them in ignorance. On the US and Dark Ages - your response has an odour of smugness, if I may put it that way!! It will be another 800 years before the swearing in/inauguration of an American President has the antiquity of the coronation of a British monarch. Much can and will happen in that time and simply saying "don't bash the US, it's OK at the moment", misses the point. I was looking at a perspective of the next 200 years or so - and what happens now can and will influence that - isolationism, unthought-through policies at home or abroad, fundamentalism in religeon at home. Indeed, look at the history of Europe and learn. I think America has always lacked one thing that has denied it maturity and balance as a country, and that is a strong and competitive neighbour. Britain had France. France had Germany and Spain etc etc. That develops a need for sophisticated relationships. Mexico and Canada have never offered the USA competitiion in an equal sense - and I think that has led to a deep misunderstanding and lack of deftness in foreign policy over generations. So no my points were not "daft" and your initial statement still beggers belief. Take the blindfold off and take a look at the real world. Phil

I agree entirely with the first post - though I often get carried away!! I'll try to do better. Phil

Was he not Romulus Augustulus - the diminutive being so appropriate. You do mention this, but I have not come across your version before (not my period really, but I like to know these things!!). And was "Augustus" truely his REAL name and not a title? Phil

I always understood it was A rock (singular). In my mind;s eye, I assumed it was an out-thrust, overhanging ledge or outcrop that meant that anyone thrown of it would fall/drop a long way - to certain death - rather than roll or "bounce" down the hillside. But at almost any point in the "Dark Ages" (so-called) between (say) 410 and 1500 - the period when classical studies were not very much pursued - the rock might have eroded and fallen, or been quarried for building material. That said, I have often felt also that concentrated archaeological and topographical work, plus logic and reference to the classical sources should be able to identify the spot. Phil

It is a shame that a more modern, English language treatment has not replaced this old warhorse. I have got a lot out of Carcopino over the years, so I am not knocking him. But my own wanderings in Rome and Pompeii/Herculaneum makes me challenge some of his views, and i think historical and archaeological studies have moved on somewhat in almost 70 years. But worth reading by anyone who does not already have a copy. Phil

Ridicolous only applies to your daft statement comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, thats not just ridicolous, but plain dumb. Is it so dumb? The israeli activities in Gaza and the West Bank - incursions by gunships, the indiscriminate massacre of civilians, seizing the politicians of another country and detaining them; the invasion of a sovereign state (Lebanon) on two occasions without any attempt to gain international sanction beforehand - this is "Night and Fog" on an incredible scale. Sharon practically created the most recent statge of the intefada by his visit to the Temple Mount before becoming Prime Minister - an insensitive and inflammatory gesture reminiscent of Dr Goebells. Indeed, the temple Mount - a Holy Shrone of islam - does not even belong to Israel, and half Jerusalem has been annexed illegally (viz the Anschluss and the seizure of Czechoslovakia in the 30s - though the former was at least covered by a plebiscite as I recall, and the first stage of the latter agreed internationally at Munich). In one thing Israel today does better than the reich - it does not even have to run the concentration (sorry refugee) camps for Palestinians - it leaves that to its neighbours. Palestinians, by the wat, evicted from Israel half a century ago in many cases. Had such things happened to Israelis I am certain we would never have ceased to hear about it. And as for its politics and democracy - I find Jordan a more wholesome example of a country seeking to establish a democratic state. The impact in Israel of orthodox, conservative, right wing parties is appalling. Turning to the US, like israel the US (much to my consternation I might add) is rapidly using up its store of goodwill in the world. Arrogant, aggressive, immature in its foreign policies for the last decade and more (Clinton's were no better) it is also proving itself incompetent in Iraq and the rise of right wing/fundamentalist Christian parties and views is perceived as little better than the viewpoint adopted by Osama and Al Qaeda - just reversed. I forecast a new dark Age for America if it adopts educational policies that replace the sciences with biblical stories on any large scale. Democracy can be lost - through military coups, cultural stagnation; intolerance; persecution; invasion; population change/immigration etc. In English terms (if we conservatively say that modern English history started in AD 1066, the USA today is at about the AD 1300 mark - don't expect a smooth run over the next millenium and look at the symptoms of decay now. By the way - as for poor Americans reaching high office, I don't recall Colin Powell as being elected either as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or Secretary of State (and he didn't last long because out of tune with the regime). But i look at the current bunch of comics in power and I see big business, oil and self0interest writ large. Phil

Quite frankly tflex, I find your statement absolutely ridiculous!! It is true that the US system does guarantee "freedom" so long as that is defined as a lack of restraint on individuals. But most civilised European countries with a maturity as nation states (millenia in the main rather than 200 or so years) have found that freedom actually equates to seeking to find a measure of equality for all (to help and support the less able and priveleged/wealthy. As an outside observer, the US seems to be a heven of corruption, an oligarchy run by big business, in which no poor man (however talented) could ever run successfully for high office. As for Israel - ironically it seems to have become a fascist state (I suspect under the influence of former Sovier emigres) attacking its neighbours at will and persecuting the Palestinians in a way I find uncomfortably close to the pattern of the Third Reich. I have read US and British authors draw direct links between the two countries in that the US (at least the republican element) is impressed by and influenced heavily by Likud party policies. Sorry to be so blunt but I found the statement you made offensive and not very clever. You are, of course entitled to your view - but I will draw my own conclusions as to your rationality. Phil

Cleopatra!!

I read once about a "rule of thumb" of sales: getting the first 5% of the population to buy takes 90% of the effort and time once you have that 5%, the next 15% are easier and getting from 20% to 95% is all done by word of mouth (5% of the population are too old or young or will never buy your product). this has applied to TVs, videos etc. In that argument the "tipping point" would be at around the 20% mark. For Christianity, I see several stages. 1) Jesus preaches a new approach to Judaism in Palestine to a closed group (Jews) and never suggests that he intends to create his own religeon separate from Judaism 2) Paul "re-brands" Jesus teachings as "Christianity" with appeal to a gentile (Greek) audience and adapted to their needs 3) Christianity survives some persecuation (much less than usually stated) under Nero and more sefvere pogroms under later Emperors - but it does NOT die out 4) Christianity attracts converts as a mystery religeon which admits women (a major selling point over Mithraism) an appeal to slaves and masters, and as offering some comfort. 5) Constantine uses Christianity and its symbols as part of his bid for power c 300 6) Christianity is adopted as the central religeon of the Roman world 7) the pagan establishment adapt Christianity to paganis, - gods become saints; temples churches; the papacy adopts imperial titulature; a hierarchy is created. (Healing, intrinsic to 1 now has no real place by 6/7) The tipping point to me would thus be between 4/5 with survival through the 2nd-4th centuries being a sine qua non; and the Pauline gloss absolutely crucial. Just my thoughts, Phil (PS - I ahve been mechanistic in my language here, as appropriate to historical analysis. I personally believe that Christianity has survived for deeper, spritual reasons, but they are not for this thread. Phil

Brought forward from the Bible v Science thread: This statement was made by someone: No country is perfect, but the U.S. system is the closest to perfect, followed by Israel.... I asked whether the statement was meant to be serious. Gaius Octavius added: "Cardinal Lustiger of France was denied entry into Israel because he had converted from Judaism to Catholicism.... What are the chances of an Arab citizen of Israel - Christian or Moslem - becoming president or prime minister of Israel?" I transferred the question here to avoid contaminating the popular Bible/Science thread. Anyone else have any thoughts. In particular, does anyone wish to defend the opening statement? Or think it true? I have never seen it advanced elsewhere. Phil

Very quick, MPC!! Well done!! Yes - faction has two meanings - both useful in this context, I think. She clearly didn't like your hero/namesake. But neither did i think she served her own purposes by giving us a more rounded character. Had she been a little more subtle about Caesar she had ample scope to show (through MPC, Bibulus etc) why there was so much suspicion of GJC. By making the opposition to him clowns it did not, in my view, increase, but diminish, ones respect and admiration for Caesar as she saw him. She was better, in my view with Clodius and Milo - but only marginally so. One of the things we lost - again just MHO - was the richness of Roman political life (she did well but was too partisan) not least in showing why Caesar threatened the old conventions and balance. One thing I forgot to mention in my previous post was that I liked her Crassus on the whole - bull-like, more likeable than often depicted, and a good corrective to Olivier in Spartacus (always closer to Sulla in my view anyway). But I still have to see Pompeius portrayed in any medium in a way that I find totally convincing. He must have been VERY charismatic and golden in his youth and prime - not least in apeing Alexander - but also in the kudos he had gained. More an organiser, brilliant staff officer than a military genius (in a strategy & tactics sense) he must still have had huge self-confidence and reputation after the pirates and the East. Yet he was always an outsider. Always, I suspect, self-aware that he was hollow - in contrast to what I see as Caesar's very well-based self-confidence. hence why the campaign before Pharsalia was so lacklustre and the defeat so complete. Had he, I wonder, spent the years of the Gallic War following his partner's campaigns and realising just how brilliant Caesar was, and wondering what might happen if they ever clashed. All just my musings of course, and others will almost certainly disagree strongly with my conclusions, but it shows I suppose, that Ms M could never have pleased everyone. But to me that is the value of the sort of detailed historical novel she has written - she can try to re-create character (however suppositionally) in a way no historian writing factual books can ever really approach. Phil [in parentheses, I thought Kenneth Cranham, in ROME, got the breakdown and self-doubt at the end of his career, very well.]