phil25

I rate the series quite highly as an experiment almost in "faction" - attempting a fictitious account of history in an almost documentary level of detil. I'll admit that I learned a good deal from the author's notes too - she has put a great deal of effort into the research. The series is, it seems to me - very much a "labour of love" and therein lies its weakness. Ms McCullough was fascinated by Sulla (at least the young Sulla) and in love with Caesar. the books change fundamentally when the latter comes on to the scene. As others have said, and I endorse their views - for Ms M Caesar can do no wrong. Everything is explained away - the relationship with Nicomedes; massacres in Gaul; his involvement with Catalina... I began to yearn for some scandal to touch him. It would have made him a more rounded character. I found the depiction of Sulla's rise convincing and complex and the depiction of Marius fleshed out a previously somewhat cardboard character (to me). But Sulla, aged and after his return seems to me unconnected with the earlier person she had developed; similarly with the older, less attractive Sulla. I don't think she understood what changed these men into monsters, and having become attached to them in the earlier stages could hardly bear to see their darker side. So, I think, sentimentality has a part of place in the weaknesses of the books too. I think the greatest successes are in some of the secondary players - Servilia, Livius Drusus, and for me abobe all old Scaurus Princeps Senatus on whom I had never previously focused at all. He emerges as a rounded, realistic political force and develops convincingly as he ages (for me). But Cato, Bibulus and Cicero are cartoons, one-sided and unbelievable and we do not get a rounded picture of them at all. I was particularly disappointed with Catalina of whom I thought much more could have been made. I sometimes wonder whether the weight of her research did not become a burden for Ms M - she spent more time working out schemes as to why flags on the Janiculum were lowered or raised and when; and detail of the Alexandrine campaign became tedious in the last book. Did she run out of energy? Or was it - as I feel is the case with JK Rowling at present - that Ms M's "clout" in the publishing world puts her above being edited and the books suffer as a result - self-indulgence can be a terrible thing. But I'd give the series 7 out of 10 and I am very pleased they have been written. Phil

A body was found, a long time ago, beneath the floor of the "murder house" in Housesteads' vicus. The broken off point of a gladius was, as I recall, still embedded in the ribs of the skeleton. It was assumed the man had been killed and buried beneath the floorboards in ancient times. Like the American "Wild West", Roman Britain must have been a dangerous and lawless pleace But then, so was the Urbs itself, at night. Amusing to think that all the current rash of fictional Roman detectives - such as Marcus Didius Falco (whom I think is a wonderful creation) - would have had their hands full with cases. Phil

In my opinion, there simply comes a point when one has to make a judgement, Moonlapse. I think one of the great failings of the modern era is this fence sitting - this waiting to see. Indecisiveness if you like. It's an infectious, mesmeric "manana" syndrome that smacks to me of cynicism (in some cases) apathy and lethargy. Of course, one should not jump to conclusions, but we are gifted with common sense and should use it. Otherwise Doomsday will come while we are still rehearsing!! (And while my analogy may be religious I am not talking Christianity here.) A mentor of mine once said we need three "G"s in life: Grace; Greek and gumption. (Gumption is a synonym for commonsense or "nous" in the UK. You can, he said, attain Grace and learn Greek - but if you do not have gumption, heaven help you!! Well. I think in cases such as the bomb plot just revealed, we need to use our gumption, not sit on the fence avoiding the issues. But you must do as you please. Phil

Parthia And your point is? Wikipedia isn't worth didddly-squat as a reference, either, thank you. The map shown hardly makes Pakistan central to ancient Pathia either. Phil [Discussion of the bomb-plot removed on second thought!!] Phil

You should look at the wisdom of your own thinking, Moonlapse. Follow your own judgement, NOT that of others. Indeed, I am not sure that Government's are as Machiavellian in reality as the underminers would have us believe. Cynicism may have it's place, but this is not a time for it IMHO. Great post PP, I endorse every syllable. Phil

There was a very famous jewish archaeaologist who excavated the site who published a brilliant illustrated book about the site and its history. It really excited me in the 60s and I did some reconstruction paintings (long lost alas). I am sure it would still be relevant and contain good material. If I can find his name I'll let you know. Phil P.S. Are you aware of the film "The Antagonists" with Peter o'Toole? It was a very faithful attempt to depict the seige, originally as a US TV mini-series. I have a commercial video version bought years ago. It might still be available and provide stills or be just worth watching for interest. It's not bad.

I remember translating the passage as part of my first year of latin at grammar school. The story has stuck ever since. Only the Claudii Pulcheri could have been so confident and foolhardy, so brazen and so stupid (all at once) - clearly a family characteristic!!. Phil

As far as I am aware the suspects are of Pakistani origin - no connection with ancient or modern Parthia. Phil

I think the introduction of the feudal system into England was indeed a major event. I don't think the Anglo-saxon system was the same, or that they would have adopted the continental model voluntarily. On the other hand the feudal system remains very much at the heart of Scots property law, in a way it doesn't south of the border - odd that!! Points you make well taken though. Phil

But PP, your arguments re the B of B could equally be applied to Hastings with hardly a change. As you say they are - as are mine - largely subjective. Norman influence in England in the 1050s/60s was considerable. Part of the Godwinson programme was a sort of "England for the English". But i don't see that bucking the trend of things that much. Without the Norman conquest the strength of Anglo-saxon culture might have lasted longer, but my own view is that marriage alliances would have taken place and there would ultimately have been a Norman, and then perhaps an Angevin period. Later maybe. As for B of B, I don't think Churchill would have survived a defeat even withou an invasion for long. Without any way of carrying the war to the enemy - as Luftwaffe air supremacy over the Chennel and SE England would have made any troop/naval mocements difficult, I think strong political questions would have been asked about the wisdom/necessity of continuing the war indefinately. Especially if AH had offered generous terms as he seems disposed to have done. Considerable evidence, and some strong circumstantial stuff is emergingthat suggests an pro-easement" alliance involving the royal family (maybe even the Kng and Queen); Halifax - their close friend; Butler; many members of the aristocracy and MPs. The enigmatic Hess flight may have tied into a plot to turn out the Churchill administration (then perhaps turned by the Government to trap the conspirators). In those circumstances, I think modern Britain would have been VERY different. Maybe still an imperial power, but very fascist and right wing in its thinking (but with that odd "national socialist paradox in mind, ith a welfare state!!). Not a bad alternative some might venture!! The problem with alternative histories is that some events seem tied to certain people and circumstances (Henry VIII, divorce and reformation) but if one stands back a little, the "forces" below the surface shine out. At some stage in the 1500s England was going to have to find its identity and independence and henry's phrase "this England is an empire" - empire meaning independent in that useage, and English kings had been using an "imperial crown (ie with raised arches) since Henry IV's time - would have been employed by someone. The reformation in England might have been in 1560 or 1580 (maybe it was in reality!!) rather than 1530, but not much else would change IMHO. Same with hastings and perhaps - despite what i said above - to the BofB. Trying to keep a balanced view, Phil

Could one offer "none of the above"? It is entirely possible that there WAS no conspiracy. In any case, the surviving evidence makes it impossible to judge. Phil

I am a part of all that I have met. (Tennyson, I think). Given the part of the country I come from (Danelaw area) and my colouring when younger, I suspect I have Viking blood in me. But as far as I recall, the Romans were foreign and left. The English (Angles, Jutes etc) were foreign and stayed and thus became part of that happy genetic trifle now known as the English. Phil

...it may get people who read the story to investigate the actual history for themselves. or confuse them utterly. I worry, as an historian, about the lack of regard for accuracy in modern media attempts to show the past. Simplification is one thing, absolute invention another - unless it is labelled as fantasy, of course. Phil

Hastings is always seen as epochal - but Norman influence was creeping in under Edward the Confessor, and I suspect a French influence would eventually have emerged. Bosworth represented a rebellion within the Yorkist circle - and henry VII continued many of the policies of Edward IV. Early modern britain would still have come into being around 1485. If a battle from the Wars of the Roses period mattered, I'd put money on Towton rather than any other. The rest did not really change anything 1688 was more important than any battle in the English Civil War (1640ish to 1651ish) as the restoration reversed many of the constitutional changes. The flight of James II bloodless was the start of Parliamentary control of politics. The Armada might have been significant if it had put troops ashore, but as organised by Philip II, and with Parma having to liaise, it was never a REAL threat (though that was not recognised at the time). England gained much kudos from defeating Spain but nothing really changed. 1940 was NOT a real threat either. I am convinced, after much research and thought, that Hitler never seriously intended to invade Britain. he expected a negotiated peace, with Halifax or Moseley or some other appeaser in No 10. But had Goering defeated the RAF - which would have required Dowding to make mistakes - Churchill would probably have been thrown out and a more amenable politician brought in. Hence today, with no D-Day; no second front in the west, Hitlerism and a nazi Government would probably now head up an EU-style pan-European government, including Britain. The Holocaust would have been completed; Russia defeated; and freedom would be nowhere. Hence my vote went to 1940 Bof B. But as you know I hate these polls. AD 43 was the prelude to 400 years of foreign occupation. Edington (I assume you mean Alfred's defeat of guthrum would also have been a possible. But what about Mount Badon (whether Arthur or another as victor) as a choice - it held up the Saxon advance for a generation?

Skarr - how on earth (except in a Frenchman's imagination) does Boudicca fight the "young Caesar"? Caesar died March 44 BC, Boudicca flourished 9if that's the word) c61 AD - around a hundred years later. Or is this the "modern" approach to history (viz Iggulden) - anything goes so long as its exciting?? Phil

Unless spellings have changed, were not Boudicca's people the "Iceni"? Tribal maps should be easily avaialable in any history of Roman Britain - exactly what research have you done so far? phil

Well - an idea you might be able to work in: I have always wondered why Boudicca died so conveniently quickly after the battle. She is not reported as a casualty, or as captured and executed. Suicide is a possibility. But I have often wondered whether she was so injured by the Roman flogging she received when her daughters were raped, that she was an invalid, or semi-invalid throughout the campaign. Indeed, the Queen may have been simply the cause celebre of the rising - simply a figurehead carried in a litter before the tribesmen - rather than its actual leader. She thus died of weakness and general ill-health when deserted by all her attendants after the defeat - or may even have died earlier. That would explain the way she fades out of the story so undramatically. No one knew her fate. This weak, manipulated Queen might be a feature of a screenplay that put the emphasis on the tribal politics, and the machiavellian manoeuvreings of the chieftains, rather than the Queen. It might also come as a surprise to the public. But it would also give an excuse for a shocking (Mel Gibbsonian??) flogging scene. If you want added irony - make Boudicca (as the widow of Prasutagus, ally of Rome) pro-Roman throughout, but unable to do anything to stop herself and her daughters being used as propaganda tools. Just some off-beat thoughts. Phil

We have several portrayals of Gaius Julius Caesar by actors to compare: Claude Rains (Caesar and Cleopatra) Jeremy Sisto (TV mini-series) Ciaran Hinds (recently in Rome) Rex Harrison (Cleopatra) Kenneth Williams (heaven help us!! - Carry on Cleo) Warren William (1930s Cleopatra - with Claudette Colbert) Louis Calhern ("Brando" Julius Caesar) John Gielgud ("Heston" Julius Caesar) I may have missed some. I wondered which performances other members rated most highly - especially as invocations of the man himself. I like Harrison - he has wit, confidence, command and charm. But was impressed recently by Hinds. What do others think? Phil

I have the Jack Whyte novels, though I don't dind them easy. They are on the list for when I retire!! I am very much an adherent of the - they went earlier - school. If anything was withdrawn in c410, it was the headquarters cadres, probably expelled by the new native administration. I just don't think that the sequence of usurping pretenders from Allectus onwards would - between them - have left anything of a standing/ professional army to withdraw. Inherent military probablility usually scores with me. Phil

Likewise, I'll go with the majority. Phil

IMHO three things apply: A spectacular record of healing in the first 300 years - this diminished thereafter; It was a mystery religeon when such things were fashionable; It admitted women - which rival cults such as Mithraism did not. Phil

I would caution against this view of the "legions2 being withdrawn from Britannia being the "end" of Roman Britain. In my youth, history books were full of pictures of the last legionaries embarking, all in their lorica segmentatae, pila in hand. Soldiers saying farewell to loved ones. it wasn't like that at all. We know the legions were wholly differet in equipment and organisation from the days of Claudius and even Hadrian. Most of the regular formations had probably left under Magnus Maximus c 383. From the wall we know that troops now inter-married and were recruited locally, even though once immigrants. The old separation of army and populace hardly existed any more. I think later usurpers may have recruited in Britannia, some remaining formations may have been ordered to the continent, but I don't think it was a dramatic event - just a trickling away. After 407ish, I doubt the "imperial" administration had any authority to do anything. But even then there were enough troops in the province to elect at least two emperors, including a Constantine (III). The troops he took on his "adventure" overseas were, IMHO, logically recruits and conscriptees - I doubt there were any regular reserves left . When I talk of Arthur marking the end of Roman Britain, I would agree that things had eroded and decayed very much in that 100 years period, but I think that Arthur (whomever he was) kept alive an aspiration to return one day to Roman standards and values. With his death, that dream, and possibility, vanished forever. I'll look out the reference on Honorius. Phil

But one reading of the evidence around 410 DOES suggest that the British threw out the Roman administrators and formed their own government. See some of the recnt writing on the subject. I am one of those who doubts that Honorius' famous rescript actually refers to the diocese of Britain - but to some other part of the empire nearer Italy. It just doesn't fit the circumstances forme, andwould be a remarkably lucky and convenient survival if it does. Roman Britain did not fall as a culture until the death of Arthur c 500- 530. My humble opinion, of course. Phil

Is Shakespeare's study of Richard III outdated? Historically, of course it is. But the mind of a great writer and intellect applied to a person or period must surely have lasting value. Why do we still read the Illiad? Gibbon's is a great book - akin to Macauley's great History of Britain - thoroughly researched (at the time of writing); immensely well thought through, vast in scope and scale. Epic and tremendous. Do you know the story of the hanoverian royal duke who encountered Gibbon at work in the King's library. As he passed the duke said, "Scibble, scribble, scribble, Mr Gibbon!!" Some scribbling: some book! As Churchill might have observed. Phil

Augustus' house was marked in various ways, especially around the doors, the sources tell us that. But was his birthplace denoted in any way, as far as we know? Phil