phil25

As I have written here before, IMHO Cicero was a fart, a windbag, self-publicising, self-deceiving, and pusilanimous. He has few good points. If we had a more balanced selection of ancient sources, we'd see that that was how he was perceived then. Mildly!! Phil

No, it was made in colour. I watched it when originally shown in colour. And the dvd is NOt colourised, I can assure you. But where did you watch it - in the UK or US? maybe it was shown in B&W where you are? Phil

That would be a sort of classical "Queer as Folk" would it?

But we could also add, AD, that to base our judgement on the moral, political or social state of britain in 2006 on the tabloid press would not give a correct impression. I don't think the Roman equivalents, in the Subura or the curia, knew what Tiberius was doing in the Bay of Naples. So they made up the worst stories they could. He had never been a good communicator, always aloof and on his dignity. His absence and the terror that Sejanus inspired and inflicted coloured minds further. Thus after his death, Tiberius remained one of the few, if not the only princeps not to be deified. They hated him, the reviled him, they made up terrible stories. It does not mean they were true. Any more than Germanicus was the golden hero sans peur et sans reproche painted by Suetonius and Tacitus. Had he become princeps at any point, his flaws - so clear from any disapaasionate review of his career - would have been paraded for us, and more. Make no mistake of that. If it helps you to believe Tiberius was debauched, so be it. Just my opinion as always of course. And by the way, Carthage should be destroyed. Phil

I'm pretty easy and don't have anything planned for next Spring, though I think I might have preferred a "quick and dirty" meet for those who could make it sooner - as a starter. I'll try to make whatever is planned though, but as I have said, much depends on the communications for me. Phil

The BBC series, "I Claudius" was in colour. Korda's aborted fim was in B&W. It is on dvd and superb. I can see the logic that HBO and BBC might have had as they considered a third series of "Rome" and then thought, but that's "I CLAVDIVS " territory! On the other hand, if they remake it using the old script - why bother? If it's a new script will it be any good? Or even as good? If it matches the "Pride and Prejudice" of 10 years ago it might have merit - but it's a huge risk. A few years ago ITV remade "The Forsyte Saga" (subject of a BBC series from the 60s which garnered many awards and is much remembered). The new series was well-cast, it had location filming not studio sets, lavish budget - but it fell flat. They did a second series and no more. The 70s "I Claudius" was arch, camp, over the top, funny, shocking, perverse, idiosyncratic, taut, brilliantly acted, directed and designed, and wholly novel. TV has changed since then. What addedd value, other than modern TV technique can be brought to the subject? As far as names are concerned, those someone was grasping for a few posts back were: Brian Blessed as Augustus Sian Phillips as Livia Derek Jacobi was, of course, Claudius himself. George Baker was Tiberius. Patrick Stewart (Jean Luc Picard of Startrek to a younger generation) was Sejanus. It wears well on dvd. If you want a different take on the same period, try "The Caesars" (B&W ITV drama series in six parts from the 70s) with Andre Morell as Tiberius, Freddie Jones as Claudius, Barrie Ingham was Sejanus. To me, that series is at times like watching a documentary of real events, it has that "feel" and immediacy, and is superbly acted. It focuses more on the politics - not least of Tiberius - and less on the scandal and Livia as villainess. She comes across as a proud, annoying but non-homicidal lady. I am undecided, but it might even have the edge on "I Claudius". Phil

But my point was not that ancient sources don't mention spintriae and lots of other things (Suetonius appears to have loved scandal and knew it would "sell" - it has). But visit Villa Iovis and see whether it looks like a place to hold "orgies". look at the WHOLE life of Tiberius and see whether the "old goat" epithet fits. That was my point. I don't actually believe any longer that Suetonius is "evidence" for anything. He is a source and cannot be disregarded, but his picture of almost everyone is unbalanced (focusing on the perverse and scandalous) and is coloured by the Roman approach to biography which worked backwards from the final character of a man. I don't doubt that there were rumours about what went on on Capreae when Tiberius was away from Rome for so long, but rumour is not truth and may not even represent "fact " though it may be a fact that there was rumour. I don't find Tiberius a warm or even sympathetic figure, but I do admire him. If you ever get a chance to see the old 60s UK TV series "The Caesars" (recently releaed on dvd) Andre morell gives what is to me a definitive portrait of Tiberius - cold, loyal, driven, tormented, philosophical, sad, lonely and depressive with an undertone of anger and frustration - but of perversion not a hint. Suetonius is colourful, but I think his attractions wane as one reads deeper into the period. Just my personal view, of course. Phil

As I understand it, Mithraism was a mystery religion that was based on initiation. Like modern freemasonry, a member had to pass through certain symbolic rites before entering each successive grade or level of the faith. I assume that in any temple there was only one individual who held the rank of Pater (Father) in that temple at one time. or at least, if there were more than one, only one presided. I assume that the other grades had specific rolesin rituals and ceremonials and possessd certain secret knowledge known only to them and those above. I don't think you could just turn up for a Mithraic service in the temple either. You had to be a mmeber of a candidate for initiation to take part. It was, of course, a male only community. In a legionannary fortress or a place like Houseteads on The Wall (where we know there were Mithraic temples) it would be interesting to know whether rank in the religeon went with military rank - ie the Prefect was Pater, and if not, how that read across into daily contacts. Maybe we'll never know. Phil

Suetonius alsohas a story about Octavian being born at Thurii, and Marcus Antonius seems to have used the name "the Thurian" to try beliitle his rival (suggestions of a rural low class origin). the epithet seems to have worried Octavian somewhat. An alternative explanation is that the name came from a cognomen of Octavius' father. Though more scurrilous writers suggested "Thurinus" was the name of Octavian's real - freedman - father (a ropemaker). Probably all a red herring, but there is a full discussion in Richard Holland's recent biography. My own guess - it can be no more. Octavian claimed the Palatine as his birthplace later to aid his standing and to associate himself with aristocracy. It was the place in Rome he would make his home and centre with the Apollo complex. His real birthplace - probably Velitrae. But that was not good enough to make him a Roman of the Romans. But the pretence is the reason for Augustus' always avoiding discussion of the subject later in life. Phil

A Tolkien group I was associated with through Theonering.com (or TORC for short) started off by some of us just saying we'd meet in a pub Tolkien used in Oxford about 4 years ago. Since then we have met regularly, with some "moots" attracting up to 50 people including from Europe and the US. We have met in various places - Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Birmingham, London, as well as regularly each summer in Oxford. I suggest a first meet for UNRV types in the UK might work in a similar way - chose a centralish, well connected city like Chester or York, name a day (that seems reasonably convenient to at least some of us) and let's eee who turns up. If all else fails, London has plenty of Museums and Roman sites (BM and london M to name but two); Bath is sumptuous .... we will never find a location or date to please us all. So why not just let's get thing going (not too ambitiously first time) and take things from there? Just some thoughts, I'm pretty easy going Phil

Lincoln - Roman Lindum Colonia. I was lucky - I had an amazing Cathedral - the most dramatic in the UK for position - a Norman castle and the only Roman arch still to straddle a main road in the country, all within 100 yards or so of my front door. Phil

Where is there a scintilla of evidence for Tiberius' perversions? Are we to assume that the philosophers who shared his retirement on Capreae also shared his sexual tastes? Or is it more likely that men like Nerva indilged in scharly or philosophical discussions. Indeed, where at the Villa Iovis precisely would you suggest the spintriae disported themselves? Hev you seen the place? i have, and it struck me as a retreat, NOT as a bordello!! Where else in Tiberius life of service and duty do we see any suggestion of such tastes? In his loyalty and love for Vipsania from whom he was forced to divorce himself, but with whom he remained in love? It seems to me more likely that his self-exile in Rhodes was to escape a wife whom he disliked (Julia the elder) rather than to enjoy himself sexually - and indeed there is no suggestion that he passed his time in that way during those years. As for Livia, she comes across as a model of Roman matronhood - spinning cloth for her husband's clothing; maintaining a household of old-fashioned rectitude. She was respected, honoured, and long-lived. Who were her victims? In an age when plague was rife and diseases often fatal, Are we to assume Agrippa died at her hand? Or is it more likely that he died at a good age for a Roman (though younger than Augustus at his miraculaously delayed death). Why are not the explanations of the deaths of Gaius and Lucius perfectly acceptable in an age when many died young, and wounds could so easily cause blood-poisoning? Why on earth should she have killed Marcellus (I am going through the men Graves names as her victims). Why accept that her son Drusus died of wounds but not one of Augustus' adopted sons - there is no logic here. Natural causes and a modicum of ill-luck readily explain the accession of Tiberius. He did not need his mother's help. Claudian women may have been formidable - I am sure Livia was redoubtable and ambitious. But a murderess? No - I see no evidence and no need. Let's rely on history and common sense, not on scadal, novelists and romantic fictions please. Phil

Their practicality and their success - unlike the Greeks who had great ideas but no unity and (to me at least) an "effete" quality. I think some of the stories and characters are great too - both the myths - Horatius at the bridge and all that; and the historical - Caesar; some of the Emperors. I grew up and lived until I was 18, in a Roman colonia, with a gateway still astride the street in which I lived, and the pillars and pavement of the main north/south street 8 feet below my home in a cellar. Inevitably, I asked questions. I liked the pictures I saw in anything from Classics Illustrated's version of the Gallic Wars; to reconstructions of Hadrian's wall by Alan Sorrell. Ladybird books also did a volume on Agricola. Like others movies - Ben Hur, Spartacus, Cleopatra all came out around the time I was 10 and fired my imagination. Most of all I was amazed by Fall of the Roman Empire and the forum set. I has two classics masters at school who, notwithstanding my poor ability at Latin, noted my interest and knowledge of ancient history even at age 11. One, an anglican vicar, encouraged me to join the local archaeological society where I was fortunate enough to hear Sir Ian Richmond lecture on his excavations at Inchtuthil, the legionary fortress in Scotland. At 14 or so, I helped with excavations of a tower base and the east gate of the colonia. Around the same time i paid my first visit to Hadrian's Wall and fell deeply in love with Houseteads, Chesters and Corbridge (Vindolanda - then referred to as Chesterholm - had yet to be exploited. Rome is not my only interest in history - I range wider - but it remains a first love and I still collect books on the late republic and early history; have a collection of photos of portrait busts of emperors I have taken on my travels; and have long toyed with writing historical novels set in early imperial times. So, like Achilles in the Styx, I suppose I was immersed in things Roman from an early stage in my life and the interest has stuck. Phil

Gini - have you been reading Robert Graves again!! Livia monstrous!!? Hardly a view to be taken seriously. The view of Gaius (Caligula) as "mad bad and dangerous to know" comes down from classical authors including Suetonius. Phil

I thought the complex comprising the still relatively intact Casa di Livia and the more ruinious Casa di Augusto were the houses he lived in as princeps. I note that this is his bithplace - although how they can be sure, I don't know. Interesting though. I always find the House of Livia very atmospheric. Phil

Idahojeri wrote: The idea of Christianity struck the Roman world like a bomb. Within some 30 years after Christ's death "vast multitudes" of them were being tortured by Nero's minions. Where is the evidence for the first statement? As I and others have argued in other threads, the so-called Neronian persecutions appear a myth. If nothing else, where did all these "Christians" spring from BEFORE the diaspora of the 70s AD? Phil

I'd love to meet up. but I don't run a car, so a place with good communications like York is much better for me than a remoter one like the Twice Brewed - though I have known that place since I was 14 and love the area. Phil

Kosmo asked: If it's ok to criticize the crusades it's not ok to call the aztec religion a disgusting bloodbath. The aztec religion it's seen just from an anthropological and historical view while christianity it's the subject of violent moral criticism from Voltaire to today, even events in her long past. I think the difference is that, like the ancient Egyptian religeon (Amun, Aten, osiris etc); and Greek paganism; the mezo-American religeons have been consigned to history. They are not now main-straem faiths with many followers. Christianity is, and the Crusades continue to have relevance and connotations when modern politicians invoke that word in their rhetoric, as was done a few yers ago. That is why the standards are different. In Islamic terms, I think the term "jihad" (much misunderstood though it may be) when used can cause concern. Religeons cannot separate themselves from their past and their history however hard they try (and Christianity has made huge efforts to try not to be Judaic) but resonances and echoes of that past continue to be heard today. Phil

To me the fall of Tyre shows many of Alexander's skills as a general - improvisation, drive, determination, an ability to see possibilities where others saw obstacles, a willingness to sacrifice men and time to gain a victory that he saw as strategically important. But above all it shows Alexander's self-belief at this stage of his career - an almost innocent (even god-like?!) sense that he could do ANYTHING - that he was picked out by fate, chosen by the gods, and that he could not fail. Against that backdrop, how another might have acted was of absolutely no concern. Alexander was unique and I suspect we are incapable of understanding him today. To meet him would probably repel us - his (as we would see them today) arrogance and apartness would give us little to sympathise with or warm to. Implacable and aloof are the words that spring to mind, unconcern with the sorts of things that might bother oridinary people, his main characteristic. Phil

Basically, the session was chaired by the Consul holding the fasces for that month. From the time of Augustus onwards a sacrifice was made to the statue of Victoria that stood in the chamber - I assume that there would have been a similar ceremony in the earlier period. Senior ex-magistrates were called on to speak first in order of seniority (backbenchers last and possibly not at all, certainly issues were likely to have been settled/a concensus reached by the time they spoke). Votes were taken literally by division, with those supporting the motion moving to stand to the Consul's right, those opposed to his left. Forget films like Spartacus and even the recent HBO series "Rome". Senators did not sit in a curved auditorium like the US House of Representatives, or the French Assembly. On the basis of the last reconstruction of the Curia Julia, which almost certainly reproduced the arrangements of its predecessors, the presiding magistrates sat on a raised platform at the end opposite the main double-doors. they would have used their folding "curule" chairs, Senators sat on stepped banks to either side, probably on stools. Is that the sort of thing you want? Phil I should have added, Senators usually spoke to the motion but could raise any issue they chose. Hence Cato ended every speech before the last Punic War with the words "Carthago delenda est" (Carthage must be destroyed) as this was his prime concern whatever the business before the Senate. Phil

Skipping back - when on duty in Rome itself. members of the Praetorian Guard would have worn civil dress - probably the toga - in line with the tradition that arms were not worn within the pomerium of the City. Forget Hollywood films. Phil

You do a good job MPC. May I take the opportunity to say that though I don't always agree with you, your posts and your depth of learning are an adornment to this board. Sincerely, Phil

It's such a shame that your good arguments are so undermined by your love of Caesar, MPC!! If only you wouldn't argue so hard in favour of him!! You talk him up every time.... Seriously, good post. Phil

Kosmo, can you actually provide references for your statements. I'd be very interested to know on what you base what you say. Thanks Phil