phil25

Wasn't "Cephas" just Peter's name in another language (aramaic?)? My own view is that Acts is somewhat unreliable on the precise "politics" of the early Church - or should one say the details of the schism with Judaism, which is probably more what it was. Paul's known letters are often at odds with or imply different interpretations of events, and, as I understand it, current scholarly thought suggests that "Luke" (the author of Acts) may not have had access to much Pauline material. For myself, I think that there were probably several strands within the early Christian movement. I am attracted to the "Holy Blood Holy Grail" view that James and Jesus' fasmily may have been drawn principally to his Messiahship and possible blood claim to the Jewish throne as a descendent of David. Peter and the original apostles, on the other hand, may have promoted Jesus' own message (which they had received at first hand) and teaching, initially mainly to the Jews or Jewish leaning gentiles. Paul, saw wider possibilities and began to broaden and make more metaphysical (more akin to the mystery religeons?) the teachings of Jesus. He had not known Jesus at first hand - however one interprets the Dmascus experience - and shows no indication of awareness of much of the detail of Jesus' own teachings and mission. We may now be unable to recover some of the detail of their discussions. I could, for instance, understand positions that had agreement on the need to widen the appeal of the gospel on one hand, being countered by a requirement to uphold certain standards on the other. A modern argument might contrast an agreement that extreme and difficult requirements for membership (circumcision for instance) be done away with, while a proposal that "easier" requirements (dietary undertakings etc) be upheld. That might be commonsense. But with surviving records being so scanty, how could we ever tell? Phil

I have sometimes looked when in Rome, but the Capitoline Hill has so changed and been redeveloped so much over time that I suspect the location is lost. This used to be one of those popular historical games - like plotting the plan of Pliny's villa from the description he gives - that C19th academics and classicists used to play. If you look into library cataolgues - especially older ones - you might find some leads. But for all the theorising, I don't think a concensus was ever reached. In any case, how could the location or identity of the Tarpeian Rock ever be established beyond doubt vy archaeological means? It would probably need an inscription to be found saying "This is the Tarpeian Rock"!! As the Capitoline Hill is pretty craggy it could be anywhere. But yes, I have stood on the flagstones of the Forum and tried to identify where it might have been. Phil

Presumably all the restrictions related to taboos of some form - their origin lost in time (perhaps even before the Kings?). As I understand it, and I know I simplify greatly, Roman religeon was first about "contracts" with the heavenly/supernatural powers (I deliberately avoid using the slightly misleading term "gods"); and secondly the "powers" were originally numinous - they lacked the sort of human form the greeks gave to their Olympians. Maybe on that basis a contract had been established - such as an early Flamen saying, "If I don't touch iron you will do X, oh Jupiter best and greatest". Whatever it was, X worked out, and after that iron was taboo for the Flamen. The other possibility - and I don't see the two as mutually exclusive - is that Romans were superstitious, rather like some modern sportsmen who always wear their "lucky" socks or whatever on a match day, or have a ritual before leaving the locker room. It was what they did on the day of great success and they attach their "luck" to that ritual. If it is broken their luck will go from them. Others may have other ideas, but my own view is that traditions or religious taboos of this sort are rarely created or devised intellectually. They arise from events and become hallowed over generations. Phil

Probably a very sound judgement. I also think Sulla may have seen something of his own character - charisma, drive, intelligence, insight, brilliance, glamour, in the young patrician. Both of course were also members of that "class". Men of outstanding ability are rare in any society. I think Caesar would have already shown signs of his talent, notwithstanding his youth. And Sulla may have thought him too young to be a direct threat; too "interesting" to kill. But that is not to say that practical intercession, and special pleading by others might not have been crucisl to persuading Sulla to listen to his inner impulse. Phil

Given Caesar's known character and the restrictions the office placed on him, that must have been some punishment!! lLke saying to a prisoner, "I'm going to punish you by letting you go free". Phil

As I recall, he was appointed by Marius at a young age - the post required a patrician. The Flamen - who wore special clothing and a spiked coif - was circumscribed by a host of taboos. he could not look on a dead body, wear any clothing involving knots. I cannot recall whether he could ride or not. At any rate continuance in the post would have rendered Caesar incapable of becoming the man he did (following the career path he chose) - especially as a soldier. The mystery is how, under sulla, he escaped from the "bondage" of this preisthood. But having held it may have helped him later when he came to stand as Pontifex Maximus - head of the Roman priesthood. Any biography of caesar, not least the latest from Goldsworthy should give more details. The above was all from memory. Fellow posters with more time and knowledge may be able to confirm or provide more detail. Phil

Well, I've never really warmed to Dr Johnson (though I live not far from Lichfield). I suppose I might even count as an "enthusiast" myself in some regards!! I just hope that the programme was successful enough to warrant more of a similar kind, even if with different presenters. Phil

But Snow does have "energy" - and I thought overall the presentation was better than some of the US equivalents I have seen. Phil

I know Pompeii and Herculaneum quite well, but not from recent years. the programme has made me determined to revisit the sites next year. Highlights for me were: * to see that a statue of M Nonius Balbus has been re-erected on the plaza before suburban baths at Herc (with the older head) * to see a wooden bed with marquetry inlay (I have seen other preserved beds and furniture in herc but this was superb * to get a close view of the painted "amazon" head * Andrew Wallace-Hadrill's presence (I am a great fan of his work) * to see the subterranean tunnels through the basilica in some detail * to visit the "sewers" of Herc - something of a conundrum All in all a populist but quite revealing couple of hours. I cannot see that many casual viewers would have been gripped by some of the detail which would be of interest only to fans. A programme for the "Time Team" regulars, I suppose. It gets a thumbs up from me. Phil

Certainly much published UFO material is unreliable and, I think, misleading. It lacks (to re-use the word used above) rigour, and any sort of academic standard in documentation or evidence. Some years ago i decided to look into two famous cases for myself: Roswell (US) and Rendlesham Forest (UK). Admittedly I only used secondary sources - but I adopted a simple rule. I would only accept any "fact" attested to by at least two separate named "sources". After several months, I had NOTHING to show for my pains!! Add to that that almost all claims by individuals, when pursued and investigated thoroughly, are almost always blown. In the case of Roswell, Jesse Martel (who made himself quite widely famous and was depicted in a movie) has been shown to have lied - not too strong a term - about his own life and work. How then can anything he says about the UFO incident be taken seriously? What he says may be true - but his personal unreliability (specifically a tendency to overstate his role and exaggerate) totally undermines his testimony. Again the mortician in the Roswell case had both his claims and own record explored. A nurse he gave details of could not be traced in any record, and there is much to sustain a belief that he was conflating two incidents which occurred some years apart. UFOs may be real, but NOTHING I have seen from those who claim to believe in them has been remotely convincing. UFOlogists destroy their own case. Phil

Pertinax - I too had thought of mentioning the battles from "Excalibur", but decided not too because they were "fantasy". But the scene with the attack on the castle with men fighting in the moat is a favorite of mine. History WASN'T like that, but it should have been!! Shows I was brought up on Victorian illustrators I suppose! Phil

I would propose some rather different choices: Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" in it's entireity. Borodino from the same director's "War & Peace" The Charge of the Light Brigade in both the Michael Curtiz and Richardson versions (VERY different but both effective) The battle of the three armies in "Fall of the Roman Empire" (Romans, Persian cataphracts etc) "300 Spartans" - whole film Olivier's Agincourt from "Henry V" (music and action combine) The opening battle in "Paths of Glory" (Kubrick) Battle of Britain (entire film) There's a very good C18th battle in "Revolution" Several Kurosawa offerings from Ran, Kagemusha, etc and my personal current favorite "Gettysburg" (three separate superb battles) but what about "Braveheart" 9even though I personally dislike the film the battles are well filmed. Just to widen the discussion... and morally can a flame-thrower ever be cool? Phil

My own view is that the truth is somewhere between Skarr and FV - Rome was less licentious than Hollywood suggests, but room for Snow White to drift - as Mae West might have put it. I think both the two threads above put things very well. My objection in this thread has always been to suggestions that Roman noblewomen went in for the sort of mass orgies that Suetonius and others suggest for the Julia's, Messalina etc. I don't think Julia was pure, but equally, I don't think her sin was profligacy - that may just have been a cover-story. Phil

Is this not the site sometimes proposed as the Iceni tribal capital and "civitas" and thus perhaps the capital of Prasutagus and Boudicca? Phil

I'm no expert on Caesar, but I think Colleen McCullough (who does sound research) argues that he was given a dispensation to stand for office two years earlier because of the military award he won at Mytilene. Is that her imaginative alternative explanation to the mystery, or is it based on fact? Phil

Surely power is the only and ultimate legitimacy? Politics will not permit vacuum and powerful states or individuals will always move in to fill it. hence empires grow. We change the terminology, and the mechanism of imperialism today is economic rather than military - but it still exists. If you look at the C18th-C19th, the empires that grew up then did not exist in some utopia where it was a choice as to whether (say) India was dominated by Britain, or independent. If Britain had not acted, the France or Spain would have done. As Mughal power evaporated it was never an option that others would not intervene. The Mediterranean in the era of the rise of Rome was similar. Rome had to fight for her own independence and in a way gained the empire by accident in the process. (I don't argue that too seriously, but it's not untrue). Terminology masks reality, but only power speaks. Phil

Thank you FVC, you took the words out of my mouth!! There is no evidence Gaius ever carried through his "threat" - if it was ever made. But my reference to "mules" was a bad pun on the concept of Marius' "mules" - ie his heavily burdened legionaries, extended to cover his supporters. But if one thinks of the characteristics of a mule as stubborness and stupidity (I know I probably libel mules everywhere) then men like Bibulus might qualify for the term. Phil

...after that, a horse could be made senator. But NEVER was!! Several "mules" held office under the moribund republic though. Phil

Readily. But prima facie the Drusus looks too old and the Nero looks to me like a young Tiberius. But then I'm no expert - but I'd be interested to read the reasons for the attribution. Phil

The theory might apply LATE in the empire, but I don't see the seeda of the decline of Rome as being rooted in that. Decline lay in the very acquisition of an empire; the lack of permanent systems and methods of government to deal with such an empire in a consistent way; the "running out of energy" which meant the empire went from expansion to defence (a different position morally too) about the time of the Julio-Claudians; the rise of new and aggressive enemies prepared for Rome etc. I see imperial collapse as a relative term. Like we are dying from the moment of birth - if you want to see things in that negative way. No, I don't really see ethnic changes as a cause - they don't explain bad decision-making; ineffective pre-occupied emperors or changes in aim. Phil

I thought we had this discussion in another thread recently. The conclusion, as I recall, was very very probabaly NOT. Phil

Just a thought - was uniformity a major consideration for the Romns? We are used, through films and re-enactments etc, and also from our own conventions, to assume that troops in single units all dressed pretty identically - with perhaps distinctions for rank and role (ie musicians). But Napoleonic troops, paintings notwithstanding, were seldom dressed other than in a piecemeal uniform way - especially in the field. Is it possible that the Romans looked for something else and that a lack of exact similarity of headgear, or armour or shield shape - or, dare I say it, tunic colour - would not have worried them as it might us? I'm just aware that we can, sometimes, throw back our own assumptions on the past and mislead ourselves. Phil

My first question would be, how does one distinguish between a bust of the youthful Gaius, and those of his brothers, Nero and Drusus, who must have had statues erected to them before thir fall? Phil

Which would suggest that the second series will NOT end with Actium. On the other hand could the quote have meant Purefoy has signed up for other HBO work - I see he is in a new series on BBC about Beau Brummell?

Do I not also recall the Equites Singulares? Phil