phil25

But they were, clearly, exceptions and seen as such in their own day - hence they surely "prove the rule": in large measure, sustained consistent principle or philosophy was absent from Roman politics. I think Roman politicians could come together, or seek to sustain a "programme" - land reform, resettling veterans etc; and I think they perceived these as inheritable in some degree (ie - my father, grandfather etc had this programme, so now its my job to take it forward). One of the things that Goldsworthy's new biography of Caesar doesn't answer for me is when (if ever) he began to see himself as someone who had to change things. His initial goal was, I think, no more than that shared by his peers - to gain relevant magistracies in "his year". He sought attention, did things that won him notoreity. But I have a feeling about Caesar that he did have a "principle" that he pursued - ironically you might disagree strongly with me on that Cato(!) - and a feeling he could change things even before the civil war. But the sources, to me, equally allow us to argue he was always self-serving, a man of the moment. Not that that would have been considered a failing, or immoral in his time. Phil

I'm not sure I agree Cato. the two men you cite, Drusus and M Porcius Cato were, in my view at least, mavericks an failures. One was murdered, the other killed himself in ignominy. I don't disagree that very general principles (as a career civil servent I would probably call them policies today) were held and adhrered to over comparatively long periods. I have argued in other threads that such policies should be looked for later (ie an Antonian eastern/absolutist approach to government) surviving as late as Nero. But i think this was subordinate to the MEANS of implementing the policy. In Roman politics you got nowhere unless you could sway elections, inflience the outcome of debates etc. You needed factions, clients and auctortas - later legions too - and you got that by using the system, by bribery, marriage aliance, amicitia etc. One of the problems that brought the republic down was that as a systemn of government, it worked when it wasa town council, it simply could not deliver consistent, effective, directed government over sustained period when required to govern a large empire. Phil

It seems to me that, as in later historical eras, wealthy women had considerable influence and scope within the confines of a system that deprived them of actual sufferage or position. Servilia, Sempronia the mother of the Gracchi, Clodia, and Fulvia (wife of Antonius) all seem to have exercised influence and directed affairs to some degree, while being respected in most cases 9well perhaps not the latter two!!). But joking apart, Fulvia could help raise armies and be a cause of a civil war, so someone must have listened to her. It is the METHODs by which they exercised their influence that interest me - viz Servilia's conference after Caesar's assassination, which brought together most of the key players in the "Liberators'" camp. Phil

White or buff shows dirt easily and bloosdstains show up clearly - which can have an impact on morale. Napoleon and the British navy both discovered this. One reason for the use of a reddish dye - giving probably a rusty colour, might have been to minimise the visual impact of minor wounds on comrades in battle. Just a thought, Phil

From a purely political perspective - is it not possible (even likely0 that the situation was confused, even at the time. Political parties did not exist as we know them, and the factions within the Senate would have simply vied for power and position. We know Antonius got Caesar's appointments confirmed 9in order for everything not to unravel, as the conspirators had not foreseen the consequences. We know he then used the late Dictator's alleged intentions to get his way. But Antonius was also seeking to build up his position - it was touch and go with the fickle, unstable Dolabella for a while (as I read it). Just because some appointments were made, does not mean that others wanted them taken up. It could well have been a bargaining position - the actual situation to be resolved at a later date. I always try to get through the sources to what the historic reality was. Ancient historians often inferred motive retrospectively - Antonius achieved X so he must always have been planning to achieve X. To me, that's not how things work. Coalitions,, support groups and factions do not just appear, they have to be worked at and maintained. Antonius had various goals - to achieve leadrership of the Caesarian faction; to stabilise the city - he wasn't necessarily seeking revenge ion the Liberators, may even have been in on the plot (some have inferred). Octavian's arrival changed things of course, and Fulvia, Antonius' wife also appears to have been a player. Again, the aspirations and aims of the various players - brutus and cassius, Antonius, Hirtius and Pansa etc, need not have been consistent with each other, or over time. Historians tend to seek and impose order - like modern politics, the ancient reality was more like musical chairs - no one quite knew where they might be when the music stopped. Objectives may have been quite different to those finally achieved. I'm not sure I have answered your question, but I hope that I might have provided a context for an answer. Phil

Great story!!! Cats are wonderful animals. Phil

Let's face facts, and you seem a little confused about them, Ramses. Greece complains of artifacts that had been taken away by England. Lord Elgin (as an individual) SAVED the Parthenon marbles for posterity. he had authority to do so from the then legitimate and recognised government of Greece. neither the Turks, nor the Greeks at that time showed any interest in the remains on the Acropolis and they were used as an arsenal and blown up at one point. Neither the Greeks nor the Egyptians, for most of their history since ancient times, have shown the SLIGHTEST interest in their past or in preserving what survivies. It's only now with resurgent nationalism and the lure of the tourist dollar that they begin to stir. Why should britain, France or any other western power, who rescued important pieces so that they can be appreciated today feel any guilt, or even consider returning the pieces? If it had been left up to the indigenous peoples, these important artefacts would have been destroyed or sold abroad anyway. Too late to mourn now. I remember going into King Tut's tumb and finding his treasure's hold but not him. That is a terrible thing to see, no matter what nation you are from. Then your memory must be a little at fault, Ramses, as Tutankhamen's treasures are in the museum in Cairo, while his body (as I actually wrote only a few days ago!) is the only Pharaonic corpse to rest in his original tomb. So I don't see how your recollection can be correct. Phil

Barrack blocks at Housesteads, on the Wall, show that the neat linear arrangements had been replaced by more haphazard, chalet-type, structures by the late period. While still in rows, the remains give the impression of something much more temporary and jerry-built, than the previous buildings. I wonder whether the Shore Forts had similar arrangements. I realise that later use (medieval etc) may have impacted on the sites, but has no one ever excavated and explored the interior of one of these important sites? Phil

I have no particular problems with bureaucracy, Tobias. I am not advocating treasure-seeking or unauthorised digging. What galls me, is the approach that says "we WON'T excavate this site because it might be possible for future generations to get more out of it as science advances. If we do, we'll damage it and might not retrieve information that currently unknown techniques and science might do in the future.!!" I am also gob-smacked by the fact that archaeology has now become almost entirely a science. I recently heard a leading modern archaeologist say that he wasn't an historiab, and if he wanted one he would "buy one in". Excavations, on that evidence, are now just "reverse" construction projects, projact managed and utterly unromantic, with no feel on the part of those involved for their work. Phil

I don't claim to have read widely among biographies of Caesar, but Goldsworthy is approachable and readable, and places Caesar firmly in his context. I don't think he is particularly partisan - he sees Caesar's faults as well as his virtues and greatness. I doubt that it is either definitive or "different" enough (ie I have found no surprises) to be of more than passing note (ie it will be on the shelves for a few years and no doubt a success as Goldsworthy is saleable) to make it of major significance. Maybe I am being too harsh. Let me add at once, therefore, that I liked and enjoyed the book and thoroughly recommend it to others. My comments above are solely a response to Ursus' last paragraph in his immediately previous post. Phil

I seem to recall that a statue that originated in India was found in Pompeii some years ago. Phil

Is he really overshadowed? I can think of few archaeologists in history who can compare at the level of discovery - Carter, Petrie, and a few French Egyptologists; Evans for Knossos and the Minoan civilisations (but he could turn out to be a bigger fraud than Schliemann himself!!); Mortimer Wheeler for the Indus work; Wooley for Mesoptamia; Blagen and Schliemann's own successors at Troy; various C19th explorers and showmen. I think today's breed of scientists are far too cautious in their approach; and unimaginative in "selling" what they learn. Much of the magic that Schliemann introduced has gone. there is little romance and no broad sweep. I probably over-state the case, but why not for the sake of discussion. I think Schiemenn and his contemporaries and successors were pioneers - people who progressed and took things forward; took risks and advanced into the unknown. By comparison, today's archaeologists are settlers; not moving far out of their territory; stove-piped in their disciplies, and by fear of the academic peer-group; taking tiny steps that lack courage; overly cautious and far too preoccupied about not doing anything that might ruin things for the future. if Schliemann, carter and some of the others i have mentioned had taken that approach; we today would know far far less than we do; and probably there would be little interest in archaeology. I sometimes think that the "diggers" of today actually fear making a discovery like priam's gold or Tutankhamen's mainly untouched burial - they would not know how to deal with it - they would see it as treasure-robbing probably!! So give me the characters anyday!! phil

I try to keep apace with Roman novels, but I am not aware of any that cover this period. Even Coleen McCullogh's massive sage starts later. Steven Saylor, who writes detective-style novels but well-researched, starts with the young Cicero. In fim, I believe that the Charles Laughton character ("Gracchus") is based on the historical Gracchi - as olivier's crassus is "Sulla" reborn. But you ask about novels. I suspect there may be some Victorian examples - a genre I explored many moons ago - but probably unreadable and lacking in truth, by today's standards. Sorry I cannot offer more, but maybe YOU should write one - perhaps that's what you intend to do? Phil

I'd just like to point out that Egypt still Tutankhamen's body, and always has had. It remains, I think, in his tomb - the only body of a Pharoah to do so. Clearly Egypt just wants things, even though it's not certain what it already has!!

I remember the story that the Muslims tried to break down the pyramids, with a team of 7,000 men. They could not even chink it. That is what I love about Egypt, it's eternal and will remain so, as it should be. But one of the muslim rulers of Egypt DID try to gain entrance to the Great Pyramid. far from not even "chinking" it, you can still see the vast gash in the face where they used explosives to blast out the entrance. I love Egypt too, but I see no relation between Pharaonic Egypt and today's country. There is much less link than the English can claim to saxon or earlier roots. Our monarchy has clear descent back to about 600. These are probably the greatest treasures in the world and I just want it to be used in the best manner. Even accepting your rating of the treasures, they ARE being used in the best manner now. They are far more accessible, better displayed and more available to tourists, artists, designers and academics in London, New York, Paris or Berlin, than they would be in Cairo or Luxor. They act as ambassadors, encouraging people to visit Egypt and explore the ancient culture more deeply at its source. Dr Hawass and his colleagues even now have enormous difficulty in protecting their excavations from "looters", and I remain of the opinion that Egypt, as with the whole of the Middle East is highly unstable. Send precious items back and we may regret it.. It is ironic, in a way, that as globalisation grows more inevitable and stronger - with more people travelling; and a broader view of culture apparently developing, that we see this inward focused demand to bring everything "back" (whatever that might mean) into tightly constrained history laagers. I doubt that - unless a weak Government in the UK tries to buy popularity in the future - that the Elgin Marbles will ever go back to Athens, or the Rosetta Stone or nefertiti back to Egypt. The implications and the principle concerned are just too huge. Phil

There is a genre emerging (perhaps it's been around a while) in which history is only taken as a starting point. Harry Turtledove, for instance, writes great sagas of alternative history (a USA in which the North lost the Civil War and how that might have changed things). He does excellent research and roots his speculations soundly, but it is not an historical novel in the traditional sense. GRR Martin's "A Song of Fire and Ice" series (fantasy) is based on the English "Wars of the Roses" (c 1455-1485ish) but set in a fictional country with fantasy elements and with changed names. But I think Igullden's books (which I have not read) sound more like the way Hollywood would use history in the 50s/60s - look at Spartacus. Olivier's Crassus is more Sulla than the original. A "Gracchus" (Charles Laughton) is put in as the opposition. Caesar is a callow youth learning fast. The BBC did a series about Elizabeth I recently that played fast and loose with history and costume. While the movie "Elizabeth" (Cate Blanchett) ended with Burleigh banished (he served the Queen faithfully until his death and almost the end of her reign); Walsingham filling Burleigh's historic role (he died c 1592); and Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester cast off (again he was the Queen's favourite inn a complex relationship and a prominent player at court, until his death in Armada year. Probably Igullden is transferring similar ideas to the novel - to provide excitement rather than accuracy. My concern about the whole trend is that students and those who have no time of inclination to read more deeply, will grow up or develop a very warped sense of history. Perhaps we are going back to a Shakespearean sort of concept, where his plays were performed for centuries in the dress of the day (no one was much interested in period costume) and as reflections of the concerns of the time of writing, rather than as explorations of a different time and place. Just my thoughts, Phil

It wasn't IMHO the "greatest". That accolade should go to the British Empire. But I don't see why I should write your essay for you. Give us your thoughts to critique, then we know you are not just preying on our work. Phil

Thanks for the replies so far. I was particularly taken by Caldrail's very insightful and "sympathique" post. Pertinax - I had several holidays in the Bay of Naples area in the mid-80s/early 90s but now want to go back. I have still not seen Oplontis which was not on the "tourist map" back then and i could not find directions to get there!! (Sob, sob!!) However, I have extensive photographic records of both Pompeii and Herculaneum. I might try to post some of these in due course if I can get my scanner working. Back to the Nonii: Deiss suggests that their Herculanean residence was the "House of the Relief of Telephus" - which adjoins the Gymnasium and uses the Suburban baths in part as a foundation. the house has an amazing and, I think unique, audience hall on two levels. It is entirely marble lined inside. For structural reasons it was unsafe whenever I visited the site. Has anyone been able to gain access to the lower level, or seen pictures of it? I have been unable to find any despite much rummaging in archives. One of the aspects of the case I was hoping to discuss was the attribution of the statues of father and son. Deiss assumes that the older, very statesmanlike man is the pro-consul; and the younger man his son and heir. However, I have a problem with this attribution. Does anyone know of a single instance where a Roman of status erected a statue to a son which was not a funeral monument (I except members of the imperial house such as Augustus with Gaius and Lucius)? It seems to me that Romans would have said that it was "un-cool" for a man to be given such status without having earned it. However, i think men did often erect statues to their own forebears, and thus i would suggest the younger man is the pro-consul (shown like Augustus eternally in his prime) and the older man is his father, and thus Vaciria is either his mother or grandmother - we cannot, in my view, be sure we have all the statues in the set. A key factor in this analysis is the head of the statue of the pro-consul found near the baths. Has anyone seen a picture or any articles on this, even in Italian? It is now some years since it was found - but does it depict the older or younger man? Grateful for any suggestions - even rude ones ( ) Phil

Modern Egupt has absolutely no connection with Pharaonic Egypt - its been a Mameluk state since then, and converted to Islam. The modern state occupies the same geographical area (pretty much) as the old kingdom - but I see no basis for a claim to "own" items removed in the past. Does the modern USA belong to the Souix or the Cherokee, the East Coast Indians etc? Sorry, they lost out. History is harsh and hard. One day, no doubt, after London and Washington have been "sacked" by barbarians, much art etc now in those cities will reside elsewhere or be destroyed. Hitler, as I recall, wanted Nelson's column for Germania (his remodelled Berlin). Unlike a previous poster, I do have a sentimental feeling for the British regalia, but some items do reside abroad or in private collections. But if, in a few hundred years time, they or the Sutton Hoo treasure, were to be in foreign hands I'd say Ok - it's no different to other artistic works by British craftsmen which are no overseas. Finally, I'd just point out that it was british money (Lord Caarnarvon's) and British acumen and persistence that brought to light the treasures of Tutankhamen - which still reside in Cairo. Equally it was french archaeologists who saved the caches of royal mummies and preserved them - as they remain preserved - in Cairo. It was Egyptian fellahin who would have ransacked them for any gold or jewellery, or sold them to collectors. So please don't let's get pious. Phil

And where would Dr Hawass put all the returned artifacts? Cairo Museum is packed to capacity now - many of the display cases etc are in a poor state. The new museum near the Pyramids seems to have been on the way for years. Will it be suitable - or be big enough, in the unlikely event that the good Dr is successful? I personally am against this modern urge to return items to their "place of origin". The Rosetta stone was key to the decyphering of hieroglyphs - a European accomplishment (French). So is not its relevance to that period? What is a "stolen" item? The Elgin Marbles were given to Lord Elgin by the then recognised government of Greece. Where does the principle begin and end. Had it not been for Europeans much of classical art that survives would not have done so - the Parthenon was used as an armoury and exploded!! Someone earlier rightly referred to the taleban and the great Buddhist carvings which they destroyed. It is quite possible that Egypt could go fundamentalist at any stage in the near future - the islamicist fundamentalists could well seek to destroy what they see as pagan monstrosities and try to stop the pollution of their country by tourism by striking at tombs and historic items - destroying them. Do you want to expose the Armana Nefertiti or items from the metropolitan, Ashmolean or BM to that?? Two more general points: * there has always been a trade in art and historic items; that is how culture has expanded. People collect old things whether they be manuscripts; art, books or relics. It is partly by bringing things together in wide ranging collections that connections get made and new thoughts emerge. Do we really want a world where amerindian culture can only be studied in the USA or Canada; Roman history in Italy, the Pharoahs in Egypt? * London, New York, Berlin, Paris are major centres - many people go to them and enjoy the great museums and galleries. They then are inspired to travel to other countries to see the context of these great works - places they might otherwise not learn about or find a reason to visit. The great museums also offer a contextual experience, showing artifacts in a continuum, placing them in relation of contemporary cultures and to what went before and after. This would not be possible if items were in their places of origin. Finally, I am deeply suspicious of the motives of the plea for return. At one level it seems immature - I want what is "mine" (whatever that means)! It is a child's plea. And like a child, we should be concerned as to whether the items - if given into their care - would be treated properly and cared for. I know I am being politically incorrect to say this, but some of the regimes who appeal for their property to come back are highly corrupt. can we be certain that officials would not sell some itemns to collectors on a black-market? How would we know? History has led to a "diaspora" of heritage. In many cases it would be impossible now to prove ownership in any true legal way as Government's and relationships have changed so much. What I would urge, however, is the creation and provision of very high-quality replicas of many of the famous items, which could then be displayed in many places, providing context for many works in many places. But i reject the modernist and ill-thought-out arguments for return to places of origin. It is emotional, short-sighted and lacks depth. Not good reasons for doing anything. Passionately, Phil

Marcus Nonius Balbus, a former Praetor, was proconsul of Crete and Cyrenacia at some stage in the early C1st AD. He was clearly a man of wealth and preseige and a lavish benefactor of the small seaside town of Herculaneum. We know about him and his family because the eruption of Vesuvius has preserved several statues and inscriptions relative to them. They are now to be seen in the national Museum in Naples, and include a pair of equestrian statues possibly from the steps of a temple, of an older and a younger man. Both wear identical cuirasses. There are life-sized marbles of the older man on foot, togate and statesmen like, and i understand that the head of another statue has been excavated from a site near to the Suburban baths, where a statue of Nonius balbus is known to have stood. Associated with the first standing staue I mentioned, are four statues of women - all, as I recall found near the theatre. One of these is interpreted as his mother (a daunting older woman called Vaciria who was perhaps a freed slave); another which may be the proconsul's wife, and two others supposed to be his daughters. These were both no doubt called Nonia in the Roman fashion, and i always think of them as Prima and Nonina!! My purpose in posting here is firstly to ask whether anyone else has noted or has an interest in this family, which I first encountered years ago in JJ Deiss's wonderful book on Herculaneum. Secondly, and I'll save this until I find another "enthusiast", I'd love to debate the attribution of the statues and the possible details of their residence and life. I'd also like to find out more about the proconsul - not least if anyone has dates for his governorship. I hope someone might find this family as interesting as I do. But I'd also welcome the opportunity just to chat about marvellous Herculaneum - one of my favourite places on earth. Phil

Not the Rome, I know at least. Brick became a popular building material, of course, as the apartment blocks and buildings of Ostia still demonstrate. But almost always, if one looks, one can see traces of marble facing. The ruins of the Fora (Romanum and Imperial) also show plentiful survivals of marble in buildings, not least those integrated into churches (like the temple of Antoninus Pius and Faustina). As late as the Renaissance the Popes were using marble slabs and broken statuary to make lime for mortar. I think the Popes probably did more damage that all the barbarian sackings put together!! Phil

Also to be pedantic, where did the usage "Brigantine" spring from? Surely the tribe/people were the BrigantES, living in Brigantia, and the usage should be BrigantIAN? Phil

I am no expert on Alexander, but I would have thought that Arrian or one of the contemporary historians might give a text. Robin Lane Fox has some words in his biography of Alexander. Check a good library or bookshop - it is certainly in print in the UK. But beware, my understanding is that ancient historian constructed the speeches they THOUGHT great leaders should or might have given. Whether we have anything approaching Alexander's actual words is unlikely in my view. Hope this helps. Phil

Shame raelly that either Alaric or one of the renaissance popes didn't quip: "I found Rome marble and let it brick and in bits!!" Phil