phil25

A very good post Ursus, especially your last section. Thinking about this subject over the last few days - this site is very good at getting you thinking, I find - the following struck me. Temple Judaism of the early C1st AD was far from mystic - it was open, based on sacrifice and ritual. Sure there were great teachers like Gamaliel, and the Pharisees and others discussed intellectual issues. But the basis of the religeon and worship was distinctly different from the Greek mystery cults. Jesus, coming from within that culture, even in the gospels, can be seen to be preaching a straightforward message within Judaism. And whatever dates the four gospels were made canonical, he make no mention of setting up an alternative faith (apart from the one reference to Peter) or of breaking with Judaism. It is here that the advocates of views partly enshrined in the da Vinci Code and elsewhere have a strong point - as a Jewish man of his time, it would be very likely that Jesus conformed (ie married etc) else he would have been outside convention and unlikely to find an audience, let alone be called rabbi. And the gospels are silent on the subject of his marital status or celibacy - interesting if he believed in something markedly different from the norm. I cite this here solely to demonstrate that that Jesus does not himself appear to have preached a radical message in any way ezxcept seeking personal moral reform of the individual. At least one section of Jesus' followers, under James (the brother of Christ) remained within or strongly associated with Judaism (and in Jerusalem). It is only when we see the activities of Paul, and his tremendous journies (see how little time he spent in Palestine) that we see the mystic element in Christianity being emphasised. While there is no mention of "initiation" in the sense of a ceremony, the whole thrust of paul's teaching is that there is a mental, spiritual rebirth to be undergone and then things will appear utterly different. Jesus said similar things to people, but in (to me) much less mystic language - read his meeting with Nicodemus. Now it is even possible that Jesus did include initiation in his teachings (I am probing at the evidence now, I personally remain unconvinced of this) and that the raising of Lazarus and the cryptic reference to the naked lad in a sheet in Gethsemane are survivals of this. I believe there is also well documented evidence of an ancient/early excision from Mark's gospel which specifically refers to an initiation ceremony. So I would argue that what evidence we have suggests that Christianity began as a strand within Judaism without any thought of breaking away to found a new sect. However, it may have included mystery elements, including literal initiation (in the form of symbolic rebirth?). It was, however, Paul who changed the language and nature of the emerging faith, making it intellectual, metaphysical and mysterious. I would argue, packaging it for the Hellenistic audiences in the great cities witherto he went - Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. Finally, re-reading an admittedly very old book on Mithraism on a train journey in the week, I was strongly struck by the many similarities to Christianity. The birth of Mithras in a cave; the adoration of shepherds; the presence of magi in Zoroastrian religeon (three kings in the gospel); the last supper; the death and rebirth of the god. Someone has borrowed something here - and as Mithraism is older, I wonder whether the early Christians found themselves adding bits to THEIR legend. After all, the nativity is in only two of the four gospels (and different in each) ... Oh for a time machine!! I think we might be in for a few surprises if we went back. Phil

Joe, your excellent post reminds me of one major capital construction work of crucial importance undertaken by the Julio-Claudians - the harbour facilities at Ostia. Claudius sank the giant boat that had conveyed Gaius' obelisk from Egypt to create a mole/breakwater. I had missed that off my earlier list. Phil

Osprey do a very good book on Gladiators, illustrated by Angus McBride, who is reliable. It's cheap and easily available in the UK. There is a catalogue of an exhibition at the British Museum about 2-3 years ago, which is profusely illustrated. there are many pictures of both re-enactors and original paintings and equipment. Should be available through libraries. I'll dig out my copy and give you more details. It was published as a large format p/back. Susanna Shadrake's "The World of the Gladiator" (Tempus Publishing in UK)

One thing that these forums bring out consistently, is how different posters' views of ancient Rome and life then are. Fascinating. Phil

Ok Caldrail we'll agree to differ. End of discussion. phil

I assume that it was either an ordinary cuirass (leather probably) or a Gallic mail-shirt akin to the sort Caesar's legionaries wore, but disguised under a tunic. It would have been disguised/hidden: a) because Augustus would not have wished to appear afraid, or even suspicious of treachery; because armour was not allowed within the pomerium. I too seem to recall a mention of this at a time when Augustus had to go to the Senate and was fearful that an attempt would be made on his life. He had the Dictator's assassination to bear in mind! I'll see if i can find time to check my shelves. Phil

I would simply observe, Caldrail, that I (and this is entirely my view, you don't have to share it) that it is dangerous to make statements like: ...This kind of aggrandisement happens all the time when people become powerful and wealthy. Not everyone falls prey but the temptation is always there. .. Not all civilizations or cultures are the same nor is human nature always channelled in the same ways or expressed similarly. Much of our misunderstanding of ancient cultures (Rome and Egypt to cite but two examples) is often distorted by the Victorian tendency to interpret them as the C19th in fancy dress. They were not, not were the institutions simply dry runs for those of the later period. Try to envisage Roman politics by way of a parallel of ours today 9whether US of UK) and I think anyone who does will find themselves far astray and confused. the odd analogy to help get aross some aspact might work, but Rome defies the use of terms like democracy or republic in any way we might understand now. Similarly, I agree, you'll find the definition of "domus as house in any latin dictionary. But what does the word mean. there is clearly a disonance between a Pompeiian domus of the same period and the Golden House. It is the usage of the word, not some simple definition that I am seeking to probe. . nero's original home on the Palatine wasn't badly damaged from the fire, but having seen the empty space left he just couldn't resist the temptation to use it for himself. Again, what on earth is your source for this remark, which goes further than reliance on an ancient author would warrant. Rome of course was always a very crowded place, and I think even the palaces were crammed in. I have underlined the word "palaces" in this remark of yours because I'd like to know, in that context, what you mean by it. precisely which dictionary word would you use in latin for it? In continue to disagree strongly with you, but as in another recent thread, I wonder whether it is much use continuing the discussion. We seem to have no way of reaching agreement. I am quite prepared to accept much of what you say within my wider hypothesis, but I see no willingness on your part to show flexibility or even to accept the possibility of a broader explanation than you propose. That is very limiting, at least to me. Phil

I still think you are swallowing far too much period invective as objective truth, and drawing moral conclusions about Julia (as a good or bad person) for which i personally see no justification. As for Romans doing a lot more bonking than us - I wonder. Perhaps you have been seeing too many Hollywood movies?? Just my opinions though. Phil

What period are you talking about here, LW? Phil

What we do know of Julia is that she wasn't a horrible person, she was said to be kind, gentle and not nearly as vindictive as many would assume. She was witty, she knew how to fight and she was beautiful, and one of the few women in that time that was intelligent and used it to her advantage. She was loved by the people because of her qualities and the protest they put up proves that they couldn't have heard too much of this prostitution rubbish otherwise they would have sat back and thought about it before they took up arms. Can I ask where we know all this from? ...But then again, if we do go with the "plot-to-kill-daddy", would Julia really kill her father when she has it made anyway. Her son Gaius was going to be the next emperor, and she had two spares, Lucius and Postumus, so she had nothing to gain from her father's death. I'd question this. While we know NOTHING of Julia's motives as far as I am aware. However, those motives might have included: impatience that Augustus was not dead yet (history shows us that heirs to thrones can often get impatient with thier royal parents); a desire to have more power herself (after all she was the carrier of the Julian blood-line); a feeling that Tiberius might succeed rather than her sons; or, (to my mind the most likely) a major difference in policy as to the direction the principiate should take. Julia was part of a younger, post-Republic generation. they could have perceived less need than their predecessors for a concealed absolutism. Syme hints that even Agrippa might have staged a coup at one point to change the constitution, and Julia was Agrippa's widow - she might well have been influenced by his conceptions and political ideas in contradistinction to her father's. Certainly there is nothing that would make me put any faith in the unity of the imperial family, or the idea that they played happy families together!! The only thing she would get out of it was a divorce from Tiberius, a marriage to Iullus and a probably become queen... But would that really be worth it? It depends on what that meant and what she wanted. But as a suggestion (no more) what if Iullus had held out the offer of joint rule (like his father and Cleopatra)? If Julia was politically minded, and marriage to Agrippa might have woken that in her, even if it was not part of her character, she might have welcomed that. I advance no theories, but I think one should be very careful about taking too conventional a view as well. Rome and its way of thinking would be very alien to us, I believe. But all that said, I am not in disagreement with your basic thrust. Phil

I didn't say they couldn't, Germanicus. I'm simply attempting to explore Caldrail's statements, to understand better - and he cites no evidence or thought process - why he so firmly rejects my hypothesis (and it is nothing more). Phil

Perhaps it's worth re-reading to see what he was really trying to do. I don't know what you mean by the word greatest. if you mean one of the most successful, I would agree. if you mean laudable, then I might quibble strongly!! Phil

Caldrail, your last post appeared to be entirely subjective. I wouldn't have said so. You are always entitled to disagree, and i welcome, discussion, but where is the evidence for any of the following statements: Nero wanted a big house. Bigger than everyone elses... But was the Domus a house? The word could have been used in jest, or ironically? Surely a house or any other sort of building, is defined by its use - not by the word it is called? Scotland Yard in London is a building, not a "yard" at all. It was originally located in Scotland Yard, but that was long ago. ...but then he was Nero wasn't he? Didn't he deserve such a dwelling? That seems to necessitate having known or discussed the position with the man. "Only then could he 'live like a human being'. " I have said before, one has to discuss that statement in the original language and not in translation. Secondly, we do not know that nero said it - classical historians often made up speeches. Finally, it could have been a jest, as many of Gaius' quoted statements may have been; or an ironic comment; or even to illustrate my view that he could now live as an "autocrat" should - grandly and apart. But that could have related to his concept of the role, as much as, or instead of, to ego. The Domus Aurea was a gross exercise in vanity and it certainly never won him any friends. Again we don't know. Nero's rule failed, but history was written by the victors, who demolished his structures. But the Colossus remained, for instance (though re-headed) - so not all was so despised. Only a little later, Domitian's Palatine palace survived him - how was that different to the Domus in any practical way? At some stage an American President moved out of the White House (sufficient for Lincoln) and built a West Wing including an Oval Office. Was that vanity? or was it a reflection of changing requirements of the office of President; his duties, size of his staff etc etc. I can argue, I think, more strongly that the Golden House reflected politics and power, change and perceptions, than you can selfishness and ego-mania. And i could back it up with strong arguments - but it would still be subjective as your's would. So why not even consider my suggestions (nothing more)? Phil

There are only so many ways of attaching a plume to a helmet. The "Sea Peoples" and the Phoenicians wore helmets with a circle of feathers. I think they are thought, in part, to have had an Aegean origin and certainly raided the costs of what used to be called Asia Minor. So I suppose there may have been influences. I think the Assyrians may also have used small horsehair crests on helmets and chariot horse head-pieces. Hollywood, of course, has always tended to get the Roman's wrong. The MGM epics often used crests inappropiately. Phil

Syme (something of a hero of mine, I'll confess) was a little more subtle than the words above convey. His book is cast not only as his interpretation of the period, but also as an attempt to reproduce the perspective of one of the lost "Antonian" historians. Even his English style is deliberately latinate - abrupt and sometimes (to me at least) enigmatic. Thus the book investigates the Augustan revolution from a critical angle - but Syme is quite open about that. And is his view - even his conclusions - necessarily too far awry? Times do change, and one thing that we should remember in reading Syme is that in the 1930s Mussolini was still a somewhat admired figure. His methods were disconcertingly direct, but he was held up as a man who was changing his country. The baleful, damning reputation that comes from Mussolini's association with fascism (the Italian version was very different from the German); Hitler and his later aggression against the Balkans and Abassynnia; have forever coloured our image of the Dictator. But that did not apply when Syme wrote. And is the parallel between Octavian (rather than Augustus) and Mussolini that far-fetched? Phil

Another thought has struck me about Nero's Domus Aurea. The model for the Roman town house of a noble is the atrium/peristyle one - inward looking and "closed". The visitor gradually gains intimacy and privelege/honour as he is admitted deeper into the building. there are few external windows. The Domus reminds me, however, of some of the wall-paintings from Pompeii and elsewhere of seaside villas, symmetrical in style, with long porticoes and OUTWARD-FACING facades looking over the sea. So was Nero seeking to introduce the villa form into an urban setting? If so, then I suggest there was a radical statement being made. As our visiting expert noted in his recent Q&A session, the Romans had been very worried by Greek/Hellenistic innovations. He wrote: The Romans were big on moral decay. Absolutely obssessed and they used it as an explanation of historical change to the exclusion of virtually everything else. To put that in slightly different words and to misuse an anachronistic parallel!(!) it seems me that this could be represented as struggle between the "puritan" (sober, ascetic) and the "cavalier" (gay and colourful) aspects of the Roman character. Now if the Domus is anything it is surely Greek and Hellenistic in its references and inspiration, rather than reflecting traditional Roman "virtues". Again, if my inferences are remotely correct, I would suggest we see a clear political statement being made. Phil

Soldiers almost always have a diminultive for the enemy: Wogs and Fuzzi-wuzzis (British imperial); Brits (US in Revolutionary War?); Eyetyes (Italians WWII); Bosche (Germans WWI); Frogs (French at many times) are some that spring to mind. I like your interpretation AD better than the "official one". I am certain the Romans would have had a term for their foe, and this tablet provides it. I see the wor as potentially being affectionaley (!) belittling - the misture of respect and scorn that one professional soldier often has for another through history. Thanks for your explanation, Phil

My only quibble would be to suggest that one needs to define "palace" for C1st Rome. I think Nero's building was unprecedented in Roman terms in its day (paralled perhaps by the palace quarter in Alexandria) but certainly not by the habitations of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius or Claudius. Afterwards, I believe the concept was taken up, in a different form, by Domitian on the Palatine (where, of course, our word "palace" originates). This the sheer scale and intent (whatever that was - but see a previous post of mine in this thread for some suggestions) of Nero's may have been a statement in themselves. But I think the Roman vocabulary in c64AD needs examining to see how much this incredible structure must have stretched and challenged conventional wisdoms both about buildings and the role of its principal inhabitant - the princeps himself. Maybe that is what Nero wanted - like gaius before him, to display absolutism (the de facto nature of the principiate, however concealed) and what it meant in an unmistakeable and permanent way. Phil

Goldsworthy has done an excellent and comprehensive job. I must admit that given its length, I have dipped into the tome rather than read it consistently, but it is a very, very thorough biography. Goldsworthy seems to look into all the "myths" - was he buggered by King Nicomedes; etc - and while relatively balanced, even conservative, in his assessments, is by no means categoric in his final judgement. I was quite surprised to seem him take the view that Clodius was having an affair with his wife, at the time of the Bona Dea incident. I had always been under the impression that Caesar divorced his wife becausde even the merest HINT of scandal was enough where he was concerned. Goldsworthy seems to take a different view. I await FV's formal review eagerly, but in the meantime i would encourage and urge anyone with an interest to read this book. Phil

...I doubt bribery played that much of a role in determining who held office... is this a game of let's deny anything we don't like or which acts against our pet theories? can anyone play? Phil

Senior soldiers on the line of the later wall, at Vindolanda. It's used on the tablets found there. The word has only been known around 10-15 years. Phil

Thanks very much, Ursus. I understand much better now. But I am still not entirely convinced. I am relieved that the evidence relates to the end of the principiate because it would fit better with Tigellinus (say) under Nero, or the whole court set-up under Domitian. Attendance on the Emperor, as "captain of the Guard" (as it were) would inevitably place the prefect in close proximity to the princeps/emperor. A modern parallel would be officers such as Gold Stick in Waiting, and the Major General Commanding the Household Brigade, who ride close to the Sovereign at military parades such as The Queen's Birthday Parade (Trooping the Colour) irrespective of their civil or military rank and precedence. I assume the Praetorian Prefect would have done similarly. I am quite at ease with the situation and all you say as the empire progressed - the praetorian prefects indeed became chief ministers (viziers?). I suppose the question is how quickly, and by what steps, that position was reached. Thanks again for such a full, illuminating and well-composed reply. Phil

Sejanus occurred to me, but he would have been an exception, surely as the "partner" of Tiberius' labours. That is why I asked about the source and the practicality. In the UK the order of precedence has (even today) some social and ceremonial uses (processions, Coronations, official seating plans for banquets etc). But I don't quite see how it would have worked in Rome. Imperium was important - are we saying that the Prefect had greater imperium than a consul or a governor in his province? Speaking order in the Senate reflected offices held etc. So how does Ursus' excellent (and I am sure soundly researched ) list apply? In short, what does it tell us and what use is it? Phil

To be absolutely clear, I have NEVER suggested we throw Suetonius out as a source. We have all too few sources as it is, and his essential narrative is clearly broadly in line with what happened - ie the events tally with those related in other sources or from inscriptions etc. My problem is with his relentless focus on scandal and the acceptance of some of the stories he tells as a basis for eveluating and even judging the reputations of leading politicians. I do not believe his account of Tiberius, I think Gaius needs to be reassessed seriously, and I think Nero needs to be looked at in the round. Interestingly, every pornographic movie maker (or even the BBC and Robert Graves) hones in on Tiberius' supposed "spintriae" (highly unlikely in my view); or Gaius and Drusilla; yet we rarely see Augustus damned for violating virgins. Phil

You might start with the Prima Porta statue of Augustus, with all its symbolism. I think, if you look, you'll find there's an old thread on the subject here. But what are your initial thoughts? Phil