phil25

Surely one has also to take into account the later invasions and occupations of Italy by peoples such as the Goths and Lombards. Are modern Italians directly related to Romans or (say) C1st AD Italians? Did the Oscans or Samnites (for instance) survive as genetically intact? Does anyone here know? Personally, I suspect not, but I'd be interested in any research that's been done. Phil

The testudo was only one of many formations and tactics in which legionaries were trained and on which a commander could call as required. But to use the line from Sondheim's "Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum", Pseudollus claims he was dismissed from the army because he "...arched when I should have slung"!! Even today an army officer is likely to come unstuck if he uses the wrong tactic at the wrong time. But equally, unexpected use of a manoeuvre at the right time might win the day. I think we need to recognise that the testudo formed just one of a palette of options available to Roman generals and commanders. It had no guarantee of suceess. What is the source of your Dacian incident, Ovidius? Surely to have "heard" about it implies you spoke to someone who was there!! But war and battles are a duel between two minds and many actors, in which each strives to counter and disrupt the others' plans. I also assume that a testudo, on the field, would rarely have acted in total isolation - but could have relied on supporting troops, covering fire from archers or artillery, and would hve had a fixed, limited and deliberate purpose. Interesting posts, especially from our re-enactor. Phil

Is that the elephant who gives the speech, or Vin Diesel, Pertinax? I'm surprised, longbow, that you didn't like the costumes - I detected a lot of good research and work by designers. At least we didn't get legionaries wearing the lorica segmentata, as we might from Hollywood at one time!! Someone had accepted that Roman armies at that time were composed of different types of troops and we even had some wearing wolf skin headdresses. Frankly, I've seen worse. Come to think of it, Mel Gibson's anachronistic, woad-painted celts (an insult to any sensible Scot) in Braveheart, which you chose to watch, were far worse!! My only query was why, given the resources put into it, this was not three, rather than, a single episode that inevitably had to rush things. As to the stirrups, many Roman movies include them, and I suspect that training and using extras without stirrups is probably costly to have any numbers, and carries a higher health and safety risk. For a fairly short programme, I didn't think it was bad, with many of the failings of what loked like an international production. fabius' toga and senatorial boots looked acceptable, and Scipio had a form of triumphal dress when he returned from Spain. But why Hannibal had to have what appeared to be the same brownish rag (rather than a patch) covering his missing eye for several years, remains a mystery. Phil

Why is that deflating Pertinax? Strategically, I would assume that the imperial authorities would always keep the fleet HQ in "their" side of the Channel, to avoid it being "cut off". Is not the Roman navy also connected to Allectus and Carausius much later? Phil

To answer this question one has, I assume, to take it that Africa or asia are now in a Dark Age, because foreign imperial rule was bliss and happiness, a cultural high, and independence equalled darkness and blight!! Was there a "Dark Age" at all? Maybe Italians, and imperial "Quislings" thought so - but did the Vikings, the Angles, the Franks, the Jutes, the Parthians, the Goths, or the Huns think they were in a dark age? I doubt it. It all depends on your standpoint. sure Roman and classical culture declined - as modern western culture is or will decline. It is likly that the Romano-British threw out the imperial administration c 400AD (if they had not done so before). I doubt they thought they were voting for something worse. And were the dark ages as dark as used to be thought - art and learning took different forms but survivied. new nations rose - a bad thing? The concept of the dark ages is a very Romano-centric one. rather like me - as i do from time to time - arguing that the British empire was the greatest force for good the world has ever known. I might believe it, but would an Indian, a Kenyan or a Boer think so? I write mainly tongue in cheek - but perhaps we should think on such things. Phil

In Britannia, the Romans always relied on "frontier systems" usually with forts and a linking road - the Fosse Way running diagonally roughly from the Trent to the Severn (I speak loosely) was one of the first. Hadrian's Wall was a similar construct - initially with forts and no linking wall. For a time the Antonine wall extended the military frontier system northwards. But I do not think that either "wall" was perceived by the Romans as a limit to their control, influence, power or dominion. One of the best explanations I have ever heard of the origins of Hadrian's wall is to divide the territory of the large, belligerent and troublesome tribe of the brigantes, into two parts, and to control movement between them. It may also have served as a customs barrier. It is unlikely ever to have been used as a fighting platform. However, the tactics used in conjunction with the Wall evolved/changed over time. But I don't think it had anything to do with the Picts, Scots or anyone else in its first conception. Turning to another point in recent posts, Caesar clearly underestimated the dangers of invading the island. he almost cam a cropper, and has to be very ingenious to cover up his near failure in De Bello Gallico. However, I think that it may be wrong to assume no continuity between his visits and the later invasion and more permenent occupation by Claudius. I think the political context of both Gaius' (proposed) and Claudius' (actual) invasions suggests that treaties and some sort of tributary relationship existed between at least some of the southern British tribes and Rome. Expectations and obligations existed. So did trade and other cultural contacts. I wonder whether young British aristocrats may not have lived in Rome as hostages, in sequence, over many generations - thus preparing the way and explaining the evidently highly Romanised Cogidubnus. Thus Caesar's success may have been greater and more long-lasting than sometimes stated. Just speculation, and my opinion, of course. Phil

I haven't voted, because I know nothing about the later periods. But I would question whether the legends attached to Nero could have been true in reality. I am not questioning that some sort of pogrom may have been carried out and that Peter and Paul may have been killed at the time. Ancient authors, either misunderstanding, or catching episodes we have lost, seem to have seen the followers of "Chrestus" as trouble-makers. But could there have been physically enough Christians in Rome by c64AD to have been killed in the numbers sometimes suggested (not least by Hollywood movies!!). It was only around 30 years since the crucifixion; the temple had not yet been destroyed, so there was no new Jewish diaspora; Paul had not long arrived in Rome (and may have spent ome of his time in Spain) - where would such sizeable numbers of conversions have come from? Perhaps later Christian matyrologists and hagiographers retrospectively attributed persecutions under Domitian or later emperors to those early days, to to dramatise and glorify the deaths of the two great apostles? Just a suggestion. I have seen this discussed in a book somewhere, with much more evidence, but cannot recall where. Phil

Caldrail, you wrote: Would I base my opinions on celebrities from the media? Well of course I do. So does everyone else. Its only when you get to know these people in their day to day lives that you really discover what they're actually like. I've never met Beckham or Pitt. Am I missing out? The tabloids say yes, I say perhaps. But because the tabloids say these individuals turned up to an event in certain attire I can draw a safe conclusion that they were doing their duty, that corporate advisors may have been present, and that a few people went away happy as larry that they'd met a star. See what I mean? The event occurred. The report may have been distorted but it happened. I think that pretty much typifies the gap between us. As for premature point-scoring, my argument was that Gaius was not removed by a conspiracy, but by a group of disgruntled guardsmen. NOT, your point, I think. I think that by the time the Domus was ready for habitation, most Romans would have got things sorted after the fire. besides, nero also introduced new "health and safety" measures within the rebuilding, that showed he was not careless of what was going on. His remark can be read many ways, and of itself proves nothing. But as I said earlier, I think we must agree to differ, as neither of us is remotely convincing the other it seems. i don't see much point in continuing this dialogue, which has in any case diverted from the question in which I was interested in this thread. Phil

Is there not quite an ancient script on the "black stone" found beneath the pavement of the Forum Romanum just in front of the Curia Julia? I always thought that was supposed to go back to the BC700-500 period. I remember asking my classics master at school in the 60s whether ordinary Roman spoke what seemed to m to be the incredibly complex and formal latin we were learning - mentally declining verbs and construing sentences. I was told that graffiti and so on indicated that the plebs soke a simplified form of the language. Anyone able to expend on that? As for Britain - I don't think anyone really knows what was spoken before the Romans came. A celtic lnguage, I suppose, but whether a form of gaelic I don't know. That was certainly the case come the end of Roman rule c400AD as we see words surviving from that source. Lay over that, however, Germanic tongues (Saxon etc) and for the Danelaw, Scandanavian; and later Norman-French (still surviving in fragments, as in the wording of the royal assent to Acts of Parliament). En passant - did you know that the animals are called cattle, sheep and pigs; while the meat that comes from them is respectively beef, mutton and pork? And that this mis-match relates to the fact that the animals were kept by Anglo-Saxon peasants, but the meat was consumed by their Norman (French-speaking) masters - hnce beouf, mouton, porc... Isn't language fascinating. Phil

Sorry Germanicus, I wasn't thinking in terms of the populace, but of heads of government. I don't question what you say, for a moment. But my understanding is that her views are listened to and she is respected, when she meets politicians. (Not the subject of this thread though - want to continue the discussion elsewhere?) Phil

Given Augustus' standard iconography, I wonder how they can tell so soon its from his middle years? Whatever the term means anyway - middle of his reign? in this fifties or sixties? Usually the date has to be estimated from context and other details - I'd be surprised if we suddenrly had an "old" head!! I wonder what the penalty would have been for a sculptor actually (even privately) reproducing the princeps' actual features and appearance, and not the approved "ageless" version? Phil

I saw a piece on (I think) the BBC website (perhaps SKY). The exhibition includes the largest inscribed stone relief (in Egyptian and Greek0 found in Egypt, and some colossal statues. I think the material relates to canopus 9a suburb of Alexandria) and another nearby town, both inundated by the sea in classical times. Whether any of this relates to the Cleopatra most of us know, must be questionable. But the French and german have done a lot of work in the area - I have seen some interesting, but also annoying, documentaries on them on the Discovery Channel. Phil

How does that relate to the "Earth's Core", pray? I know that in physical terms the magnetic field relates to it - but the title of this thread is frustratingly like a tabloid headline!! Intriguing but no substance. Phil

I think you take my references and analogy too literally, Kosmo. If I say that a film has Disney-like qualities, I do not necessarily mean that it is a remake of Bambi, or Lady and the Tramp!! Rather, I might refer to stylistic resemblances; similarities of approach, or even it's "spirit". I have the same thing in mind with "Hellenistic kingship" in relation to the principiate. It would have been quite impossible simply to apply an eastern concept to Rome - it would neither have been appropriate nor acceptable. But if an eastern concept were adopted and adapted using Roman political vocabulary; forms and a sense of "what the market will bear", then i think it might be done. Indeed, I think there are clear indications that it IS what was done. When Alexander was accused by his contemporaries of "going Persian" it was not that he adopted wholesale the rituals and regalia of the Persian autocrats. No, he borrowed parts - the diadem from the mitra; the proskynesis (which he sought to introduce subtley) - parts of the ceremonial. I see no difference between that, and what i am proposing for Gaius - or earlier Antonius. Phil

Analysis of coins is a specialised field, and it certainly isn't mine. But I have stated elsewhere my theaory that deliberate policy rather than madness is evident in a consistency of policy throughout Gaius' reign. That policy, I believe was to establish a semi-divine autocracy on Hellenistic lines in Rome. Gaius wished to throw out the disguised monarchy of his predecessors and replace it with a Hellenistic style kingship. This may be traceable back through his mother Agrippina and his grandmother Antonia 9even more so) to Antonius the triumvir, and the style of Ptolemaic rule he associated himself with in Egypt. Chancing my arms here - others will be much more expert than I - there may be another strand to Gaius' policy (assuming the interpretation and the coin are genuine). That is - that the radiate crown was associated with the Sun God (Helios?); the Sun God was linked to Apollo; and Apollo was Augustus' specific guardian deity. Could the assumption by Gaius of eastern style kingship, wedded to the use of Augustan symbols, have been an attempt to marry the policies of the great rivals into a single and novel form of government. Hellenistic kingship, perceived through a Roman lens and using Roman symbolism, transforming the established principiate? Ot maybe I am assuming too much. Phil

I think we'll have to differ, Caldrail. Cordially, of course. Maybe our frames of reference, or our experience, are different. I've worked iin government for over 30 years, and base my judgements in part on what I see as unchanging principles of politics and power. I suppose I also see Suetonius and to some extent Tacitus as giving us a tabloid or celebrity view of the roman political scene (in retrospect - remember, neither of them knew Augustus or Gaius). Would one base one's opinion of Brad Pitt or David Beckham on what one reads in the mass media, or is told about their private lives? Both are surely surrounded by flunkies and their slightest public move or what they wear, is likely to be dictated by contractual commitments to designers and PR companies; their lives ordered by secretaries and consultants. If Beckham wears a hat, it is unlikely to be because he felt like it - more because he has a prior legal undertaking to wear Adidas or nike or police etc products on so many days per year. I would continue to argue strongly that Nero and Gaius were similarly influenced by a desire to follow certain paths to achieve certain goals - hence, especially with Gaius, the consistency through his reign. That he was sarcastic seems likely, that he saw the senate as opponents quite clear; that he have a style to his regime accepted. But I think rulers, by and large, act within a frame of policy - otherwise they would not last long. Gaius did not, because I think someone he offended took revenge, NOT because his regime was unpopular or unsuccessful. Nero lasted longer and ruled well. one should be careful about the tablod hype - some of which i suspect relates less to nero than to Domitian and even later emperors. If you think the Queen is a cypher today - look again at British government. She is and acts as a constitutional monarch, of course, and recent remarks by her prime ministers past and present (related to her 80th birthday) make clear her strict impartiality. But Elizabeth II is immensely experienced and knowledable, and has the right (defined by Bagehot - a constitutional historian in the mid Victorian period) to be advised, to encourage and to warn. I am sure she does so, and has considerable influence - especially with Commonwealth governments. But I am unsure what your point about her was. Nero probably was quite extrovery, whether he had an ego-problem neither you nor I can tell, since it is invisible in the record. many of his claims, like Olympic victories, are capable of political explanation. in any case, in Nero's case, I am not sure he took much interest in government except in a wider sense - his pre-occupations were primarily artistic. As for the Domus Aurea, I thought I had made my views plain - an experiment (probably copied in part by Domitian) - to re-position the role and perception of the princeps in society and state (a statement of his divine separateness with had Antonian/Ptolemaic origins and followed the precedent set by Gaius. Note the consistency and direct transmission of the political legacy: ANTONIUS - ANTONIA (daughter) GAIUS (grandson) - NERO (nephew) - DOMITIAN (saw Nero's style at first hand) - all within easy - if not living - memory of each other. Phil

I'm quite struck by two things in skimming this discussion: a).how many of the comments are based on a subjective response to the sculptures; b. that the frame of reference is to responses today and not to what we know of perceptions in Roman times. I was also amused by the comment (I hope meant jokingly) that livia might have been having a bad day - with the implication that any particular portrait was scuplted from life. Surely any discussion of meaning/image needs to begin with what we know of late republican/early imperial iconocraphy and its use; look at changes to Octavian/Augustus' specific iconography (AND THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF SCULPTURES); and then consider the likely purpose of that work - cult statue in a temple; public or private work; religious or political context (Ara pacis reliefs aimed to give a different impression to (say) the Prima Porta statue or the Meroe bronze head); is the likely dating in the lifetime or after the death of the individual represented; and did it have an indoor or outdoor setting; was it placed high or low; what lighting would have struck it? All these things impact on a carving, and I would suggest that what looks, close up, as an "old" Livia, might have given a different impression if seen in strong sunlight/or a gloomy temple interior. Look at the colossal statue of Domitian from Turkey which appears grotesquely distorted close up in the museum, but was intended to be seen from one specific angle and distance. Photographs and museum displays can lie and mislead!! To my mind, Roman sculpture had only a tangential relationship to its subject, and most carvers would never have seen the original. If Augustus had been a hunchbacked dwarf, there is no reason to assume that he might not have been shown as he is - Gaius got a full head of hair after all!! I seem to recall that 30 or so years ago there was a particular bust that was consistently described as "young Octavian" - one of my university tutors had a copy which he used to bring in to preside over seminars on the "interstate politics of the ancient world"!! Detailed study of the hair, the way the curls fall on the forehead, and comparison with other statuary, eventually showed that the bust was of either Gaius of Lucius, not of the princeps at any age. So I suggest we need to look carefully at whether the identification of the individual is correct - remember, other or later members of the imperial house might have modelled themselves deliberately on a famous forebear. Also, I would advise against reading character into any ancient sculpture (pace Coleen McCullough) as the faces are made up of individual elements designed to be reproduced by other sculptors easily and at long distances (say in Aphrodisias, Turkey) - distortion of a different type might creep in, in the process of reducing features to relationships of distance and mass and groupings of hair. Lastly, don't forget that many ancient sculptures were originally painted, in fairly dramatic colours, which again would have changed perceptions at the time. Sorry this rambles a bit, it's early morning. Phil edited to remove an unwanted smilie

I bought it cheap on video quite a long time ago, and watched it once. It had some dramatic power, but the mixture of periods in the costuming, while imaginative and sometimes effective, irritated me. Some quite good performances - I seem to remember thinking that Hopkin's Shakespearean roots (he was a very good Antony at the National Theatre years ago) are often overlooked. Perhaps it is time to watch again. Phil

This thread seems to me to follow logically from, and develop themes raised in my two recent threads on looking again at the C1st&2nd AD and the what i have called the "extrovert emperors". Reading popular histories of the period, I sometimes gain the impression that authors believe that somehow "politics" disappeared (at least for lengthy periods) during the period from Augustus onwards. Events are explained in Suetonian terms of pervert (or to cite a recent debater with me) emperors with enormous egos); individual whims and little coherence or rational explanation. To give examples, Gaius and Claudius are both stated to have sought to invade Britain. Gaius is written off as a madman's attempt to seek glory from which he bottled out; Claudius as a desire to acquire military glory to back up his ascension to the purple. Yet the two events took place in a shorter period than the gap between the two US and alliance invasions of Iraq in the last two decades, and would anyone really question that there is some link between the two? major players remain the same or related. The US President in the 1990s version is the father of that in the later; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl and others were actors in both dramas and clearly retained agendas. Even though we cannot always detect the detail or the players, it seems to me to be foolish not to seek similar continuity and equally pragmatic explanations is ancient Rome. We know such things were true in the late republic from one triumvirate apeing its predecessor; to Augustus clearly seeking to avoid his adopted father's mistakes. But what are politics? In my youth someone defined economics to me as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Politics, it followed was the study of how it was decided WHO did the allocating. I would argue that politics very clearly continued after the creation of the principiate, with very little difference to what had gone on before, but with the playing field and some points of reference altered. Key families still vied for power - how else do we understand the persistent Julio/Claudian rivalry in the succession to Augustus? Families like the Domitii Ahenobarbi still played a role; the tragedy of the Junii Silani (a suitable topic for its own thread) stands out; the Calpurnii Pisii last until Nero; the Aemilii Lepidi remain prominent. It is also clear that Augustus was not so cleared sighted nor omnipotent as some seem to think in creating his new constitution. At the very least he had to have two goes to get it right. Syme detected internal coups within the ruling clique - pressure from Agrippa; dismissal for Maecenas. I would go further, and argue that there was no certainty that Augustus' constitution would last a day longer than he lived if that. Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters? When the elder julia's disowning is linked to the untimely death of Iullus Antonius, the triumvirs son, there is surely more going on that sex on the rostra and petting on the Palatine!! Dynastic politics must at least be a theme here, if not the whole story. As I have said in another recent post, I do not think one can ignore those who (though we often cannot identify them by name) surrounded the principes - the secretaries, councillors, captains, advisers, specialists... Does one expect that George Bush or Tony Blair write their own speeches; determine the arguments they will employ in debate; work out the options for action; or weigh the impact of their decisions, ALONE. Nonsense - they have retinues of people who aid them - so must Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius and the rest. We see it clearly under Claudius as the freedmen emerge. Otherwise we note Agrippa and Maecenas, Sejanus, Macro etc. Such advisers and more were needed, because human nature has not changed that much. Sentors must still have nursed ambitions; soldiers a thirst for glory; idealists a new idea of government; the greedy a taste for wealth; the power hungry a desire for aggrandisement. these men surrounded Caesars= so how can we believe that a Gaius did not have to work hard to maintain the loyalty of the Guard (just as Agrippina Minor had to win it before proclaiming the accession of her son) on a daily basis? The Guard may have had a particular loyalty to the son of Germanicus, but do we believe that others did not constantly seek to undermine that loyalty - including its prefects? Did Caesar just say - do this - and it was done? I doubt it. Even autocrats have to define and describe what they want, at least in outline. They will be told of other priorities and have to "negotiate" or make a definite order. those who wanted their favour or agreed with what they were doing, would support them, and provide ideas - but others would seek to alter those plans, if only to ensure some of the profits or funds came their way. Close attention was needed to choosing governors and legates, prefects and procurators. A wrong choice, as to Britannia under Nero could cause rebellion. Did the emperor bear the names and records of every careerist, military and civil in his head? I doubt it, frankly. And how did he follow-up whether all his choices were in fact made good; all his decisions obeyed. we must, I believe, even where the record does not state it, assume a powerful, influential and sensible bureaucracy around the ruler. And that bureaucracy, in earlier times (as diversely as ancient Egypt and Tudor England) was demonstrably hereditary with son following father. Hence, I argue a continuity in policy, both from princeps to princeps; through lines of descent (hence, I believe an Antonian line of policy to be discernable from the 40s BC to the death of Nero, Antonius' direct heir) and among the senatorial opposition. Let us, therefore, discard the Suetonian emphasis on eccentric individualism and enormous egos acting through whim, and start to hunt for the traces of continuity; failed policies and recurring themes in C1st AD Rome. This thread can be read in parallel with my earlier ones, as all inter-connect to some degree. All are for argument's sake, as argument allows us to explore and delve deeper and test our hypotheses in honest discussion with our peers. Please come back to me. Phil

I think Hellenistic kingship - in contra-distinction to early Roman or Egyptian - seems to me pretty clear. It was based on the Alexander model, did not reject monarchical symbols - the diadem - and was at least semi-divine. prostration, titles and separateness divided ruler and subject. Palaces, costume and ceremonial marked the kingship. I don't accept that Pharoahs of Egypt (even Ptolemaic ones) simply had a more religious role. That misunderstands Egypt, to my mind. Pharoahs were gods, but there seems to be question whether all the Ptolemies controlled the priesthood. Antonius entered into the Hellenistic spirit by his identification and appearance as Dionysus, and by the spectacle and political thrust of the "Donations of Alexandria" 9so-called). This was an Hellenistic political settlement - quite unlike anything (say) Augustus would have attempted - though Augustus might have done the same things but in a Roman context and vocabulary. So I am not seeking to define hellenistic kingship, simply using it as a comparison and to define a change in Roman government. As to Otho and Vitellius - they failed, and in my view, never really had much hope of success or prolonged rule. Try looking at Otho as the successor to Nero's political philosophy and gaining the support of those who wanted least change (as a Thatcher-like politician in the UK can attract support from those who admired the Iron Lady). By and large such support is emotional and luke-warm, rather than pragmatic and interest based. I think Vespasian had the latter, because others saw in him a "winner" not an "heir". Phil

Should it be surprising that politicians express themselves as and through politics? And Roman principes or emperors WERE politicians - they had to be. Even in autocracies there is opposition (strong or mild, direct or oblique) and the ruler requires some sort of support, some amount of persuasion and negotiation to implement his will. I am not sure that I accept, either, the supposition that these men had "enormous egos" - how do we know? In the case of Gaius or Nero, for instance the sources are so biased against them that it would be difficult to see a different interpretation even if it underlay the statements of ancient authors. The "enormity" of an ego surely depends on the comparison with those around them - and how is it measured, what demonstrates ego externally? Is the Queen an egomaniac because her head appears on postage stamps? Or is that an emanation of state policy - a proclamation of "government" in a human guise? So, if Gaius really did suggest that his statue be placed in the temple in Jerusalem, how can we tell whether that was an expression of ego - or of Government policy (that all primary loyalty was to the state and its first citizen? Or maybe it was a direct borrowing/copying of the political language of the Selucids in the days of the Maccabees. I Gaius action in regard to the Jewish temple was ego-driven, was Pilate's design to put plaques of Tiberius' in the same place equally an expression of imperial ego? Did Tiberius know, in real time of what was proposed? And as the latter case preceeded Gaius' alleged action, I would suggest that the two might be linked (they were close in time) and are better described as examples of a single coherent policy, than as examples of ego. That is just one example but I have argued it in full detail to try to make my point. Neither do I think that in ancient times, anyone 9even principes) acted alone - they need (as rulers have done in all ages of history) ministers and councillors, governors and executives, secretaries and aides, to present them with options and carry out their decisions. I find it incredible that anyone can suggest than one man (however ego-driven) could rule the Roman empire as it was in C1AD alone or by his own "will". it is only historical novelists and popular histories - a schoolboy approach to history if you will, that believes that anything like that could have happened. Octavian needed his Agrippa and his Maecenas - there are definite indications in the sources that they influenced decisions and even carried out palace coups to change policy. (Read your Syme, who understood politics and government.) Tiberius needed Sejanus, as Augustus had needed Tiberius. We may not know of them, but Gaius almost certainly had his equivalents, and secretaries and ministers that presaged Pallas and Narcissus etc. Nero certainly did in Tigellinus and others (even allowing that Burrus and Seneca etc were creatures of his mother and supposed to be his puppeteers). Commodus had ministers such as Cleander, but as I have suggested elsewhere, I think Commodus remained a puppet. No, I reject the ego interpretation, wholly, because it is unsupportable and defies common sense. It assumes that politics ends, that no one else has ambition, no one else manoeuvres and plots, no one seeks influence or to serve with a desire to gain; or to oppose and seek to change. It assumes that a lad (as Gaius was at his accession, knows all the levers and sources of power, has graduated in politics to the point that he understands what to do. I do not believe that that was the case for a moment.) When I read the sources on Gaius and Nero, and try to imagine the reality, I find that the politcs is all there. One just has to draw aside the superficial curtain of personality and the attempt to pretend one man was doing everything, and see the context - the political world of (say) 38AD is there (Senate, people, guard, establishment, rivals, bureaucracy etc) functioning and practical. It has not gone away and did not - the princeps had to act within it - and his options, choices, decisions, would be shaped by what had gone before and the realities of the day - not (except in extreme circumstances and certainly not moment to moment) by enormous ego. I'm sure you'll want to come back at me - please do. I'm enjoying this. Phil

Finally, time to put this thread out of its misery. I shall be brief in dealing with the adoptive emperors and Commodus, so as not to bore you more than essential. Trajan may not have been born to the purple, but he was born to wear it. It is a shame we know so comparatively little about him except from visual sources. Perhaps the greatest of all emperors in his charisma, ability to attract loyalty, military ability, and skill as an administrator, he might rival Augustus if only we had the written sources. As it is, we have to interpret what he meant from his column, from inscriptions and from oblique angles. Yet this was a man for whom his fellow Romans broke all the rules, even taboos. Exceptionally, uniquely, the ashes of this "Optimus Princeps" were interred within the ancient walls of Rome - within his column. This was the emperor who extended the empire - almost the last great expansionist gasp of the old style. His generalship in the Dacian wars appears to have been excellent. But though he spent so much time at the wars, he yet was a civil ruler loved and inspiring devotion (without the softer aura of the philosopher which Aurelius bore). Was Trajan homosexual? Maybe, if such a distinction had meaning in Rome. But there is no hint, if so, of effeminacy or weakness - no hint of the melancholy or introspection, the restless unease of Hadrian. The slightly bland face that stares out of his portrait busts and the carvings on the column, with his almost monastic haircut, is a man - and he won laurels indeed. I like to think of him as the Roman Churchill - not the founder, but a man whom a whole people learned to love and esteem. Again, such a pity that we have not even the scurrilous gossip of a Suetonius (genius at bringing men to life, even if with tawdry innuendo) let alone the chronicles of Tacitus. With them, this non-pareil of rulers might ascend to his rightful place in the pantheon of Augusti, and cause us to reassess the whole middle phase of the early empire. In my judgement, for those born in the right place and level in society, few eras in history can have been so pleasant to live in as that between Trajan and the death of Aurelius. And Trajan introduced that era, as Augustus did the principiate. Hadrian - so much could be said about this (in some ways) most human of emperors. Trajan's loyal lieutenant (remember that when we come to discuss co-emperors) he yet seems to have had to gain the throne by subterfuge. Staring his reign by alientating the senate, he ended it sunk in a dreadful, mournful fog of illness and despair. A man capable of the deepest love, it was not for his life but for a boy - variously claimed to have been sacrificed; committed suicide, or been murdered by his lover and master. Yet this emperor was a new model - a restless traveller - an innovator, an activist, a reformer. Like no emperor before him, he went to see for himself, knew his empire, and his peoples. Was he a genius? the temple of Rome and Venus adjacent to the Flavian amphitheatre (so innovative in form and elegant in structure) might proclaim him such. But even that is excelled by the restored Pantheon. And what of the spreading villa at Tivoli - a scrapbook of imperial memories and keepsakes? But was genius simply a dilettante playing - did his jealousy kill his essential architect? As with Trajan we know so little, though with Hadrian somewhat more is hinted at. But what an amazing, romatic, tragic figure he might be, if we could but see him in the round. Antoninus Pius - bland, unknowable - yet his temple (not Hadrian's) sits by the Forum Romanum to record his memory and that of Faustina his wife. Whatever his deeds or achievements, his people gave him the epithet "Pius" which none of his predecessors gained, not even Augustus. His successor Aurelius has been the subject of many volumes - his graceful rule recorded by films and a vivid perfrmance by Alec Guiness (or later a frail Richard Harris!!). Stoic, general, benevolent dictator, it is sometimes forgotten that he used the dual rule - intoduced and road-tested by Augustus and Tiberius; Tiberius and Sejanus; Vespasian and Titus and perhaps Trajan and Hadrian, that would be a feature of future centuries. Lucius Verus appears an insipid caricature of his senior partner, but this was in retrospect and important partnership that does not win the recognition it deserves. But Aurelius failed, where Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Pius had scored - he bequeathed his throne not to the fittest but to his blood. In that he failed, and Rome suffered for generations to come. Commodus, I see as a direct "heir" to the imperial approach and style of Gaius, Nero and Domitian - showy, self-centred and unwise. Unlike the others, except Nero, I think he was a puppet. Agrippina Minor intended her son to be a puppet, but Nero successfully threw off his handlers. Commodus, dim-witted, physical, an athlete not a thinker - he was used as a tool by Cleander and others, finally to die pitifully in his cups at the hands of a wrestler. I have pity for Commodus when I see his bust as Hercules in the Capitoline Museum. It seems to exemplify him, preened, polished, tanned and fit. But it stares out blankly and without comprehension. It does not understand - and I have no sympathy for this muddled youth, who brought to an end the great historical drama of the early principiate and empire. What preceeded him was the stuff of epic and legend. What followed was bloodshed without purpose; internicine strife; civil war and short-lived adventurism. When stability was restored by Diocletian and Constantine, the imperial government was a beast transformed. Apollo had finally yeilded to Mars And thus my account draws to its close - not too soon you may say. If there is anyone who wants me to expand on this, or wants to attack my analysis - please do. I'd welcome the creative tension. But for now, that's it. My next thread will pobably seek to extend this discussion in a parallel way - by exploring Roman politics. Phil Phil

There are extremists in every religeon and cause and always have been. Don't give her the satisfaction of even listening to her or her friends, or talking about them. Their own words condemn them. If she argued that the sun revolved around the earth, we would dismiss her as a crank, as wrong, and outdated. She is all those things. But allowing her to be foolish, even at the risk of offending others, is the price of freedom of speech. Laugh at her - that is the way to deal with it. Phil

Isn't the "c" sounded rather more softly in modern Italian than in Latin? I thought Cesare (as in borgia was closer to Chesare, thn Kaisare? But I don't speak Italian... Phil

"The Caesars" has now been relased on dvd. Rome is soon to arrive. But does anyone else recall the lavish series "AD" made in Italy with a largely British cast in the 80s? It was written by Anthony Burgess and was, if I recall correctly, intended as a sequel to Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth (1977ish) with Robert Powell. There was a very authentic depiction of the Forum Romanum built, as it was at that time. Casting included (those I can remember) Anthony Andrews as Nero (a performance based on Prince Charles' voice and mannerisms!!); Ian Macshane as Sejanus; One of the McEnery's as Caligula (there were scenes of him on Capri talking to the moon goddess; and around the abortive invasion of Britannia. The plotline followed the apostles and in particular a Jewish family - one of whom became a gladiator. Another leading character was a Valerius, Praetorian centurion (so boring that the actor playing him called him Valium, as I recall!!). It was a series with many faults, but I remember it as also having some good features too. Has anyone else seen it or know whether it is available on dvd? if so, anyone seen it on sale in the UK? The other series I have not seen since its first run, was a lavish "Last Days of Pompeii", with olivier, Ernest Borgnine (I think) and Franco Nero in the cast. What happened to that? The reconstruction of parts of Pompeii, I remember as very authentic (for a movie). Phil