phil25

I finally got around to watching the rest of this dvd. On the whole, worth buying if you see it cheap, and for the production qualities. The Forum Romanum site is not quite right, especially the exterior of the Curia, but we get to see the rostra, which is properly used, the temples of Caesar, Vesta and Castor and Pollux (not in quite the right position) and the basilica Aemilia. The interior of the Curia reproduces the actual (later) floor and layout, even including the famous statue of Victory, but to me is to lavish and baroque to be right for the period in question. The exterior of Augustus's house, complete with laurel wreath, looks convincing. The domestic interiors are very believable. The plot, which as I said before is somewhat confused - many flashbacks (I don't know what a viewer with no historical background would make of it) - centres on Augustus' relationship with his daughter Julia, her involvement with Iullus Antonius and her banishment. it ends with Augustus' death. O'Toole has a few moments when he touches brilliance, but for the most part wanders through the film (as he does so often) looking aristocratic, pale, emaciated, ethereal, and corpselike all at once, and just letting his voice and screen presence do the work. Sometimes you cringe, sometimes you think why cannot he reach the heights more often. Charlotte Rampling is the best Livia I have seen - in terms of history (Sian Phillips' acting is incomparable in "I Claudius", but she was supposed to be a monster, not the real Livia). rampling suggests a calculating coldness, underwritten by deep affection for Augustus, and ambition for her son. She is creepy and dangerous, but believeable and less lethal than normal. We see Agrippa (good but not strong enough); and a very camp Maecenas, who has the right political insight, but disaappears in a way that is (to me) unhistorical. A wasted opportunity as much of the film is about plots and Maecenas could easily have been woven in. Antonius is alright - less starry, perhaps more historical than is often the case - but I'll be interested to hear what others think of this Cleopatra compared to the way she was depicted in HBO's ROME. We see this one in Rome with Caesar, and in Alexandria. Actium is a matte-shot of some ships and Antonius in the prow of a galley (alone) with a voice over - frankly dreadful. There is one land battle - Augustus serving under Caesar in Spain - which has had resources put into it, but doesn't work for me. I cannot make my mind up about the actor playing the younger Augustus/Octavian. All in all, an OK addition to the collection and I'm glad i have seen it, but I doubt I'll go back to it as much as I will to the mackie "The Caesars" from the 60s, which has also recently been released. (See separate thread). Augustus appears to have been made in North Africa, and to have a heavily european cast - much dubbing. As with many of these international co-productions, I have the impression that the designers and researchers do a fantastic job, but are let down by sub-standard/uninspired direction; poor acting and bland scripts. It is clear that the design has had a lot of effort put into it. pity that was not copied by other departments. Phil

Surely debate is exactly that - listening and seeking to understand the views of others by questioning, challenging, reflecting back...? I don't know why you should suggest that I lack an open mind. Anyone is free to challenge or question anything I say - that's when a site like this comes alive. As for history, I am of the firm belief that there is no one final answer to anything - views and perceptions change with time. Any historical interpretation is only as good as the evidence and argument that supports it. That is what i am seeking to explore in this dialogue. If you have read any of my other threads on this board you'll also find that most are based on questioning orthodoxy and keeping an open mind. And why do you call me "sir" - is it meant to be ironic? Phil will do, thanks. Returning to the topic at hand, sure imperial iconography was not "truthful" see the eternally youthful image of Augustus. But it did seek to promote a clear image across the empire. So Hadrian being depicted with a beard was probably reflecting that he was, physically different from his predecessors, but also promoting the fact that that was how he wished to be thought of consistently. I don't think we need discuss whether men occasionally went unshaven for a few days - I doubt anyone ever had the sort of close shave we can attain now, anyway. Trajan may have had permanent five o'clock shadow for all I know. I don't see that as relevant to his imagery, which is consistently clean shaven. Octavian, I think, had some coins done showing him unshaven as a sign of mourning - THAT, is a case of where something real may have affected the iconography. A point was being made. But (in my humble opinion) we cannot base arguments on what "might" have been. Phil

Time I moved to complete this review of the empire down to Commodus. The only reason I haven't is that the thread has become a dialogue with myself!! That's never a good thing. Sorry if this has bored others. A quick run through the Year of four emperors and the Flavians to nerva, then a last fling on the Adoptive Emperors to follow. I don't have much to say on either. Of the four candidates that emerged in 69, only two strike me as remotely realistic. Galba and Vespasian, both soldiers. Galba is an interesting comparison with the later Pertinax - both failed and died because they were too conservative, too old-fashioned and too strict and severe. Galba - thegeneral - might have made a good transitional emperor to a different kind of monarchy/constitution, but did not last long. Vitellius and Otho I cannot take seriously as candidates. Otho, I think, was just an opportunist. Vitellius unfortunate at being tempted. But they do provoke some questions and comment for me: * did Otho watch Gaius and Nero and draw the wrong lessons? He saw their extroversion, their panache, even charisma, but failed to perceive the ruthlessness which lay under the luxury. * both Gaius and Nero were in direct descent (to some extent) from Augustus - albeit in the female line - but they WERE Julio-Claudians. Otho and Vitellius had no such connection and were rejected. This perhaps explains why, even if misunderstood, Gaius and Nero had been able to rule effectively until overthrown. The hereditary principiate thus might be seen to have considerable popular, if not senatorial support. * the senate, unlike after Gaius, made no serious attempt to try to change the constitution - even a half-hearted one!! This perhaps shows that time, and maybe the executions after the Piso conspiracy, had sapped will and inclination in the curia. * neither Otho nor Vitellius stood a chance against the legionary candidates. Neither really possessed the will to maintain the position. Vespasian is a wonder - I am no expert on Constantine, but I see resemblances - men of a practical nature, up for the job and willing to look at quite radical solutions to restore the constitution in a workable form. I'd like to do more work on the extent of Titus' importance while his father lived. I think the two worked as a team, and were effective, but that Titus' role was crucial. As i say, this is just a hunch at presewnt and i need to do more research. As Tacitus said, the year 69 showed that power lay with the legions - and no emperor could henceforth be safe or secure unless he ensured their loyalty by means of huge cash bonuses. After this point, many of the successful emperors would indeed spend much of their time with the legions or be military men - Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Verus, pertinax, Severus, Caracalla...and then we are soon into the admittedly "military" emperors. I think also though that Vespasian is the first man who can properly be called "Emperor". The term or saultation of "Imperator" had, of course, been used by previous rulers and Augustus had early in his career taken it into his name. But I think the sequence of men from Augustus to Nero should properly be titled the principiate - in that their power and the origin of it - was usually concealed under republican forms. I think also that the republic itself survived largely intact (though with major constitutional changes) until the middle of the reign of Tiberius. I might even go further and say that while there was any chance that the Julio-Claudians might die out or surrender power (as I believe Tiberius hoped to do) then some form of republic was in being. Gaius and Nero changed that because they made it clear that the gap between respecting republican forms and absolute autocracy was small and fragile. their experiments failed, but they prepared the way for - and perhaps showed the inevitability of - the rulers who grasped the sceptre on the shoulders of their legions. Gaius and Nero (or their advisers) grasped the fact that senatorial rule, the annually/monthly changing magistrates; the revolving governors etc, would not provide the essential consistency that the empire required. Central and consistent guidance was what was needed. Gaius was the first to experiment with that openly. Vespasian revealed the truth that that rule (as it has for Augustus) rested on effective weilding of the sword. Vespasian marked a reduction in the naked display of his autocracy by demolishing much of nero's grand palace and restoring the centre of the imperial capital to the people - the great amphitheatre which bore his name was an ostentatious demonstration of his recognition that "bread and circuses" was the second leg of the imperial stool - th third was ability. It is regrettable that Titus did not live longer - his actions and reputation suggest a Trajan (optimus princeps) in embryo, and one wonders how much Trajan may have based his approach on that of his predecessor? With Domitian, I see a new and important development. He is part of an approach trail-blazed less successfully by Gaius and Nero. They ultimately failed in their imposition of an absolute, Hellenistic monarchy. Domitian did not. But to some extent, while shrewdly recognising the political realities, Gaius and Nero had "played" their roles - the externals (and often trivial externals) were as important to them as the power-brokering and decision-making. Domitian, as i see it, did not make that mistake. His undeniable and awe-inspiring externalities were always firmly harnessed to the realities of absolute power. He wished to be called "Lord and God" (something none of his predecessors had claimed); his palace on the Palatine was surely a deliberate and unmistakeable signal that power had shifted from the Forum and the Curia (which the new palace dominated). The likely vestibule of the public areas, behind the Temple of Castor, almost confronts the entrance to the Curia Julia. Domitian would surely have loved the later Byzantine tricks of the throne that elevated the emperor in his golden robes above his court. But, for his time, the Aula Regia of the palace with its apse for the throne; the basilica for hearing cases, etc, and the monumentality of the whole thing, would have to do. I am sure that Rome in its day must have been agog. Even the Golden House (essentially a residence and pleasure palace) had not implied what Domitian's new edifice did. This was more a "White House" - a centre of government and power that included a residence. Domitian was not, strictly, born to the purple. But he did have time under his father and brother to think what he might do and prepare himself. Thus, I think he probably succeeded to the throne with a manifesto planned. His failure was largely due to his own deep failings of character and judgement rather than of politics. I see Domitian as the first TRUE emperor - the model for what was to come, not immediately, but before too long. he marked the way. I wonder, in leaving Domitian, whether his experiences in Rome during the chaos between Nero's fall and Vespasian's success, were a very deep and significant influence on him. One could see in them the origins of insecurity, paranoia, contempt for the mob, a belief in a firm hand... augmenting and further wrecking an already damaged personality. I see him as a man with a good intellect and political instinct, which were warped and limited by personality defects. Finally for now, Nerva is chiefly remembered for the things that bear his name or image (Forum Transitorium; equestrian statue now in Naples Museum, Chancellaria reliefs) rather than for anything he was able to do in a brief reign. Almost certainly chosen as a stop-gap, and that is another sign that the republic was now extinct, his main achievement was to prepare the way for the glory that was Trajan. Of whom, more anon. Phil

But the change appears to have represented not "fashion" per se (ie a movement among an influential section of the population) but from Hadrian's purely personal decision. Trajan was clean shaven (as are his officers on the column); Hadrian was hirsute. Antoninus Pius had a beard a little longer than Hadrian's but which still followed the chin pretty closely. Aurelius had an appreciably longer beard, which his co-emperor, Lucius Verus was positively luxuriant!! It always seems to me that while Commodus aped his father, Septimius Severus looked to Verus as a model. I have photographs of busts of Caracalla with and without beards, but when unshaven, he seems to have been Hadrianic, lacking his father's distinctive ringlets. So my interpretation is that it was Hadrian who changed things. he may have been influenced by his love of Greece and the east, but his beard is hardly a "philosopher's" version. You may be right about the wider influences of empire and a more cosmopolitan attitude among society by Hadrian's time - perhaps he was the catalyst - but I still find the transition a comparatively sudden one. Phil

He's not a bad actor. He played Feisal (the Alec Guiness role from the David Lean Lawrence film) in a TV movie about TE Lawrence at the Versailles Peace Conference (1919 onwards). Ralph Fiennes was Lawrence. Phil

I'll put in a word for monarchy - in the UK, for instance, it has provided a reasonably flexible institution (at least as flexible as, if not more so than an elected head of state) in ensuring continuity and acceptance of fairly radical change in society in a short period. The German monarchies expressed the will of those nations at the time. Was the kaiser that much more bellicose than his chum, Theodore Roosevelt? Italy was able to unite under a monarchy in the C19th. And I'd just point out that future generations may be as critical of inefficient democracy, as some today are of monarchy. few republics in history have actually been remotely free - most (as in Rome) were feudal oligarchies. Today, given modern communications and the size of populations, democracy is a myth - and is leading to nations becoming ungovernable - viz US, France and maybe the UK. I could go on. Phil

There was NO gap at all between Trajan - the last of the beardless emperors, and Hadrian, the first to wear a beard (albeit a short one). I don't understand the point you are making. Sure Augustus was 100 years before Hadrian - but he had successors. I see no "period between"!! Phil

I always think of the german title Kaiser (ie Wilhelm II) when I see the word "Caesar" - I also think that makes the link between ancient name and modern title so much better. Interesting and informative posts guys - I was rotten in latin at school!!! Failed my "O" level badly. Now wish I could have the opportunity again. I have taught muself to read inscriptions somewhat, but couldn't translate Caesar to save my life. Sad isn't it? Phil

Caldrail, let me get this right. You explain all this as wholly about self-expression, with no "policy" element at all? That is the actions, appearance adopted was not intended to make a point, but was solely to satisfy personal whim? Phil

... it may relate to the ancient Roman days, when in times of war, a Roman Emperor might retain his beard... To which phat period of "ancient Roman days" precisely, do you refer, and what is your source for this statement? Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Vespasian, Titus, and Trajan were all emperors who spent time with the legions and are consistently shown as clean-shaven on their statuary and coinage - except for occasional periods of mourning (something different). Hadrian was the first facially hirsute emperor, but as I understand it for cosmetic reasons, not that you infer. The Antonine and Septimus Severus (including Lucius Verus) all seem to have copied their predecessor. I am at a loss. Phil

I was afraid it was just nostalgia that made me rate this series so highly in my earlier post. You reassure me, Pertinax, that my instincts weren't wrong. I do seriously URGE all younger posters here, even if you LOATHE B&W films, to try to see this series. Inevitably history is truncated and dramatised, but I don't think you'll ever see anything that will make you THINK so much about the period it covers. The later "I CLAVDIVS" had rather buried my memories of this series (I was about 16/17 when I saw it first, an adult when I saw Claudius. But certain performances outshine anything in the later series (in my humble view) - particular Andre Morell (Tiberius) - like Pertinax i could wax lyrical for ages about the "truth2 of this performance. Morell understood the man and made him a breathing whole - notwithstanding the unlikeableness of the character. Barrie Ingham's Sejanus is less flashy than Patrick Stewart's interpretation, but the former is the one I have always carried in my mind's eye - and his end is superbly real (politically) and understated. Freddie Jones' Claudius won awards at the time, as I recall, and is every bit as good as Jacobi in less time. Perhaps even better as a psychological portrait - though I wouldn't die for the statement. Ralph Bates' Caligula is unshowy and believable as a monster and looks like some of the busts. Frightening too. His murder lived in my mind all those years. Can two of us be wrong? If you haven't thought about acquiring this set - please do. That way they might be encouraged to bring out other old series of equal quality. For instance, again early 60s - the BBC did a series called "Spread of the Eagle" with Shakespeare's Coriolanus, Julius Caesar and Antony and Cleo done as a connected trilogy on one set. Robert hardy was Coriolanus; David William octavian, Keith Michell (later Henry VIII) as Antony, I think. It was a follow-up to the "Age of Kings" the wonderful series of the History Plays from Richard II-Richard III. I'm sure there would still be interest in the Roman version. Phil

When did Rome fall? Surely before we can answer the question we need to know what period we are discussing - long or short? early or late? As the prologue to the film "Fall of the Roman Empire" suggests, Rome's fall took as long as her rise!! The Army certainly played a major part in the transformation (fall?) of the republic - through generals (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompeius, Octavian, Antonius...) using their armies for political ends; but also through the problems of finding land to settle veterans. Much later (c 380sAD), provinces like Britannia were given problems by the withdrawal of legions on adventures by governors such as Magnus maximus. But the army changed - over time it became less and less a citizen army of farmers with a stake in society; and more and more a professional force seeking citizenship as a reward. Equipment and tactics surely represented a response to a changing world, emerging technology, different enemies, and a changed strategic and tactical requirement. In Europe today (also the US with recent protests over "illgeal immigration"?) we see workers from poorer countries who initially demand less being brought in to do jobs that native Brits, French people, Germans won't do, or where there is a manpower shortage. Is this an indication that the "west" is "falling" or simply a response to economic pressures and challenges that has to be met and may have unforeseen consequences downstream? In essence, I don't see the army as much as a cause of Rome's fall as a symptom. If it was a contributing factor, then surely it was not the army itself, so much as it's generals and leaders who misused it; and allowed discipline and conditions to deteriorate to an extent that soldiers could make emperors and mutiny to get their way. This, to me, smells more like a loss of political will and direction; and an erosion of morale, both at the top - civilian and military leaders - and in society generally. Where was rome going once it stopped expanding? What were it's priorities? Did bread and circuses attract attention from defence and energetic maintenance of the frontiers; was morale sapped by easy living? All questions, I'm afraid, but I am trying to drill down below the surface. Phil

I hadn't realised (until your link, for which many thanks) that philip mackie was responsible for two other historical series that I covet!! Neither were successes - but "The Cleopatras" covered a little known period and would be an excellent dvd link between Stone and Farrell's recent "Alexander" and the various treatments of Cleopatra. I recall the enormous actor from Harry Potter and "Pie in the Sky", Richard griffiths, and Robert Hardy as Caesar. It had, if memory serves, a slightly surreal set - all pillars and gauze, but a shrewd political intelligence. I'd love to see and own it on dvd. Napoleon in Love had Ian Holm (LOTR Bilbo) and Billie Whitelaw as Napoleon and his "not tonight" lover, Josephine. The series had superb production values, sets and costumes, and was a great visual feast, even if panned by the critics and laughed at by many. probably deservedly in the latter case - a friend still remembers the David "Napoleon crossing the Alps" reproduced with Ian Holm's features. But it was lavish. They have re-done "Fall of Eagles" so let's hope these two will follow sometme!! Thank Perty, Phil

Skarr - that's very interesting, and sounds likely. What is your source? Phil

Glad you like it, Pertinax. I'm also pleased that I am not alone in thinking Andre Morel's performance superb. And i agree, the black and white pictures, the subdued performances and the very "realistic" feel of the politics, make this almost like watching documentary footage of say the 1930s. You are there!!! Hope you enjoy the rest as much. And that what both of us have said will encourage others to buy this series. Phil

I think you will find that the family of Livius' son Drusus ( the elder) - including Germanicus, Gaius, and (I think) Claudius, are all depicted with hair growing far down the neck - Gaius was reputed to be as hairy as a goat - perhaps that was one way of representing that characteristic in marble. Augustus and his grandsons Gaius and Lucius are separated and distinguished by the way the curls of hair are gathered on their foreheads. Tiberius is always identifiable by a benign but rather bland physionnomy - complacent is the way I would describe his expression. You know, of course, that there are no statues of Augustus as an old man? Togate statues with the head covered show Augustus as pontifex maximus. Barefoot (as in the Prima Porta statue) as divine. Have you looked at the Meroe head (British Museum)? There is an old catalogue of an exhibition from the 70s called "The Image of Augustus" (a BM publication) that a good university library ought to be able to obtain. Look at the Ara Pacis reliefs for the entire imperial family. Also the reliefs of many of the family from the Sebasteon in Aphrodisias (Turkey). There is a bronze head of Claudius from Colchester (UK) - compare that to say the colossal statue of him as Iove in the Vatican. If you haven't checked out the following link, do: http://www.indiana.edu/~leach/c414/juliclau.html Good luck Phil

And that's partly why Rome fell, princeps!! (Just to add unnecessary relevance to the thread!!) Maybe we have met aliens and didn't realise it. What if Socrates or Aristotle had been aliens - at least from another time and place? Or Brunel, of Jesus? What if at least some of the UFO sightings are true - we are watched but they do not mingle? I once read an SF story in which earth had been cordoned off because we had once made it into space and proved tyrants and warlike. Now we are shunned and isolated. Phil

How much do I get for writing your essay for you? How much do you know about Caesar? Advance some ideas of your own and i'll certainly comment on them, but there's no evidence that you have done any work on this yourself yet. So what will you get out of it? Where is the learning for you? Look at it this way, I could spin you a load of rubbish and how would you know? Phil

Augustus had villas on capri but the VI is always associated most closely with Tiberius - i assume he did work on it once it became his principle residence. One of my guide books suggests that that is the case. I cannot find the more detailed one at the moment. Phil

Except FC that in the cases I cite it was only the three (to use the term slightly loosely) "porphyrogenitic" pricipes/emperors who seem to have gone in for this. Domitian - despite an evident strain of megalomania - did not, neither did Titus. Maybe i am wrong and it was just a macho/fashion thing. But I cannot help thinking that it was the symbolism they pushed (note the famous Herculean bust of Commodus, which I always love to look at when in Rome); and the colossus. I just wonder whether there were chords that struck in Rome that went deeper than we realise. Phil

Just off hand, I don't think one should look only at the City of Rome - Aphrodisias, in modern Turkey, for instance, had a wonderful Sebasteon, dedicated to the Julio-Claudians. The temple of the deified Claudius, although work was held up after the fall of Agrippina, was (as I recall) innovative. Gaius developed the Circus Vaticanus on his own inherited trans-Tibertine property, and that was still going, in essence long afterwards. He appears also to have constructed a "palace" behind the temple of Castor (just off the Forum Romanum) - later over-built by Domitian. We simply don't know whether further work by him on the Palatine is concealed under the Farnese Gardens. Claudius had a triumphal arch, of course, parts of which recording his acceptance of homage from British kings is now in Museo Capitolino. Outside Rome - are you aware of Tiberius' Villa Iovis on Capi - constructed over vast water cisterns - it a wonderful use of location and style. Were there not caves decorated with statuary at Sperlongi too, the roof of which collapsed and nearly killed the princeps? I'm not sure at which point, but I also seem to recall that Tiberius' paid for a restoration of the temple of Castor in the Forum Romanaum. And what about the prima Porta statue of Augustus? Probably posthumus given the bare feet. Just some thoughts off the top of my head, I'll see what else I can think of. Phil

Could it just be fashion? the mode changed, but is otherwise lost to the historical record? In the early empire beards were largely absent - though Nero seems to have adopted one for a while? then under the Antonines they are in fashion - do I recall reading that Hadrian wore one because of acne or facial scars or something - then others copied him? Another possibility. Was not Christ depicted as clean-shaven in early images, and then at a particular point the bearded image comes in? In think Ian Wilson may link this to the emergence of the image called the Mandylion. Could the change have been a response to a changed fashion in portraying Jesus, and Emperors wished to emulated him? I am no Byzantinist, so this is just a suggestion. Phil

A NAVAL battle might be possible quite easily with CGI. But I think their style is now established - battles are suggested rather than shown. Given Octavian's tendency to be absent from battlefields, I suppose they might use that as the excuse - and show things through his eyes. Incidentally, I'll be interested to see who they have to play Agrippa and Maecenas. I don't think we saw either before did we? I wonder two whether the same lad will continue to play Octavian? He was good as the young Octavian, but could be a little immature (physically and emotionally) for a performance to work as the man grows older. Phil

Good post Caldrail, thank you. We differ but I respect your view. Two points: I wonder what a "moral" man in 180AD would have meant? Marcus Aurelius was a stoic, of course.But appears to have been exceptional. I see Tiberius as being highly "moral" (in a way), in his own mind and for his time - but he was not seen as such in his own day. He maintained high standards for himself and others, followed duty and refused to be seduced by rank. Marcus Aurelius was osentatiiously "moral" as his "meditiations" show. But was that known in his own day? And as an Emperor did he live what he believed - after all he blithely bequeathed Rome Commodus? Ancient sources talk of Commodus being the son of a gladiator and thus his "real" self was coming out in his displays. I don't believe the allegation - it's just ancient historians explaining the otherwise inexplicable and working backwards. Second point: bu advisers, I certainly don't mean "cronies". That implies buddies who occasionally suggest things. I am referring to the serious men of politics, the men who are the continuity of any political system, going on when rulers change. In Roman terms they are the various secretaries - freedmen mainly - we know of Narcissus and his ilk best perhaps from Claudius' day. They are the ones who keep City, state and empire running; who propose policy and provide the rationale for decisions. We know they would have had "image" very much in mind. I continue to believe that the "golden house" and the sun-god colossus with Nero's features were simply whim or casual self-expression. The investment in them of time and money; their scale and their impact all suggest the projection of something very strong and powerful in terms of message. There must also in my mind be a direct link between Domitian's Palatine palace complex and the golden house (which Domitian must have known). At one level it is a political convenience - government business had moved from the Forum and Curia - but it is also a statement of princeps/emperor as separate and maybe Olympian/divine. Yet if Nero was saying this his public performance art seems to me to have been a wholly opposite and detracting action. On a wider point, I suppose we have to accept that the allegations are true and not exaggerations or misunderstood re-tellings of conntemporary political invective? It appears now, and is increasingly accepted that Suetonius' tales of debauchery on Capri are unfounded, and that Tiberius was not the pervert once thought. In the late republic everyone seems to have hurled insults around - calling their rivals names and accusing them of being homosexual etc. Could the allegation of PUBLIC performance be of that ilk? Gaius, Nero and Commodus may thus have enjoyed their pastimes, but in private. Others sought to demean them and undermine their authority by creating deliberate scandal, which then became recorded as fact? I don't really believe this - it seems Nero performed at the Olympics, I have seen the house probably constructed for him there. But could there be an element of this involved? Just a thought that had hit me. Phil

I seem to recall that at least one of the sons of Pompey had a role in the first series - maybe that was ready for series 2? I think I largely agree with your point on Lepidus. Given Antony's satyrlike character in series 1 and the very sexually liberated Cleo, I wonder whether we will have "older man under sway of younger siren"?? So Antony will be led by the nose to his doom. Given the series liked to show sex as a motive (Servilia gaining revenge on Caesar for his rejection of her was in a way the KEY theme of series 1); maybe Antony will be led willingly to his doom, destroyed by his libido!!! Phil