phil25

The new book to which I referred above is actually: "The Sons of Caesar" by Philip Matyszak. Thames and Hudson

I do see where you are coming from Caldrail, thanks for taking the time to respond so fully and in such a well-argued way. It probably won't come as a surprise to you that i remain unconvinced. It's not that I underestimate the importance of personality in ancient government and politics, but I think it can be over-estimated too. Caligula was odd in the way that royalty can sometimes be, but I don't see the "psychopath" in him that you do. Most ancient rulers had people killed, on what we would think of as a "whim" - but it probably wasn't in the ancient mind. And i feel that one has to take into account such ideas a advisers, party (even under the principiate it is clear that there were parties or factions to think about), public opinion (at least in the City itself) etc. I don't think we can just dismiss actions as an emperor wishing to express himself - even if the ancient authors sometimes do - without having first examined whether there was a strategy or deeper intent behind it. I don't for a moment say you are wrong. I just feel that in a time when symbolismand display were differently understood than they are now, then there may be a common element to the intent of these young rulers. Phil

The timeframe of the last series was slightly odd - some years were almost skipped - I think there was a jump after the birth of Caesarion; while others seemed to be covered in minute detail. So, starting from the murder of Caesar, what obvious end points suggest themselves? Octavian's rise to consul, covering the civil war with Antony, Mutina etc - allows plenty of free reign to Fulvia. Cicero and others can plot and counter-plot. But not enough there for a full series, and it leaves the "liberators" at a loose end. Lots for servilia to get involved in here. So extend it to Phillipi - still not enough in my view for a full series - the battle and the deaths of Cassius and Brutus might come at about the same point in series II though that Pharsalus came in series I. There is good political/character/sexual material in the Octavian/Livia relationship. We extend further - to the formation of the second triumvirate and the proscriptions - including the death of Cicero. Another nice rounding off for a character (rather like M P Cato in series I) but not a conclusion. What follows - Antony going east, Cleopatra coming to meet him in her gilded barge (good opportunity for a visual feast). I assume they'll play 'Tony and Cleo as a political as well as a passionate relationship - perhaps cynical on both sides (as with Caesar and Cleo earlier). All this could be salted with the Sextus Pompeius piracy story. The growing tension between Antony and Octavian, getting rid of Lepidus, the meeting at Brundusium and the marriage to Octavia - break with Cleo would be good drama, and Octavia was established as a strong character in series I, so they are surely bound to follow her "arc". I think that, thereafter there are only 2 end points that strike me as logical - just before the breach with Octavian/sending Octavia home (very emotional); or after Actium with the suicides of Antony and Cleopatra. That would allow this series to be the story of Octavian's rise to power. On the other hand, if the series ended just before Actium, there is not enough of the story of Antony and Cleopatra left to make a full series if a third is envisaged. So on balance, I feel this series will end with the triumph (not literally) of Octavian and his assumption of the title Augustus. A third series could then replicate "I Claudius" or the old 60s series "The Caesars". Of course, another consideration must be how the two old soldiers, Pullo and Vorenus will act out their stories. As they are largely fiction it is difficult to say what might happen, but between Mutina, Phillipi and choosing Antony of Octavian, as well as love affairs etc there is plenty of scope. As Pullo is, in story terms, suggested as the real father of caesarion - will we see him in the Antonius/Cleopatra camp? And does that mean, to add conflict and tension, that vorenus, now a Senator will follow Octavian? I can't wait to find out!! There are just my musings. I'd be fascinated to hear what others think might happen. or what choices the scriptwriters might make. Phil

I went for the principiate - but actually the late republic is almost inseparable from it. One cannot underastand the former without the latter. An interesting poll. I may shed quite a bit of light on this site and its users. Phil

In Pompeii, just inside the main entrance to the building of Eumachia, there is a huge jar used as a public urinal (the building may have been the fullers' hall). Containers for urine were also found close to fullers' shops throughout the town. I don't know about more solid waste - but it would not surprise me if those not blessed with an inside toilet were served by some sort of collection facilities. Town and country were closely connected remeber with fields never further than a few hundred yards away. Phil

I can see where you are coming from, Caldrail, although I don't think the emprors in question can be dismissed simply as psychopaths, but the explanation doesn't convince me. All the ancient sources agree that the roles adopted - charioteer, gladiator, dancer/singer - were those most designed to SHOCK the public and DEGRADE the individual concerned. Sure politicians, then and now, aimed to attract attention. Whether Tony Blair is driven by "ego" and a desire to be adored, I don't know. But I am certain that were he to have revealed himself as a porno-film director; a drug peddler, a graffiti-artist, or an ex-member of the National Front (old racist party in UK); it would have gained him EXACTLY the wrong sort of publicity. It would not have made him adored. OK - in the modern world sportsmen (including wrestlers and boxers); racing car drivers and film stars are much admired and emulated. But that wasn't the case in C1st Rome. The parallels were of the sort that I have mentioned. Rome was highly class ridden, all three emperors were born aristocrats, and while the things they did and the way they dressed might have appealed (shall we say) to the working classes, it would, and did, alienate the people he had to work with day in, day out. There is certainly no reason to assume that any of the three regarded themselves as other than aristocrats, or wished to live like the poor - so why aim to SHOCK? Tony Blair may be guilty of many things, but I don't think deliberately, of that, in that way. The first was ego. The way to show a Roman was masculine was surely through military glory - Claudius followed that route. Gaius spent time with the army and almost embarked on an invasion - so why take another route? "Of course, Caligula thought he was better than everyone else..." Did he? Where does that view originate? I'm also not sure that the explanation works in ROMAN terms. Would any of the roles he adopted have made him widely perceived as "better" than others? "...it comes as no suprise that he decided to prance about in front of the public.." Perhaps not if you regard him as mad, bad and dangerous to know, but that isn't the only explanation - or the best - of his behaviour. Dramatic gestures - the business with the bridge in the bay of Naples - is one thing? Prancing about... I dunno. . Poor old Caligula. He just wanted to be loved, but he just couldn't handle it when he was. "Nero on the other hand was a born celebrity. He really was. Although his talent for music and theater wasn't exceptional, he wasn't going to let that get in the way of achieving applause from his adoring audience." If he had performed in private (as with Gaius and his chariot-racing) probably no one would have minded. But Nero went further it seems - no athlete, appearing at Olympia. Surely some statement beyond the personal is being made here? "Didius Julianus is a little different. He pretended to be a gladiator when he was consul - why? - to prop up his image and political support. I don't think he made a good impression though. Didius comes across as someone who just didn't shine." (Are you making the exception that proves your rule here, or undermining your own argument? If it didn't work for DJ, did it for the others? I'd say it didn't in lthe ong or short term. So why did THREE emperors - all young, and born to the purple, and ONLY THY, pursue that path, when, as you agree, it did not work for a fourth trier?) "Commodus wanted to display manhood - his virility. He wanted to be admired for his prowess in the arena, to take a share of the adulation that successful gladiators attracted." But he had apparently to fix fights, and he did not gain respect!! Roman emperors had advisers as modern politicians do. So was - Commodus is a possible exception in being a potentially "puppet" emperor - the last of the Antonines simply indulging his off-beat tastes to keep him busy whilst others governed? It seems to me that attendning the senate in Hercules' lionskin would be like the Queen opening Parliment in a cheer-leader's dress and waving pompons. Unless that is a statement was being made. If Elizabeth II attended Parliament in military fatigues and carrying an Uzi, maybe she would be marking a change in the nature of her rule and government. Was Commodus making a similar statement about a change of direction to even more absolute absolutism? A new beginning to add to changes in calendar and the name of Rome itself? I don't mean to throw out your suggestion, Caldrail, but I just think we are not 9and i include myself, digging deep enough or being subtle enough. Thank for the interesting and stimulating reply, Phil

I'm sorry if my comment came across more harshly than I'd intended, Germanicus. I suppose i was hoping that at least one poster here would have taken up a discussion on the wider picture - perhaps have picked up my drift without my having to spell it out. Apologies, the remark wasn't aimed at any individual - but I won't change it now, as to do so would render your remark contextless. Phil

Somewhere between

In my thread on taking a new look at Roman history, I posed a question that fascinates me, and on which i would welcome views and advice. It seems to have got lost in the other thread, so I thought I'd pose it as a separate question here? Some of those who have no interest in my wider ramblings, might be interested in this!! In the other thread I wrote: There is something interesting which I do not understand (and others might be able to throw some light on) but which I think is more important than has been discussed before. That is that all the "autocratic" emperors (except Domitian) - Gaius, Nero and Commodus - made a big thing about dressing in ways that scandalised conservative opinion, and about "performing" in public. Gaius drove chariots in public; Nero acted and sang as well as competing in sports; Commodus dressed as a gladiator and fought in the arena. All three were men "born to rule", and other emperors who largely were not, did not apparently indulge themselves in this way. I think there may be a statement of some sort being made by these performances which we are failing to understand, perhaps because we have lost the cultural references. One might add that all three men came to the throne when comparatively young; all almost flaunted this aspiration to "perform" and dress differently (and in a manner related to lowly, unsuitable and even usually-despised professions) even on public occasions - Commodus is said to have wished to open the Senate dressed as Hercules, isn't he? I'd be fascinated to hear views - I have no explanation at this stage, though I am working on it. Phil [Edited to correct spelling in title.]

I have been asked to pick the key points of what I am trying to say in this thread.... I'm not sure about that. I am happy to give of my light... should I give of my oil? In my experience things that come to easily or are not worked for, are under-valued. And I don't think that my points have been very obscure or unclear. But for those not willing to put any intellectual effort into reading the thread... My main point is that we lose the snse of Roman history when we look at it as a series of episodes and personalities (laced with scandal); and that: * there are continuities of policy and theme through a period of several decades; * I believe one can detect hints of an "Antonian" (maybe Ptolemaic) imperial policy through the whole period down to Nero which was transmitted down his blood line - (Julius Caesar?) - Antonius (& Cleopatra) - Antonia Augusta - Germanicus - Gaius - Agrippina Minor - Nero; * and that this policy (world view) was Hellentic/eastern and different to and in conflict with "Augustan" imperial policy; * that the Hellenistic principes - Gaius and nero need to be reassessed and that, whatever their personal failings, much of what is sometimes dismissed as "madness" was actually coherent and consistent policy. I have also sought to draw attention to a pattern that I have pondered on, of each princeps having both an heir and a helper (which emerges strongly in the early period) begore Claudius institutionalises the role of freedmen in an imperial bureaucracy. Finally, I have tried to start a discussion as to whether the republic should, as usually stated, be thought of as ending with one or the other of Augustus' constitutional settlements after actium; or whether the republic should be perceived to have continued (at least in a modified form) until later - the full monarchy of Gaius? or even as later as the failure to pursue a republican alternative in 69? My approach to history is always to challenge conventional wisdoms and traditional interpretations (though I love those for their old familiar sakes as much as anyone). I am not so arrogant as to believe that my propositions in this thread are an alternative to academic views, but I do think there is merit in free and hard discussion - and that is what I have tried to promote. Interestingly - ideas seem to have their moment - I saw yesterday in a local Waterston's bookshop - that the author of "Enemy of Rome" has now published a study of the early Julio-Claudians. I don't know what his thesis is but he too seems to be saying, at least, that we should re-assess some of gaius' actions and his reputation!! Over to you. On a separate point, I was asked about what Ii meant by my references to "line" and "blood". (Interestingly, the book I refer to above seems to try to express something similar in tabular form.) My (and I stress the word "my" - I have not read the new book) intent was to try to make a distinction between Augustus' attempts to keep the succession/ position of First Man in Rome, within his own broad family (call them the Julio Claudians if you will and include Livia's sons); and his pre-occupation with, if possible, ensuring that his own genetic line (blood) would ascend to the throne, even after a generational gap. Hence we see Augustus seeming to prefer Marcellus (husband of his daughter Julia) to Agrippa - as their children would have been of Augustus' blood. When Marcellus died young, Julia married Agrippa (there may have been a hidden coup behind this) as their children would inherit (again restoring Augustus' bloodline after a generation). Their children - Gaius and lLucius were adopted and favoured by Augustus and were his blood - but died young. Their sibling, Posthumus Agrippa (considered unsuitable for some reason and exiled), remained a problem specifically because of his blood descent. Agrippina Major (Julia's daughter), and her children by Germanicus, and granchildren such as Nero, then become central. All in my estimation, Augustus bloodline. His "line" by adoption etc, I would say covers Tiberius, Germanicus, Claudius etc - who had either a "step" relationship to him (through Livia) or an indirect bloodlink through his sister Octavia. Does that make things clearer? Note, I make no absolute claims - this is all for discussion. Phil

PART THREE Claudius no doubt needed military credentials to support his rule, but there was also an army on the Rhine that was restless and needed knocking into shape. Equally, the problems in Britannia, which Gaius had intended to tackle before the mutiny, remained outstanding business. Claudius determined to tackle both. Once again, the army threatened to mutiny on the eve of embarkation. This time the problem was overcome, and a Roman army again campaigned in Britainnia. But it was not an invasion - as archaeological evidence suggests, the landing took place not at Richborough in Kent, but around Chichester and Fishbourne, in Hampshire, where Cogidubnus was to rule in amazing state (viz his villa). Rome was invited in by a client king. The future emperor (I chose my terminology carefully), Vespasian, faced some opposition in the South West, but an occupation - or military zone - was soon established along the line of the future Fosse Way (one end of which was my home town!!). Claudius, travelling personally to Britannia, accepted personal hiomage from client kings who had long paid tribute to Rome, in the fomer stronghold of the catuvellauni at Colchester. Caratacus, heir of Cunobellius and leader of the anti-Roman/exapansionist Catuvallauni, maintained a resistance for some years. But in Rome, claudius' regime appeared to hark back (in policy terms) to the imperial approach of Augustus and Tiberius (whom Claudius knew well and had grown up under their rule). However, Claudius relied more heavily than hitherto (perhaps an inheritance from Gaius) on freedmen for day-to-day administration. We do not hear of such a prominent role for freedmen as narcissus etc undertook before (although it was probably there in embryo). This was a lasting innovation. At some point, Claudius faced a coup from within his party - when Messalina (his Augusta) went through a form of marriage with a senator whiole her husband still lived. The rationale behind this remains obscure and is probably lost, but must be based on more than immorality and reckless foolishness (as the sources would have us believe). As with the two Julias under Augustus, a major plot may have been covered up as a scandal - sexual indiscretion when political danger was the reality. Possibly, aping Agrippina Minor later, Messalina hoped to put her son Britannicus on the throne and rule through him as regent. This (as i have suggested ) was an idea that might have been taken up by Claudius' second wife, Agrippina (his neice and the sister of Gaius). Maybe she saw herself as the inheritrix of Gaius' political agenda? En passant, it is interesting to note the continuity in Roman political life - many of the players in Claudius' latter days could remember or had been active in the reigns of Tiberius and Gaius, and could recall the days of Augustus. There is no reason for instance why the political philosophy of Antonius or Cleopatra could not have been transmitted to, or been alive in this generation. Agrippina II wished her son Ahenobarbus (but known by the Claudian name of Nero) to succeed instead of Britannicus. I suggest that she was keen to model herself on Livia (wife of Augustus) and to have a role in state affairs. Knowing that she would be unable to manipulate Britannicus, Agrippina determined that to make her son, Nero, princeps she had to kill her husband. The timing was governed by Britannicus' coming of age - she had to strike first. In the event, it is possible that Claudius died naturally but suddenly, as the accession of nero had to be delayed until the loyalty and support of the Guard had been assured. This does not sound like pre-planning. Nero, at least initially, was a "puppet princeps". His mother, and advisers such as Burrus (a successor to Sejanus as Praetorian Prefect) and Seneca, dominated the young man and ruled in his stead. Even given the murder of Britannicus - the only serious rival - the first five years of Nero's reign were later regarded as a "golden age" and a model for later rulers. But Nero was not content to be a puppet. As he gained confidence he threw off his controllers - his mother, and Seneca (Burrus died) and entered into a period of sole rule. I would argue that whil;e Agrippina and Seneca maintained the ethos but not the policies of Claudius (ie a concealed monarchy), Nero sought to emulate his uncle Gaius. His was an Hellenistic monarchy, open, absolute, extrovert and which sought cultural change in Rome along eastern (Greek) lines. (Domitian would copy this - see his stadium, now the Piazza Navona.) The construction of the Golden House (Domus Aurea) after the catastrophic fire was clearly a statement along grandiose lines. This was a statement about the nature of government and the purpose of a city. It could not have been anything else. I would also question whether Nero was the persecutor of Christians that tradition marks him as being. Could there have been, by 64ish, the number of converts in Rome to permit the scale of persecution that we are told happened? I wonder whether the undoubted later persecutions are being reflected here in retrospect - sure Peter and Paul may have died, but I doubt that the reputation is reliable. Scapegoats for the fire sure - mass deaths - unlikely!! But Nero was too self-indulgent and self-absorbed to make a good ruler - though the impact on the Roman world as a whole appears to have been minimal. perhaps this is an argument that the princeps had little personal impact outside his own immediate vicinity. He did try to make reforms, but he clearly alienated the Senate (many of whom conspired against him) and the army. He is the only early princeps not to have campaigned. Faced with rebellion in 68, he did not fight, but crumbled and gave up quickly. Had he fought he might have retained his position, but depressed by the revolt he committed suicide. (Perhaps the 18th Dymasty Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten might be a parallel for Nero - a visionary who never raelly communicated his vision?) That Nero was not wholly unpopular is shown that various pretenders that arose after his death, saying that he had not died - and the response to them. On the other hand, he appears to have so cowed the Senate that there was no attempt to re-establish the republic (as is claimed happened after Gaius' murder) but four pretenders to the principiate emerged. It was now that the Roman republic faced its worst crisis since the civil wars that preceeded Augustus' constitutional settlement. Tacitus recognised that the year 68/69 revealed where the true power of the period lay - ie with the army who could make and uphold emperors. But I think there is another truth here - without a single strong hand at the helm, the Senate and the republican forms of government could no longer maintain stability. At any event, having raised up and sacrificed Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, the Roman people settled on Vespasian as sole princeps - or, as I believe we can now truely aver - emperor of Rome. NEXT - The Flavians and Nerva. Phil

Franq - I'm happy for people to react as they will. For me the balance is about right, I think. To present the "arc2 without the colour would leave it without any foundations. What i hope is that the arc might draw people at least to question the individual elements in a different way. I'll just push on over the coming long weekend and complete the vista, then stand back. But thanks for your supportive and helpful post. Phil

As far as I am aware, the consulship continued to enoble a family for perpetuity. It remained the supreme point in the cursus honorum - the career path that led through military and civil appointments, magistracies, governorships etc. The numbers of suffect consuls (those who did not give their name to the year increased in part of provide the manpower needed. While the empire was certainly directed by the Emperor/princeps and his freedmen bureaucrats, there must have been many administrative tasks in Rome and elsewhere that required a consul to carry them out - trials, officiating at Senate meetings, etc. After Augustus the consul of the month (other than and unless the princeps himself) may not have been the ruler of Rome and its empire, but he still weilded, IMHO, a good deal of power and authority within his sphere of action. Phil

I would take the view that the "aerial view" looking at a larger canvas (to mix metaphors!!) shows us the relationship between the facts in a different way. Stay among the weeds, you may never get that view. I'm not sure any of the factual queries raised so far impact very deeply on my overall hypothesis, because no one has looked at that. So I'm not sure i do agree with you, PP. Phil

Are other posters aware of another astonishing survival of a similar kind. I saw it, by accident, in a special exhibition in the naples Museum 10 years or so ago, It is a monumental equestrian bronze of Domitian - similar scale to the "Capitoline" Marcus Aurelius - remodelled with the head of Nerva. I have some pics which i might scan and post if others are interested. The almost complete statue is superb and yet I have seen it discussed and illustrated almost nowhere. Phil

Augustus had several aims, as i see it. There is the pre-Actium Octavian (murderous, partisan, ruthless, young) and the post-Actium Augustus (father of his country, unifier, kind protector and farseeing ruler) - and he has to make a transition between the two. There is a republic to be transformed to a dictatorship by sleight of hand (obfuscation, avoidance of asscoiation with Dictator caesar and his ideas). There is an Italy to be united (tota Italia) against a foreign enemy. There is glory, auctoritas, dignitas, reverence to the gods and success - not to mention longevity - to be proclaimed. There is, as the reign extends into old age, the image of the ever youthful and renewing god-king to be transmitted to the people - hence no "old" images of the princeps. I think key images might be - the Forum of Augustus and the temple of Mars Ultor (the Avenger) - proclamation of devotion of his father and a deified figure. Patronage and beautification of rome. Reverence of roman tradition - the sceme of the Forum is of great genrerals and statesmen from Romulus and Aeneas onwards. Augustus is the heir and culmination of this process. The Prima Porta statue - triumph, restoration, godlike status (the statue is barefoot) - perhaps even after death. The tomb of Augustus - which I see as inspied by Egypt - the entry was flanked by obelisks, the profile is pyramidal. The Apollo complex on the Palatine - adjacent to his dwelling - devotion, learning, divine benediction and guidance. One could go on. Phil

But that was the German bodyguard wasn't it - not the Praetorians? I agree with your estimate of Germanicus - to me he was a pretty-boy hysteric. He over-reacted to most things. In that he was aided and abetted by his wife (the almost insanely jealous elder Agrippina). But it remains very odd to me that Augustus was so keen on Germanicus taking a place in the line of succession (maybe the device was to by-pass him but await his sons being ready for power)... certainly, I see in all practical terms the emphasis being on preserving the supreme position in the state for scions of Augustus' blood. Sejanus too seems to have seen his main obstacle as Augustus'/Germanicus' heirs - and hence he attacked them. He could make a claim to be regent (in practice princeps) for Gemellus - especially if he married Livilla. But he could be nothuing if Agrippina and her sons remained in the frame. Tiberius understood that - hence he protected Gaius (the last male heir). All of this, of course, suggests that up to 37, the republic was still operating in a modified form, with the julians and Claudians vying for mastery, and clans like the Ahenobarbi, and others like Sejanus seeing opportunities as real as pre-44BC. Indeed, the civil war of 69 AD suggests to me that the principle was still alive as late as that date. Does that mean that the principiate (ie the period from Augustus to the death of Nero) is actually the last period of the republic not the first of empire - or, at best, a transitional stage? But my aim here is not to refute anyone's pet theories - simply to point up different perspectives, and challenge orthodoxy. I don't claim to be right - but I do seek to consider alternatives to the conventional wisdom. I'm a little disappointed that responses all appear to dwell on detail rather than the big picture which is my focus - the patterns and sweep of history. Does no one else have a taste for that perspective? Phil

My take on Germanicus as Augustus' heir is based on logic and events rather than sources: Augustus dictated the terms by which he adopted Tiberius (no blood relation to Augustus) and the latter adopted Germanicus (Augustus' great-nephew through Antonia and his in-law by marriage to Agrippina Major). Thus Augustus got an experienced successor and yet ensured that the throne would descend through his own blood. Tiberius' son Drusus was ignored, as eventually was his son Gemellus at the end of Tiberius' reign (in favour of the surviving son of Germanicus). the fact that Gemellus was joint- or co-heir, means nothing in my view, as his chances of survival must have seemed slim. We see the throne coming back to Germanicus'/Augustus' line after Claudius, with the accession of Nero, Germanicus' grandson. These actual events, more than perhaps distorted sources, tell me that something was going on. I thought that this was supported by at least some statements by ancient authors, but as you have challenged it, I'll check it out. I'm writing these posts from memory and an over-view (so I readily apologise for lapses in memory or mistakes and ask any of you who read them, to correct me if you see a need). Phil

Enjoy, Pertinax. I'm sure you will. Phil (PS - the Emperor who's name you share, a former governor of Britannia, of course, has always interested me. Whenever I stand in the dining room of the Palatine Palace - close to where he was murdered - I think of him. A man who might have done much for Rome and the empire had he lived.

Augustus adopted Tiberius in 7AD, and it was he who was forced to adopt Germanicus, not Agrippa. So in forcing the adoption of Germanicus .... You are quite right germanicus - in my haste, writing the post before i went to work this morning - I did not proof read it. Both references should properly be to Tiberiius. Agrippa was, of course, dead by that date. His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus... By Germanicus do you mean the elder Drusus who, though favored by Augustus over his brother Tiberius, died too early to be slated as an heir? No, I mean Drusus Major's son, Claudius' brother. I don't think the elder Drusus was ever considered a possible heir. Drusus the younger really didnt resent his first cousin's preferential treatment. The two were very close and Drusus the younger felt that he was too much like his father and that Germanicus was better suited to the task. Frankq - from what source does that statement come? As again your following statement: I have to disagree here. The Senate from top to bottom was behind this, or knew of it. They just used Chaerea as the patsy and striking hand. You also wrote: After he had killed Caligula the Senate, backed by the city cohorts, seized control of the Capitol and planned on reinstating the Republic. Yet they were divided on whether or not they should also reorganize the principate. That could be because their response was knee jerk to the deed, rather than thought through. More evidence of my contention than your's surely? I have heard that roman *or* has been unearthed in context with Tiberius. interesting statement, and one of which I was unaware - give me a source and I'll discus it, but I doubt such evidence exists. How could such a link be established? Phil PART TWO (ADDENDUM) I ought to have added about gaius, but forgot in my haste: If there was any question of instability in this princeps it was perhaps a megalomania that arose from him being as close to "porphrogenitus" as was possible at that time. He was born under the principiate, and new from birth his mother's hunger for power. He lived close to the centre of government and was for some years conscious that he would one day be princeps. This may account for some of his eccentricities, and perhaps some of his ruthlessness, but I not think he was "mad" per se. I see interesting similarities and parallels again with Nero, Domitian and Commodus - all aware before their teens that they would one day be likely to rule. All exhibit similar traits - extroversion; a desire to be extolled and lauded; an exalted idea of their station. All are sometimes dismissed as insane - while commodus (as we shall see) may have been weak-minded - none of the others appear to have exhibited any real signs of insanity. those sometimes claimed can almost all be explained another way. Phil

PART TWO In the context of this thread, it is my contention that until the middle of the (what we now think of as the "reign") of Tiberius, the average Roman would have noticed little change in life. Constitutional changes - almost constant since the days of Sulla and before - continued. But in many ways, Augustus and Tiberius wore their dignitas and auctoritas less ostentatiously than had Caesar or Pompeius. They lived modestly for aritocrats, walked among their people, did public works, and consuls and other magistrates continued to be appointed. If the princeps exercised some directive functions in the state, then given Augustus' achievements in restoring the republic, that was neither unexpected nor unwelcome. The change, if any, perhaps became more noticeable when Tiberius withdrew to Capreae, and Sejanus took control in Rome. But Augustus has a helper/deputy/partner in his labours in Agrippa and later Tiberius. Why should not the latter also have a partner? Note here a pattern - Augustus had heirs and partners. His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus His partners were Agrippa and later Tiberius. Agrippa, although a potential "regent" had to adopt the eventual heir, Germanicus, while his own son Drusus was consigned to a lower place. Thus the succession would not run through Tiberius but would remain with the Julian family. Tiberius had as his helper Sejanus, but his heirs were the family of Germanicus and failing that, Gemellus, his own grandson. Hence, having achieved the place once occupied by Tiberius, Sejanus may well have seen himself following a similar course - as regent for Gemellus (especially if married to the latter's mother) and possibly a future princeps himself. But I suspect an absentee princeps made people aware for the first time that the constitution had markedly changed. During this extend neo-republican period, inter clan rivalry continued. The Claudians and the Julians both contended for the position of first man/dominance. Thus livia endorsed and fostered Tiberius' claims, while Augustus wished his own blood to succeed. I see no reason to believe that Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, or Germanicus died from other than natural causes. On the other hand it is clear that with Sejanus political murder became a reality. Thus Drusus the son of Tiberius, and Nero son of Germanicus were killed. Agrippina Major and her second son Drusus (the main protagonists of the Julian party) died in the aftermath of sejanus fall, prey to a suspicious and perhaps paranoid Tiberius. But it was the third son, Gaius Caligula, who eventually succeeded Tiberius - a Julian and an Antonian. Born under the principiate as Tiberius had not been, Gaius saw himself as entitled to rule, and in eastern terms. He was neither insane, nor mentally ill in any other sense, but pursued a logical and consistent policy of autocracy. he was a moderniser. He new his predecessors had replaced the republican forms by a monarchy, but had concealed it by slight of hand. Gaius threw off the camoflague. In line with eastern mystic and mystery religeons, his change of persona to a more regal and semi-divine status was masked as death and re-birth - serious illness/an awakening. Either the illness was a pretence; or a minor ailment was used as a useful point of departure. Gaius imposed himself on Rome and made others aware of his new position. he adopted eastern regal etiquette, maybe even the abasement of others which Alexander had adopted as his right. His "marriage"/incest with his sisters mirrored the brother-sister marriages of Ptolemaic Egypt, of which he was Pharoah and personal ruler. (He may even have visted the country with his father.) The new princeps' ironic and sarcastic sense of humour shocked those who heard it and was later deliberately misinterpreted. Incitatus was never made consul; impatience may have caused the remark about wishing all Romans had but one neck. Addressing the problem of the semi-mutinous and ill-disciplined troops in Germany, Gaius visited the area and instituted a thorough and well-thought through programme of re-training which he personally oversaw. His appointed tough new commanders. Then, to test the mettle of his legions he determined to put down a rebellion in Britannia. Britannia had always been considered a part of the empire since caesar's visit, and the kings of the island were clients of Rome by treaty, and paid tribute. This had lapsed. Gaius would have none of it. But on the eve of embarkation the legions mutinied (something that would be repeated a few years later). To humiliate them, Gaius had them collect seashalls. There is something interesting which I do not understand (and others might be able to throw some light on) but which I think is more important than has been discussed before. That is that all the "autocratic" emperors (except Domitian) - Gaius, Nero and Commodus - made a big thing about dressing in ways that scandalised conservative opinion, and about "performing" in public. Gaius drove chariots in public; Nero acted and sang as well as competing in sports; Commodus dressed as a gladiator and fought in the arena. All three were men "born to rule", and other emperors who largely were not, did not apparently indulge themselves in this way. I think there may be a statement of some sort being made by these performances which we are failing to understand, perhaps because we have lost the cultural references. Gaius was eventually assassinated, not by a widespread conspiracy, or because he was unpopular, but because he had offended and belittled a small clique of Guards officers who resented it. His death ended an experiment which was not forgotten, but which was understood and followed by his nephew Nero two decades later. Claudius, who was chosen by the Guards to ascend the throne, understood all too well that the empire could not be held together by the old republican forms of Government, There had to be leadership from one man. But Claudius had been trained under Augustus and Tiberius, and to an extent disliked Gaius experiment - Claudius was conservative in the way Tiberius had been. Thus Claudius returned to the concealed republic approach. More to come, in my next, Phil

Oh, I don't single Antony out, I take a pretty dim view of most 'great men'. Doesn't that make the study of ancient history rather difficult? And doesn't the prior moral judgement rather situate the appraisal of any issues rather than appraising the situation? phil

one can either stare at the single squares and ignore the patchwork patterns as a whole, or seek to try to work out what the maker intended. You seem to see Antonius in a negative way. I think i detect hints of a different interpretation. But I'm moving on - so my next post (tomorrow, I hope) will pick up the themes of my first, in this thread. I don't think we are disagreeing FV - I am just seeking to look widely and speculatively. Happy for you to disagree all you want. Your posts have been very stimulating so far, however. Phil

My impression of argument up to now has always been that questions are answered not by the poser but by his adversaries... What is simpler (Occum's razor and all that) than this: Antony knows his days are numbered unless he can gain prestige enough to challenge Caesar's heir, and funds and army also. Prestige will only come through beating the Parthians (as no other foes are readily available). Money is readily available in the east. His army will be hardened by the Parthian campaign and paid through the riches of the east. Hence he must go east. The path to prestige in the east is through portrayal as a hellenistic monarch. To meet his short term needs (prestige, money etc) he adopts a policy of apparent hellenisation. Sadly for him this is portrayed in the worst possible light in Rome. Now there is no need in any of the above to assume that he wished to become king/god of Rome. So why introduce something unecessary to the argument? If that works for you, that's fine. I think though there is an element of hindsight in the approach. Antonius did not always know that it would come to a showdown with his fellow triumvir. Among the things i think need to be taken into account are: * Sulla, Pompeius, and other generals had found fame, wealth and clients in the rich east * Antonius was in any case a lover of greek things * Caesar had intended to take on the Parthians next - there was clearly a problem - and Antonius was Caesar's political heir * Antonius may have been privy to some of Caesar's plans which involved Cleopatra and gold/ wheat rich Egypt * Antonius banked (wrongly as it turned out, but not stupidly) that Octavian would not be able to deal with the problems of Italy * the division of the provinces had (leaving Lepidus aside) been west/east - so Antonius could plausibly think that he could deal with the east in eastern ways * the Ptolemies had been immersed in levantine politics for centuries and may have won him to their approach (god-kings suited the east) * as Octavian adopted Apollo as his deity, Antonius adopted Dionysus (worth reading up what that god signified) and paraded himself as that god - perhaps deliberately as successor to Alexander * Antonius regarded himself as a Roman of the Romans and underestimated the impact of Octavian's propaganda on the City * had he won Actium, Antonius would have dealt with his image in Rome * in the period it was not amiss for a Roman to have one projected image in Rome and another in the east - later emperors had temples to themselves in Asia long before they were treated as living gods in Rome. It was only Octavian who used propaganda cleverly to subvert Antonius image as a true Roman. That was novel and need not have been foreseen by Antonius who was wrong-footed. But there was not necessarily anything foolish about the dual-self-images. That'll do for now. Phil

You have to answer your own questions. If you think Antonius was not a good Master of Horse to Caesar; or that his policy in the east was something foolish and easy to deteact as such, then you must explain his actions or why Caesar appointed him. in politics now as then I always assume that no man deliberate acts in foolish way. He will usually follow the highest (to him) line of good. He will have logical reasons for his actions (her too I suppose to be PC). One may not agree with them but they will be there. I have already said that i don't see Antonius as a Caesar, but I think him more than competent compared to (say) Lepidus. As for my views being serious - I am not putting my posts forward as a replacement for the conventional wisdom, but to test it. I see nothing wrong with the speculations I advance, or the logic I employ. And you may take it that I am scornful of those unwilling to challenge the conventional account of a period for which we have such sparse sources. I certainly DO NOT believe that the history we have, and seemingly accept so unquestioningly (like the reputation of individuals) is how things were. I think we need to get beneath the surface, and my post was a first step in that. Phil