phil25

I have it - bought cheap. I have seen about half of it. I have not bothered to go back for more. Acting wasn't bad. But the story is told in flashbacks and is disconnected. I would rate it on a par with - and rather consider it a companion piece to - the Jeremy Sisto "Julius Caesar". Production qualities are not bad, but the plotting/editing are very confused. In style it reminded me of the HBO "ROME", but without the detail, clarity of narrative, or drive. I would categorically assert that it is no match - nor anywhere near - the quality of the Jacobi "I Claudius", notr even of the recently re-released "The Caesars" from the 1960s of which I have already posted a review. Just my opinions, of course, Phil

Octavian was not a good general, but he had good advisers - Maecenas and Agrippa, to name but two. Antonius was no Caesar, but neither do I think that that we should write him off as wholly incompetent. We also need to take into account the facts that Octavian, as victor, wrote the record. Antonius and cleopatra can hardly be said to be given a good write-up in what survives. We need, IMHO, therefore to try to piece together the story from their angle. Cleopatra was no fool and she had the experienced Ptolemaic bureaucracy to back her up. Nor do I think that Antonius' actions can simply be written off as resulting from infatuation. He left Cleopatra several times. Something political - and I think it was a strategy or clear long-term policy - underlay the so-called Donations of Alexandria and the settlement of the east. equally, seeking to deal with parthia was following a policy only recently established by Caesar himself - hardly a fool. So perhaps at the time it seemed important. Whatever view one takes of that, the possibility that there was a strategy that was inherited by his descendents is established by their actions - Gaius Caligula with his clearly Hellenistic ideas of monarchy was a direct descendent of Antonius and grew up partly in the house of Antonius' daughter. nero was the son of Gaius' sister and an Ahenobarbus (a descendent of the man called "Enobarbus" by Shakespeare who was for long one of Antonius' chief adviser. Nero again was clearly fascinated by Hellenistic ideas, and the Greek world. There is a clear mechanism for direct transmission of ideas here, and it is interesting that the two princeps who show Hellenistic tendencies and eastern policies so closely identified themselves with Antonius. I am also fascinated by the possibility that the exile of the elder Julia, and the parallel execution of Iullus Antonius may have had something to do with the Antonian policy. Something was going on - and not just debauchery. I may not have identified the right link - but I believe there are sufficient hints to consider whether a consistent line of policy may have been involved. There was, at one point in history, the possibility of a world in which Antonius not Octavian was supreme. As with all "What Ifs" of history, considering them throws light on what actually happened and why. In this case (for me), that process involves thinking positively about Antonius' motives and aims. That is all I have done. For me, it suggests that there was a rival imperial policy to Octavians, and it may have been passed down and to an extent implemented, by Antonius' heirs. Nothing but my speculations, of course, Phil

...With this new clue he was able to then figure out the morphology of his family name and was able to conclude (through older records) that his ancient relative was a Roman garrison soldier (of probably Etruscan origin) that settled in Britain when his service to the Cohort was at an end. I'd like to know on what basis he "figured this out"!! There must be literally hundreds of reasons for people of Latin/Levantine stock to have come to Britain over the centuries - as merchants; as ambassadors; as sailors; as political refugees. I know nothing of the science involved, but it surely must deal in groups, not specifics. How can he know at what stage the surname entered his family? Which brings me to a second point - how was he ever able to "trace his roots back to early middle age England". What does "early middle age England" mean? Members of the aristocracy apart, most people would have great difficulty tracing ancestry back as far as the Tudor period. Is your gentleman seriously suggesting he got back to 1066? In the unbroken male line? Surnames or family names were not established that far back - even noble names were spelled in different ways. I think more and serious questions should be asked about this claim. Sorry to be sceptical. Phil

You appear to seriously suggest that FV - can I point you to the opening words o my first post in this thread... PP - thanks for what you said in your most recent post. I hope to pull some themes togather as I go on. But the whole aim is to get stimulating debate going, if I can. WHERE it goes is up to others... Thanks toy ou both, Phil

Primus - I am really just seeking to provoke some discussion - but I am only part way through my "thesis". I do see far too much unquestioning acceptance of the conventional story of rome though - not by experienced and well-read students like you, but on the part of the general public. I don't think a thread "shaking the bottle" a bit can be too bad a thing, can it? As for the argument that we shouldn't throw Suetonius out because we need him - well, will that stand much scrutiny? I see suetonius as charmingly and subtley persuasive because we all adore scandal and gossip. But as for reading the characters of early emperors from his works - he followed an ancient view of biography that " as a tree fell" so it had always been. Thus if Tiberius was a pervert in his last years he had always been one. We know in that case that the claims are almost certainly untrue. We know he was almost certainly biased to the "ant-Hadrian/pro-senatorial view. "Why should we accept his other judgements at face value? Why not reassess and re-value? Personally, I do not believe that men are fools without good evidence. Nor do I think leaders of mn act without some logic or good reason (as they at least perceive it). Such a view even applies to Hitler. FV, you give no evidence for adhering to the conventional view of Antonius - so why should i regard what you say as a refutation of what I said? I have sought to show, from later events, the likelihood that there was a clear Antonian view of imperial policy which ran counter to the Augustan and survived for many generations. You cite no sources from even within Antonius lifetime to support your contention. I rest my case. I look forward to more hard debate. Phil

This thread is not meant to be taken wholly seriously, nor do i personally agree all the points i raise. However, in my absence from this site I have been pondering the question of how we perceive roman history, not least the period from the death of Caesar to the death of Commodus. I find that to challenge mentally the conventional wisdom on an historical period can be helpful in creating new lines of thought and opening hidden vistas (as a friend of mine puts it) nto the past. To give na example - cease to look at the history of Phaoahonic Egypt in terms of European political jargon and see it as an African tribal culture - see how that illuminates ancient Egyptian religeon, titles, and political roles and life. So here goes for Rome. The murder of Caesar created a vacuum, largely because of the ineptitude of the assassins who failed to see that since Sulla, the nature of the republic had changed. But the repbulic (literally res publica - or public affairs) was not a republic in any modern sense, nor democratic - but was an oligarchy (rule by an elite) that manupilated a limited popular franchise. Antonius was late in regaining his poise, but seized the initiative and sought (see his dealings with the conspirators0 to restore a version of the republic in which he would be a moderated Caesar - ie the first man (princeps) without the titles, but that political life would go on as before. However, Octavian (or his advisers) saw an opportunity to build on Caesar's name using the power of his veterans, two things which Antonius had neglected. Let's drop Victorian concepts and associations which cluster round the names Emperor (by which I mean meanings coloured by Napoleon and his like) and Caesar. Octavian was Gaius Julius Caesar - and the name redounded. Consistently, the young Caesar (name not title) wrong-footed Antonius - he was more ruthless, more focused, less bound to the old ways. He challenged the staus quo and won - Consul before he was 20. He broke the rules, murdered, threatened and defied the Senate by force. But none of this was other than Marius, Sulla, or Caesar had done. No military genuis, nor hero, the young Caesar yet knew how to manage ideas and propaganda. He may have been a coward at Phillippi, but it was he, not Antonius who had forced the confrontation with the assasins - who had gained the vengeance that the Dictator Caesar's veterans had craved. It was, as Cicero predicted, Caesar's name (still not a title) that did the work, plus the political skills of its current bearer and men like Maecenas. The former "Octavian" realised the power of words - Caesar (a name) became a title; imperator (a title) became absorbed into his name. yet Antonius, Caesar, Pompeius, Sulla, Marius and a hundred other generals of the republic had all been hailed as "imperator" (victorious general) by their troops. None before had sought to make the title their's alone!! Antonius gained a new view of the Roman world (perhaps one Dictator Caesar had begun to formulate) through Cleopatra. Far from being an ambitious rival of Rome, Cleopatra sought to use Ptolemaic experience in the east to assist the triumvir who would rule that part of the provinces of Rome - I prefer to avoid the term "empire" which is anachronistic and reeks of association with the word imperator. Antonius was far-sighted. 300 years before Constantine, he recognised that the Roman world needed to be governed from the east, not the west - since the major sources of wealth and food were there, no to mention a major threat from Parthia. he had a policy to rule in Hellenistic terms (monarchy and deified) and with a less heavy hand than Rome traditionally employed. In the clash, Octavian Caesar prevailed (largely thanks to Agrippa) and Antonius was seen as a traitor - but his "policy" survived within his own family, transmitted by his daughter Antonia Minor. In taking the title "Augustus", Octavian used symbolic words and took them as names once again - he rejected Romulus (a name but with regal associations) in favour of a tirle with religeous connotations, that he took as a name. But Augustus rule was not as smooth as history tells us. there is clear evidence of an internal coup by Agrippa that has him associated with the succession and changes to the new consitution. The banishments of both Augustus' daughter and grand-daughter (both named Julia) are also clearly as much or more political than they are moral. The elder Julia's crime saw Antonius' son Iullus executed. Coincidence - or proof that Antonius' philosophy of empire thrived? We do not need to consider Robert Graves' concept of a murderous Livia to explain the trials of Augustus in regard to his succession. Genetic weakness in the Julian (read Augustus) family or illness (like haemaphilia in the female descendents of Queen Victoria) may account for the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, Germanicus etc as well as others. Plague was a constant in Rome with some years worse than others - Julius caesar had been an epileptic, Augustus was often unwell. But Augustus rule was always wholly within the republican tradition. He was princeps (first citizen and first to speak/most influential in the Senate) but he lived in a pretty ordinary house, went around like other Senators, had clients - though more than most - everyone!! No one in his day could have expected him to live so long - but they and he recognised the need to have no new vacuum when he died . Hence the idea of the succession - not an Emperor but a chief executive, ruling through republican institutions and methods. Tiberius, long Augustus partner in the tribunician powers, was the eventual fall back as heir. But Tiberius wanted a return to (or maybe in his terms, a continuance of) republican rule. He may have seen himself and his son as guardians for Germanicus and the heirs of Augustus, nothing more. A situation akin to the Kings and Stewards on Gondor in Tolkien. But Tiberius was made cynical, and too old when he succeeded, was cynically manipulated by Sejanus. Sejanus, working within the republican tradition, was a general who sought power (viz Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Caesar, Antonius, Lepidus....). He did resort to murder - Nero the son of Germanisuc and Drusus the son of Tiberius were killed by him. Agrippina Major and her other son Drusus died as a result of his plots and the suspicion he engendered. It is interesting that his co-conspirator (Livilla) was a direct descendent of Augustus and of Antonius and may have sought the formers place before tiberius would grant it, and to implement the latter's policy On Tiberius death (not a seedy, decadent paedophile by the way but a consistently reclusive philosopher) his grand-nephew Gaius (Caligula) acceeded to power. Now gaius had been thoroughly inculcated by his grandmother and aunt in the Antonian, Hellenistic approach. The first heir born since Augustus' seizure of power, he (unlike Tiberius and Augustus), he determinednot to follow their example, but to rule as a Ptolemaic style god-king on the grounds that such a style was inevitably the only approach to world government. Not insane, but blessed with sarcasm and iron-determination, Gaius would amaze the world. In our next episode - the consistency of the Gaian approach; Claudius the return to republicanism; and Nero heir to Gaius. Consistency and continuity in the principiate. As you'll see, I am seeking to challenge and subvert Suetonius and Tacitus. Anyone else want to join in? Phil

The Emperor's removed various items from the sarcophagus - didn't Caligula dash about in Alexander's breastplate when he built a bridge across the bay of Naples? I suspect that in the shift from paganism to Christianity, with all the riots and unrest that ensued in Alexandria - the mausoleum and many of the artefacts may have disappeared or been destroyed. On the other hand, as had happened in dynastic times in Thebes, priests might well have removed the bodies of the Ptolemies (including "our" Cleopatra and maybe Antonius) as well as Alexander, to a place of safety. One day maybe, they will be discovered, as just mummified remains, shorn of their gold and valuables. But just perhaps, people in the future may gaze on the face of Alexander of Macedon. There was a rumour about 10 or more years ago that the tomb had been found in the desert - highly unlikely, in my view. In that case it proved to be untrue. But I don't think that the bodies would have been destroyed thoughtlessly. Did you know we still have fragments of the funerary urns and inscriptions from the tomb of Augustus in Rome. If they can survive, why not remants of the Ptolemaic tombs of Alexandria? Phil

I'm no genealogist, but as I recall the Italian royal line is the "House of Savoy". Notwithstanding any intermarriages with other royal dynasties of europe, the family is north Italian. Thus more likely, in my view to be of lombard extraction, or of entirely non-Italian provenance. I don't believe they have ever claimed a link back to Roman times. Sorry to be a cynic!! Phil

I assume you mean the ships from the lake Nemi? Anthony A Barrett has a section on them in his biography of Gaius "Caligula" which I was reading the other night. The timber remains were lifted from the bed of the lake in the late 1920s and destroyed by retreating Axis soldiers in 1944. They were huge - 73m by 24m (241ft by 79ft) and described as floating villas. Mosaics found on the vessels suggest they were redecorated under Nero. The boats were served by running water, and at least some of the walls covered with marbble.. The roof tiles had copper plates (gilded0 set on them. A fine medusa head is said to have adorned a rudder pole. Barrett suggests the vessels were not simply abandoned, as they were not stripped of their adornments. he suggests they may have sunk in a storm or earthquake under the Flavians. Does that help? Phil

I always knew there was something good to be said about Nero. Phil

As I understand it, and it is by no means my field, the current view is that in a country like Britain, the Saxons etc did not massacre the Romano-British, or drive them into Wales as was once thought. rather, the native population of the old Roman province was (as I recently saw it put) "re-branded" as Saxon. The same thing happened later with the Vikings and the Normans. Part of my family comes from Lincolnshire, within the old Danelaw. When I was younger I had a ruddy complexion and coppery-fair hair. On that basis, I would reckon that there is Scandanavian blood in me, but also a good chance of some Romano-British genes too. The same must have been true of Italy - with Lombards and visigoths inter-marrying and inter-breeding with the old Roman stock, to produce modern Italians. But as the city culture declined, many must have been forced into the countryside to survive - and we know from Pol Pot what can happen when urban-dwellers are forced to work in the fields. Many die. There must probably be some Roman blood in a large percentage of western Europeans. When I said in my previous post that ALL of us go back to Roman times I was thinking of them. The situation will, of course, be different in the USA - German, Jewish and Latin American or Asian or African immigrants may have almost no ancestry from the right areas. Thinking about it, I am aware of no Renaissance or even medieval Italian families that claimed descent from Roman noble stock. Given the passing down of Roman family names (Juilii, Aemilii etc) it should not be difficult to find out from inscriptions and records whether any of the major republican families were still extant even by name as early as the time of marcus Aurelius or (say) Constantine. My bet would be on none - and if the name still was carried on, I'll bet it was by provable adoption not blood. Just random further thoughts, Phil

Thanks Frankq - that's precisely what I had in mind. Phil

Yeah, I agree, but you do mean the Broadway play, right? Not another movie? It was one of a kind, can't be redone. I recall Zero in only one other film, from the 50's, and he played like a gangster. I just don't think he ever took off on the screen. Or didnt like it. Alfred Drake is another case in point. Surely Mostel is Bialystok in the original Mel Brook's 1970s "The Producers" (IMDB agrees with me - I just checked)!! The Producers has been remade as a film recently - dvd out today in the UK (I have NOT bought it)!! Phil

By definition, ALL our familes go back to Roman times - we would not be here otherwise. If you mean direct descent - in the male line - I doubt any? As directly traceable - probably none. The British royal family can trace their descent from Cerdic the Saxon c 500/600, but do not claim any connections as far back as imperial Roman times. If they cannot, who could? Most Roman families suffered a problem with heirs even in classical times - lead poisoning may have been a cuase - note then many adoptions. Even in the early principiate, few aristocrats could trace direct descent to the old republican nobility. Look at the Julians. Caesar had no son. His daughter produced no living heir. His line went on through a female branch, though even Octavian had to be adopted. He had one daughter, and all her children died early - Agrippina's line lasting longest but dying out with Nero (Agrippina Minor's son - she was Gaius Caligula's sister) Not a happy model really. I'll be interested in other views/contributions though. Phil

I think Skarr is probably right about the deference of at least some Romans. But might that not have made periods such as that gang warfare between the followers of Clodius and Milo the more shocking? The memories of Marian and Sullan purges, with dripping decapitated heads on the rostra, must have lingered long. many in Caesar's hayday must have wondered whether he would resort to similar methods, having lived through the previous bloodbath. Sulla was probably safe because people feared him, and wondered whether he had henchmen within call. But for both Sulla and Caesar (I don't know what the source is for him walking alone) it is the exception that proved the rule - almost everyone else went surrounded by followers (clients) on public occasions. My belief that the Vatican circus always remained of its original shape is based on the fact that the tombs/cemetary found under St Peter's basilica, appears to follow the outer wall of the stands. It remains, as I understand it the long narrow shape of the classic chariot-racing stadium. There is an excellently preserved, late version, just off the Via Appia Antiqua, built by Maxentius c 300 AD. It is part of a complex that included a palace and the tomb of his son. Within the Palatine palace (Domitian's version or later) there is a stadium, probably too small for real chariot races, but constructed to the same plan. There is a much later (post C5th) oval structure built within it, which perhaps shows how a circus could be adapted to an arena (I'll stick to the term) without much difficulty or physical damage to the original edifice. (Before anyone asks, I don't claim that the later oval area was used for fighting - but that's not my point.) Has anyone wandered the streets of Pompeii? It certainly shows how one can get lost in a Roman town (even a small one). But one also starts to notice landmarks - even small ones - a bakery; an inn, a well/fountain. As many of the exterior walls were painted, finding one's way may not have been THAT difficult, unless a complete stranger - perhaps a dangerous thing in it's own right. Thanks for the additional points folks - all noted. Phil

I agree Frankq. But many of those he did make are memorable, not least the unsurpassable, original "Producers". Why on earth they have remade it, I cannot imagine. Phil

I believe that you are right when you say the Vatican structure was a circus (for chariot racing) - originally built by Gaius Caligula on land that had belonged to his mother (as I recall). I was not aware that it was ever converted to an arena (for gladiatorial combat). Can ayone else shed light on this - Ill check my references. Rome had several circuses in republican times - the Circus Maximus (still there) being the greatest. I think there was also a Circus Flaminius, Pompeius Magnus built the first permanent theatre for drama, but had to disguise the purpose by pretending the seating were the steps of a temple. As late as Augustus' reign, Statilius Taurus (I think) still had to construct a wooden amphitheatre for gladiatorial fights as no permanent structure existed. My point related to gladiatorial arenae, not circuses. Phil

The use of names in Funny Thing is, of course, ironic. Hero is far from being a hero and Miles Gloriosus a long way from being "glorious" by most standards, even if we take his achievements at his own estimation. ...the play is much better than the film... While I largely agree, there are some wonderful things in the film and some great performances. Richard Lester was a very idiosyncractic director, but he had a knack of bringing together a wonderful sense of period with a really off-beat sense of humour. His Three and Four Musketeer films are among my favorites - thrilling but constantly making you laugh out loud because of the unspoken touches he brings to the scenes. I find Forum a very good evocation of life in ancient rome in (I assume) the late republic (before Sulla perhaps). The streets look authentic, and little touches in the houses make them look lived in. But the film is a comedy-musical not a drama or a documentary, and I can live with that. The stage version would have to have been changed for the screen anyway - the concept of the "Proteans" - a handful of actors who play all the bit parts on stage - would not, I think, have transferred well to the silver screen. It's just the final chase sequence (more applicable to It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World or other films of the era). Was it an attempt to refer to the chariot races in Ben Hur and Fall of the Roman Empire? Or just a misjudgement. But the sequence is, for me, the film's major flaw. Do you, incidentally, know of the BBC's sit come based on the same sort of idea? "Up Pompeii" with the main character Lurcio played by Frankie Howerd, was very popular in the Uk in the 70s. Howerd played Pseudolus in the London production of Forum (I saw him in arevival in the late 80s/early 90s). Phil

Thanks for that news. It looks impressive - role on August (or whenever the series reaches the UK on dvd!!). Do you know whether the episodes are the uncut (US) or cut (UK) version? I believe for instance that much was cut when shown on the BBC from episode 1. Are there other restorations or deleted scenes provided? It was an impressive series anyway, but added material can only make it more so IMHO. Thanks for responding so promptly. Phil

Hair low on the nape of the neck is, in my experience, a hallmark of statues of the family of Germanicus. Gaius was SO hairy that he was nicknamed "the goat" - except that he was balding from an early age (a Julian trait?). I doubt any sculptures or coind would have shown THAT (the princeps was said to be sensitive about it!!). So portraits were probably not done from life - or if features were, they were fitted into an established icongraphy. For instance, we know that Augustus and other rulers were distinguished by certain ways in which the hair curled - this differentiated images of members of the imperial family, and could be used by provincial sculptors. Fascinating post though - well done. Phil

I'd be interested to know the date of the frescoes etc. With rare exceptions like the House of Livia, or the House of the Griffins (buried under Domitian's palace on the Palatine) the surviving remains are of a late period - the last decorative scheme of the house. It really would be amazing if we had a republican mansion preserved. But I suspect - given the numerous fires in Rome - this might be a rebuild on the same site. No one would be more delighted than i if I am wrong. Phil

I take my title literally. How do we perceive life in Rome? How far is that influenced by films and TV documentaries; and how much by ancient sources? If we could go back in time - would we be surprised by what we found/ I take as my example the Urbs of thre early principiate - roughly the period of Graves' Claudius novels. TV and films gives us a world of tailored garments and vivid colour, soldiers in uniform, sinister Praetorians, great, rigidly organised processions and ceremonials, gorgeous palaces of while marble and gilt... one could go on... As most people know, first of all, the marble wasn't always white - pillars were painted sometimes, statues certainly were; temble pediments would have glowed with colour. Walls were often painted in complex designs - almost surreal sometimes - and symbolism was everywhere. Next, uniforms as we know them, probably didn't exist per se in ancient Roman times - soldiers might have worn roughly similar clothing and armour - but I suspect patterns/models and dates of issue might have been different. But in any case, in Rome, uniform and armour was banned - even in triumphs soldiers marched in their belted tunics, not in full kit . The Praetorians on duty on the palatine, or escorting the princeps, would have worn civil dress - togas with their swords concealed under the folds. This is where this examination gets interesting and relevant. Because once we recognise that the praetorians did not stand out like the SS, or the Grenadier Guards in easily recognisable uniforms, the reasons why Sejanus could concentrate the cohorts in the City without too much fuss perhaps becomes apparent. Moreover, right up until the time of Nero - perhaps even to Titus - I have the impression that the princeps went around the city pretty much as a private citizen: on foot with an escort of clients and guards. But Augustus or Claudius going to the Curia (senate house) must have been a scene much unchanged since the days of Ceasar. The elaborate imperial ceremonial beloved of Hollywood would have been absent. So differences between the republican period and the early empire might have been less apparent than we are sometimes led to believe. The route from the palace on the Palatine hill to the Curia is not a long one and would have best been done on foot - maybe in a litter for the lame Claudius. But routes down the steps that lead out via the Atrium Vestae; down the slope to the Temple of Jupiter Stator (or the later arch of Titus) and then via the Via Sacra ; or perhaps following a route which now exists as a slope to Domitian's grand entry behind the temple of Castor (where Gaius may have had a residence) are all possible and easy. So princeps and public would have been in close proximity on many occasions. As for the palace - Augustus seems to have lived in a modest domus (at least equivalant to the house of an aristocrat but not the vast edifice that Domitian began) in a street possibly made grand by the facade of the temple of Apollo. Laurels over the door would have marked it out as special, but until Nero's Golden House, there would have been no major break with republican tradition. And talking of the Golden House, Rome from Caesar to Domitian must have been a mass of scaffolding. The Curia Julia was being built on a new site to replace the old Curia Hostilia burned down when Clodius was cremated. The Basilica Julia was being built - as well as the rostra being moved. Indeed until early in Augustus' reign the rostra end of the Forum Romanum must have been being constantly restructured. Behind the Curia the Forum of Augustus then had to be built, with additional building works for new Fora under Vespasian/Titus and Domitian/Nerva. Further afield, Agrippa was a great builder (with baths and the pre-Hadrianic Pantheon to his credit. Augustus' projects on the Campus Martius must also have involved massive disruption and made the place look like a building site over decades - one thinks of the massive sundial, his tomb, the altar of peace to name but a few. Until a late date - I think offhand the construction of the Flavian amphitheatre - Rome had no permenent amphitheatre for gladiatorial or other fights. Either wooden ones were built as happened under Augustus, or the Forum Romanum was roofed in with awnings. For those who have visited the site, I am sure the picture of the bright sun shining through multicoloured cloths and making the pavement seem like a mosaic must be a visid one. But a continual sight in Rome must have been public slaves erecting and dismantling barriers, stands and tribunals. For the magistrates (such as prateors) and the courts both did their business in public. The noise, the commotion, the distraction must have been incredible. But then senior magistrates also appear to have done their work at home in their own mansions, and we have to imagine the atriums of these town houses bustling. The morning leveees must have meant large numbers of people on the streets before dawn making their way to their patrons homes - one wonders how they decided who to visit first, if their patron was expected to call on a greater man in his turn, and he to a yet greater... timing must have been a nightmare - people had to remember that X had to go to the senate with his clients in tow to impress everyone, but if X was waited on by Y, did Y's clients go too? organisation and pre-planning must have been essential. How did the romans ever agree on WHEN to meet anyway with hours (of day or night) that changed their length with the seasons? Did everyone meet at noon or dawn? If so it must have meant a LOT of waiting about. Or did they have more sophisticated ways of knowing when the sixth hour was (depending on when it was given changes between, say, winter and summer)? I have given just a few examples of the things that I have come across in reading the sources which don't seem always to be reflected in visual reconstructions. I'd be fascinated to know if others have thought about this aspect of ancient Rome, and to know of other instances of things that would have impacted on daily life that have occured to you. Thanks in anticipation, and for reading this, Phil

Has anyone heard anymore about a dvd release of the "ROME" series? I am registered with Amazon, but have had no further information from them. Phil

How interesting to return to this discussion after several months. I have found the contributions both informative and helpful. Not that that should surprise me - the standards here are high. It is interesting to see that there seems to be a concensus that gladiatorial fights (in the main) were not as bloody as sometimes thought or depicted in modern cinema or novels. I personally agree with the poster who implied that the circus games (ie chariot racing) was probably a riskier "sport"!! I think we can take as exceptional events such as Titus' opening of the Flavian Amphitheatre (Colosseum) and such similar events and accept that there may have been more fights to the literal death then that at other times. My original purpose was to discuss how bloody gladiatorial combat was. I have always accepted that animal fights involving the "bestiarii" were likely to have been sickening by our standards. But the bestiarii are a separate class to the gladiators who fought "mano a mano" with human opponents (I am thinking here to the retiarii, Thracians (Thraex?); murmilliones, secutoes, hoplomachii etc - the specialists in such fighting). It is these specialists whom I believe, at least in the early empire, died less frequently than usually portrayed. I would even speculate - no more, there is no evidence - that the 1:8 ratio may be too high. That the combats were carefully referreed and fought to well delineated rules is clear from the wall paintings that show fighters moving within a ring drawn in the sand, and from the presence of a referee armed with a long staff. The figure dressed as "Charon" may also have had a role in indicating the loser (ie the one subject to a "technical "death"?). But such things may have been only one "type" of combat. There are drawings/graffiti which show a sort of "king of the castle" type fight in which one man seems to try to stop others crossing a "bridge" or displacing him from a tower. maybe the referreed fight was simply one sort of combat. We cannot know whether over the long expanses of time covered by the Roman period certain classes of gladiator went in or out of fashion; were replaced by new ones; or whether types of combat had phases of popularity. I have tried hard to envisage the gladiatorial school at Pompeii as it may have been in its two phases - one probably before the earthquake of 62 or even before the riot in 59, when gladiators were accommodated in a house near the Nolan Gate, and later when they lived in the more expansive quadriporticus behind the theatre. We know the names of some of the fighters, Crescens and Celadus for instance, for whom the girls sighed. These seem to me to represent a troupe who were around for a while, gained reputations and were well-known over a period of time. I think one can also extrapolate practically about the lifestyles of the men involved and dispell some of the myths (the woman with a lot of jewellery once thought to have died in flagrante with a gladiatorduring the eruption, was probably in all likelihood just a refugee sheltering under cover while trying to reach the harbour). On a final point, I had a copy of mannix's book in p/back in the 60s and that sparked my interest in the Games too. I think I still have a more recent copy stashed away somewhere. (The original was confiscated by a schoolmaster when i was found reading it in class!!) Thanks to all who have responded in this thread. Phil

Going Back to the original question, I think my choice would be Marcus Porcius Cato (Caesar's opponent) a backward looking, selfish, self-centred, narrow, pessimistic, negative and impractical fool. the damage he did in his own day and afterwards was incalculable. My second choice would be Sejanus whose concentration of the Praetorian Guard in Rome itself had major implications for the Principiate and the later empire. He must have been a consummate politician, and man manager, but in isolating Tiberius for his own cynical purposes, almost certainly murdering Drusus (Tiberius' son) and in his persecution of the family of Germanicus he distorted events in a way that set the scene for Gaius and Nero. Without Sejanus, it is possible that the princeps might have remained much more the outwardly ordinary citizen that Augustus and the early Tiberius projected, rather than the remoter more "imperial" persona assumed by Gaius, (but not Claudius who had experienced Sejanus's machinations at first hand), Nero, Domitian etc. An honourable mention as "worst" might also be given to the self-styled "Liberators" (especially Brutus and Cassius) who's pious niavety led them to make no plans for what would follow the assassination of Caesar. Eithe foolhardy or not ruthless enough, they created the vacuum filled first by Antonius and then by Octavian (the new Julius Caesar). Too timid to fight, they fled and both Cassius and brutus proved tyrants in the east, blackmailing and extorting funds. neither admirable nor practical men. To put in a word FOR some of the maligned earlier Emperors (I am not very knowledgeable about the later ones) I think Gaius Caligula and Nero can be explained in ways that make them less foolish, insane or bad. As for Commodus, there isn't much that can be said for the poor dupe except that he was probably not very bright. But I do have a soft spot for him. I am also a little suspicious that the bad Emperors always seem to have similar lives and that we have not been bequeathed the truth about men like Commodus and Domitian. Is there artistic licence in their portrayals by men who disliked them? I have no proof - but I think there are worse men to choose if one delves under the surface a little. Hence my choices. Phil