phil25

I rather think Lost Warrior has it right - the nurse has heard Caesar suffered from some disease and then made an assumption. She didn't check her facts!! Certainly, I have never heard that the reputedly fastidious Caesar suffered from an STD - even Colleen McCullough hasn't gone that far!! Phil

As I have re-visited the site for the first time in several months, I thought I would take the opportunity to alert those interested to the fact that the 1968 ITV series "The Caesars" written by Philip Mackie, in now out on dvd in the UK. The series is in six parts - Augustus, Germanicus, Tiberius, Sejanus, Caligula and Claudius. It follows essentially the same time period as "I Claudius" - from Augustus' visit to the exiled Posthumus Agrippa, to the accession of Claudius. I can only say that though the series is studio made (ie all on sets with no exterior or location shooting) and in black and white, it retains the power to impress. The sets are HUGE and the acting very impressive. Andre Morel (Quatermass in Quatermass and the Pit, and Messala's predecessor in Ben Hur") is an amazing Tiberius and actually reminded me of the statues of the real Emperor. I am a great fan of George Baker (who played the role in Claudius) but for me Morel is Tiberius - a man who desperately wants to restore the republic, cynical, brutal, but human. We don't get skin disorders and depravity from him, but a man being destroyed from within. Simply superb. Freddie Jones made his name as Claudius and is quite different to Jacobi. Barry Ingham (an actor who also once played Robin Hood but otherwise disappeared) is excellent as Sejanus. Sejanus' fall is done in a packed senate with a subtle speech being read out. One might have been there. incidentally Macro is more subtly played than John Rees Davies manages in Claudius. I saw the series when it was first shown and it has remained with me since. I am delighted to have the ability to watch it again and study it. Where Graves' Claudius follows the "myths" and scandal (more Suetonius' account that Tacitus) The caesar's is more a straight (no pun intended) political drama - no romping on Capri for this serious-minded Tiberius!! Caroline Blakiston (she often played Mrs Thatcher-type roles later in her career) is a grandly imperious and driven Agrippina the elder, with Eric Flynn as a noble but weak Germanicus. I think the same actor plays Tiberius' soothsayer/astrologer Thrasyllus, in both series. There were times when watching The Caesars that i felt i was watching footage of actual events - especially with Tiberius and Sejanus - mackie lets the facts and the political intrigue (the theme of the series is really "who will succeed to the throne") speak for themselves. The late Michael Bates (who also made several Hammer horror films and died tragically young) is the best Gaius Caligula I have seen. I can recommend the dvd without reservation to anyone who might think about buying it. It was just under

"Funny Thing" is a wonderful show - early and very sophisticated Sondheim - the stage play is even better than the movie, IHMO. The film is flawed by the unnecessary chase at the end. Lester fills in lots of little details and zany silent visual gags. But some of the best songs are cut including the wonderful "I'm calm" and "Free". I directed the play for the amateur stage in the UK in the early 90s and the songs are technically demanding. But the humour is wonderful and the audience almost fell out of their seats. Plautus often used "generic" names for characters - so the conquering hero is "MILES GLORIOUSOS" (literally the wonderful soldier). The old man is SENEX - and so on. I think the opening number "Something familiar, something peculiar" is possibly my favourite song in any musical. Witty, dramatic and effective. Just some random thoughts, Phil

...the station of the person being crucified... I thought only slaves could be crucified? Phil

My apologies for my tone. Let me know if I don't improve. I'll try to match your standard in future. Phil

To start with an anecdote: This statue is one of my favorites and when in Rome I always go to see it in the Capitoline Museum, as well as visiting the Room of Emperors. As some friends and I were standing looking at this statue, an American (sorry but it's true) passed by and muttered - clearly intending to be heard, "If I looked at a naked guy in a locker-room like that, they'd say I was gay!!" So much for appreciation of art!! As to the statue, I did some research on this several years ago. I found a very old (late C19th, I think) book on the sculptures in the Capitoline, which showed the extent of restoration on the "Gaul" which was extensive. thus, I suspect that much of its "look" today may be contaminated by C19th taste. You might want to take that into account. I find it interesting these days to see busts where "modern" noses have been removed and we are not affected by this false sense of completeness. It changes the way we look at the piece. I think the rest of the Pergamon Gauls (at least marble versions of them) are on display in other museums. The so-called "Ludovisi Gaul" is in the Terme, Rome and shows a warrior committing suicide after killing his wife. others are in Venice, Naples and the Louvre. RRR Smith "Hellenistic Sculpture" (Thames and Hudson 1991) discusses the group and has ideas as to how they might originally have been grouped. I find the statue of the Dying Gaul one of the most beautiful and moving from any age, He is up there, for me, with the David and the Prime Porta Augustus. And i don't care what impression I give as i look at him!! Phil

Empress - on what grounds, precisely, did you consider Nero to be a "bad person"? Phil

Ursus: ... I really don't think it matters what we believe. What matters is what the people at the time believed and how they acted upon it. That IS important, true - that is (to be crude) "cause and effect", "the result" etc. Much of Octavian's victory was based on his use of propaganda (I am not forgetting Agrippa's contrinution militarily) and that is all about hearts and minds. But we surely have to deepen our understanding of what words, ideas and approaches meant in the 30sBC, and that means getting below the surface of the "facts". After all, the interpretation of events is only that which historians and commentators (then and since) have put on what happened. At one time, I recall, history books were full of how Actium was lost because the Egyptian ships were too large and unmanoeuvrable. (Shades of 1588 and the Spanish Armada!!) But we now know that Actium was lost for far deeper and more subtle reasons, including Agrippa's successful strategy, and indecisicveness in the Antonian high command. We must surely challenge and continue to challenge the conventional wisdoms. I for one don't find the conventional portraits (I mean the interpretations) of the characters of Antonius or Cleopatra remotely convincing in terms of their own times or political practicality. We need (MHO of course) to dig deeper and think harder. If a superficial acceptance of what others have said suits individuals, that's fine by me. But it isn't my approach to history as a living breathing subject. ...I still feel comfortable he won at Actium. Those on these forums berating the fall of the Republic to the despotism of the Empire would probably have twice the cannon fodder if Antony and Cleopatra had won at Actium ... Fine. But I don't remotely understand why some personal view of the outcome, or of political rights (democracy) or wrongs (autocracy) has to do with anything. Are we really still at the level of "1066 and All That" in this discussion? Dividing everything into "good" kings and "bad" kings? What on earth have such views got to do with the meaning or practicality of words such "despotism" (or democracy) in the C1stBC? I suspect modern sensibilities would be offended by both. But surely, given the level of knowledge and debate I have seen displayed on this site, we are above responding to history, or of considering a theme, without resorting to arguments based on "well I like Augsustus but I don't like Cleopatra"!! "One was good and the other was a nymphomaniac!! Your "comfort" about who won Actium is relevent only to you (and long may you holf that personal view) - but that is not history, nor being an historian. Phil

tflex - I thought I had read recent estimates that tended to confirm the 3 million figure for Caesar's Gallic campaigns, if you include those sold into slavery, made hiomeless etc (ie the figure is not JUST thosde killed). Are you saying that the figure should be smaller - if so, what is your estimate, or which modern writers do you cite? Phil

Thanks for your thoughtful replies guys. But ND, when you say: I don't think we take that into account, or if we do, we don't think about it too much or into great detail. The question arises, should we? Phil

It seems to me that historians are often guilty (in all periods) of drawing lines under an epoch or era (however brief) and then acting as though what had happened previously was gone and forgotten. An obvious example in British history in 1485 when the medieval era is said to have ended and the Tudors are perceived to have begun the early modern world. 1945 and the end of World War II may be or become another example - books end on the date or begin then. Themes, even academics, sometimes won't cross the artificial barriers thus created. I suppose as one gets older, one's appreciation or understanding of the passage of time changes. When i was a youngster watching war films on TV in the late fifties, the subject seemed a long way off. I was aware, of course, that my parents had lived through the war, but it didn't seem "real" to me. Now I recognise that the events I was seeing fictionalised had actually happened only a little over 10-15 years before. As I now recognise, that is a fresh memory for someone who remembers that far back. Even the depression, the abdication of Edward VIII in 1936 were only 20 or so years old. My grandmother, born in 1887, saw the whole history of flight from the Wright brothers to landing on the moon in her lifetime. So why raise this point on a Roman website? Because it seems to me that we don't always take into account memory, influences or recollection - the overlapping of eras and events - when we analyse why and how things happened and the reactions to them. A man of advanced age (say 70 old, but not unreasonably so for Rome) living in the year of Actium might easily recall Sulla, or at least have talked to those who did. Thus comparisons between his actions and Augustus' could have been easily made. Not that many years before, say in the year that the first triumvirate was formed, the Gracchi could easily have been a living memory. Caesar would have been a relatively fresh memory, his personality and actions clearly recalled by many Roman nobles through most of Augustu's reign, and indeed by many veterans of his legions. Cicero's voice and reputation could have been in the minds of men Seneca spoke to. Gaius (Caligula) could draw on the memories of his grandmother, Antonius' daughter - so knowledge of his political aims and his tradition could be alive as late as the 40s AD. Add to this the fact that Roman nobles kept the imagines (wax masks) of their consular ancestors in their town-houses with details of their mannerisms and way of speech, and quite distant people could have been much more "alive" to a descendant (maybe several generations gone) than are our forebears today. Is it right to make such a clear distinction as we do between republic and principiate (around say 30BC is usual) when for so many people living then, the dateand the change was invisible, the past, present and future a continuum rather than a crossing of a threshold. Would they have made the same judgements we do? So my question is, do we give enough weight to this aspect of Roman life in our evaluation of causes and effects, influences and responses, attitudes and reputations? Maybe we do - but I'd be interested to guage opinion here. Does ignoring artificial divides between eras change our perception of what was happening and how it was perceived at the time? Hope I have made myself clear. With apologies to Marcel Proust for the adapted title!! Phil

There's a lot of very generalised threads being made here. What period are we talking about, exactly? Marius' army was likely to be a different case to Caesar's in Gaul, the auxiliaries on the Wall, or the army of the later empire. I think the question also needs to address the ancient diet as a whole. Gladiators, for instance, were fed beans because that was said to give a "fatty" coating that was useful for the work they did. I doubt we would draw the same conclusions - but it appears to be a "fact". I have always assumed that Roman soldiers achieved what they did through training and discipline and a scientific approach to the military arts - this is what did for the "barbarians" such as Gauls and Germans. Caesdar moved fast, unexpectedly, understood tactics and strategy, had foresight and judgement, rather than a blind courage (though he had plenty of courage) and verve. In the field I am sure that Roman armies foraged and lived off local produce - the wheat, barley etc was staple supply to ensure bread and beer. as for "gruel" or porridge - even in medieval times people (including the rich) often ate dishes that were based on gruel or porridge, sweet or savoury and including meat. Cooking methods were less efficient than today and food went off because it could not be frozen. So different approaches were made to disguise the taste of meat that was "off". I'd appreciate clarification of your argument or point though, to respond fully. Phil

Osprey - who publish a wide range of military books in the UK, have a cheap and colourful book on this subject (maybe two). It provides pictures of the knight's clothing and also a fairly reliable text on the history of the Order. There was a new title on Lepanto (hardback in the UK about 2 years ago) which I have, but cannot find. I'll try to look it out. As i recall it was a good read. Phil

Both Julias - Augustus' daughter and grand-daughter were sentenced for sexual misconduct and exiled. I always thought it an unlikely coincidence that mother and daughter should act and be condemned in the same way. I i found that many historians have the same doubts. at the same time that the elder Julia was exiled, Iulus Antomius (son of the triumvir) was executed. Other nobles exiled, included (I quote Syme) T Quinctius Crispinus; Ti Sempronius Gracchus; anAppius Claudius Pulcher; and a Cornelius Scipio. An interesting bunch of names, i think you'll agree? The two elder sons of Germanicus, Drusus and Nero - elder brothers of Gaius Caligula - were imprisoned by Sejanus for treason. One actually informed on the other. Both died, one probably by starvation, in storerooms under the Palatine Palace. these were adult, imperial princes, with a lineage and potential destiny - peraps a grudge against Tiberius, as had their mother Agrippina Minor. I find it entirely believable that Sejanus may have tricked them into conspiring, or caught them out doing so. Either way, like their mother, they paid the ultimate price. Let me know if you need more. Phil

...though we know in some cases, (like that of Jesus), iron pegs were used. As I noted in my previous post, we have actual archaeological evidence of this from Israel. I think the victims name was Jehonan. Phil

It's why, when you get into the logistics of it all, that you start to question the conventional wisdom of the "popular" books about gladiators - even Michael Grant!! Why have magnificent schools like the Ludus Magnus (immediately adjacent and linked to the Colosseum) with a practice ring and what Americans would call bleachers, if the majority of fighters were tyros (newcomers) or untrained? Why spend vast amounts training specialist fighters if most will die on their first appearance? To my mind it is clear that people paid to see their favorite and famous fighters practice before the games, assessing fitness and judging their readiness for a fight. That is the usual and best basis for betting, after all - form and current state. I think we must dismiss the fictional evidence as witty but unproven. But on the |tiberius quote, I might agree - was it not Marcus Aurelius who offended some of his people by working during fights? I suspect a mathematician could work out, given frewquency of fights, number of arenas and numbers of fighters, what vast recruitment would have been needed to prepetuate the games. But i don't think we need that. To me the troupes of gladiators noted on the walls of Pompeii, indicate that like a visiting circus or travelling theatre group, people must have had some idea of the personnel involved, the stars, the attractions - otherwise advance publicity would never have worked, would it? Phil

I think we must be a little wary of accepting Augustan propaganda about Antonius too quickly. Antonius was no Caesar, but he was an experienced politician. I doubt he "flipped " by believing he was divine. caesar had acknowledged the Venus connection very openly (viz the temple in his new Forum at the heart of Rome); he had been made divine AFTER death. It is surely more likely that Antonius was exploring paths similar to these, than that he was becoming power mad. It was always widely recognised that the eastern empire had to be ruled differently to the western. Hellenism was what most of the imperial provinces - from Achaia, through Asia to Syria and Egypt, were accustomed to from generations of rule by Alexander's successors - the Ptolemies, Seluicids and Antigonids, etc. Jack Lindsay - an almost forgotten author, but one I recommend for his efforts to enter the mind-set of the Romans - has a lot to say about what Antonius might have been doing and why in his books on Roman Egypt. I STRONGLY recommend reading these. A little dated now in style and perhaps in scholarship (much has happened and been found out since the 1950s/60s) but his approach remains valid IMHO. It is the vocabulary of the east that Antonius was seeking to use - and Dionysius/Bacchus, like Apollo, was a sophisticated concept with many ramifications. the libidinious hedonist is not his only side. Both Apollo and Dionysus had their mystic and mystery sides. As Constantine eventually demonstrated, given the wealth, cultural distinctiveness (Greek), importance for food (Egyptian grain) and threat (Parthia) there was merit in ruling the east from within its own sphere. 300 years earlier, Antonius and Cleopatra VII may have had an aspiration to do the same thing from Alexandria, or - at least - for her to rule the east from there, while another (Octavian maybe) ruled in the west, under Antonius paternal direction (a parallel might be the later Augusti and Caesars, senior and junior, of the late empire). Speculation, I know but within the spirit of Roman thought and imagination. I think one must also be careful of using phrases like "the tradition of the old Pharoahs". I'm not sure we know how the Ptolemies saw that tradition. They seem to have operated within a very Macedonian/Greek world and mind-set - Alexandria. In any case the dynastic pharaohs (say Tuthmosis III or Rameses the Great) did not rule the entire east as god-monarchs. Egypt's empire was more a sphere of infleunce, in a world of great powers - Hittites, Mitanni, Achiawa, Babylon. Much of the writing on ancient Egypt is based on Victorian ideas of empire, religeon and those in turn reflect Roman models. I think Egypt was much more alien, more African maybe. But i strongly doubt it was ever a model for Antonius and Cleopatra except in symbolic terms - its antinquity even then; its aura, its style. Please come back at me, I know I am being controversial here, Phil

Then it must date from a late period, Romans did not usually resort to inhumation until Christianity emerged. Cremation was the usual Roman practice. Is this, therefore, a late burial, or a celt buried according to their custom? I wonder, Phil

frankq: Good post. There must have been enormous undercurrents running within the Julian house and in Roman politics generally between Actium and the death of Augustus in 14AD. Syme even suggests (quite convincingly and realistically, in my view) that the second settlement (I think I recall correctly) was the result of an in-house "coup" by Agrippa and others. There MUST have been a reason - more than sexual misdemeanours - as to why the two Julia's were exiled. It may be that Tiberius was wary of his wife (the elder Julia) and what she was up to, and retreated and that he told Gaius something that disturbed him too. Augustus must have had a LOT of skeletons in his cupboard, if only from pre-Actium days. Maybe there was a "secret not-to-be-known". Didn't Ovid comment that he was exiled because of something he overheard? so much of the detail - that we possess from regimes such as Napoleon's or the Third Reich, and which helps us to understand and interpret them - is missing for ancient Rome. Would we guess at the chaotic way in which Nazi Germany was run unless we had the evidence, yet even in its own day it was thought to be monolithic and super-efficient. we now know that Hitler's satraps were at loggerheads the whole time, that decisions were made in strange ways - could this not be the same (unseen today) for Augustus' Rome? Of plots and conspiracies in the period of which we have hints or evidence, I would propose: The two Julias - the first involving a son of Antonius Agrippa Posthumus Possibly Germanicus in the east (Egypt trip) Sejanus The elder sons of Germanicus Chaerea against Gaius Messalina against Claudius and that is just scratching the surface. Think how many of those are given a sexual connotation!! And yet in no case was the death anything but public or the punishment obvious. Germanicus possibly excepted, no need to resort to secret murder. It is dangerous, in my view, to assume that the evidence which survives is representative of the whole picture. We must, I think, avoid basing too much on the scandals and sexual foibles retold by Suetonius and look for the hidden hints of the political and pragmatic reality. We need to assume gaps and look for realistic and plausible (also supported by evidence) potential explanations. To me it is self-evident that Livia (imbued with republican values) would not have continued the anti-secret murder ethos of her youth. As I have said, there was no need for her to resort to murder when her word whispered in the ear of her husband could send anyone into permanent exile. That was then the Roman way - surely the evidence forces that view? To me the issue of the many deaths has a simple explanation - like was uncertain at that time - diet, the risks of injury in daily life from accident, the relative weakness of medical knowledge, genetic failings, lead poisoning from water pipes etc, could all lead to early death or death at a relatively young age. Indeed, did not Octavian almost die twice (?) in his early years as ruler? If he had succumbed, would we now be arguing that Livia or some other murdered him? Robert Graves was a great historian, classicisat and specualtive writer, but let us not assume that he had all the answers, or that his taste for the dramatic and sensational, reflects the truth. Phil

There is evidence in Britannia of pagan/local gods being "linked" or associated with one from the classical pantheon. Thus a pagan celtic thinder god - Tanarus - might be linked to Jupiter. A war god might be assimilated by Mars etc. The Romans were usually pretty tolerant as long as the cult concerned did not rock the boat or stir up anti-Roman feeling (as the druids tended to); or refuse to recognise the validity of the pagan cults (as did the Jews). On Mithraism/Christianity, I think one has to be careful of over-easy assumptions. As i recall some Mithraic temples were deliberately broken up after the arrival of Christianity, with images/statues smashed. All the Mithraic temples I have visited in Italy (Rome, Ostia) and Britain (on the wall, Walbrook, London etc) show no signs of conversion for Christian use. Mithraism was also an exclusively male cult - no woman were allowed to be initiated. But certain features were absorbed by Christianity - the date of Mithras' birth, 25 Dec. for instance. The cult include an initiation involving "resurrection"; and a sort of "communion" feast. Phil

What is the evidence either way - the sources? I have seen it argued that the condemned carried the crossbeam ONLY to their place of execution - the upright was already in situ? This by contrast to the traditional "stations of the cross" depiction of Jesus with the whil;e"X". But do we have reliable information on this - if so i am unsighted on it. Are we even sure of the methods used? Commonsense suggests that nails would work loose over the period of days a victim spent dying on the cross. The reult of the method of execution was that the victim rose and fell on his hands in a struggle to breath - a violent see-sawing moving that would surely have put huge stress on the junction between upright and cross beam, whether a T or X shape. In ancient cultures, I suspect that pegs and joints (however crude) would have been more in use and the preferred approach - but do we know? So far as fastening the victim to the cross is concerned, I have seen depictions both of ropes and hails. I know that the ankle bones of a crucified man were found in Jerusalem some decades ago - recognised as such by the spike/nail through the ankle joint. There was a shard of wood inserted between nail and victim as i recall. What we need is someone who knows about Roman carpentry... Phil

I'll air a topic that has long fascinated me. Hollywood and many writers/TV documentaries strongly suggest that the gladiatorial combats in the arena were bloody and to the death. That makes them ghoulish and ghastly and attracts a certain sort of viewer, I suppose. Gladiators have long been an interest of mine - I have spent quite a lot of time in Naples Museum looking at the superb collection of gear there; and in walking around the two gladiatorial schools in Pompeii (well looking through the gate at one!!); and at the remains of the Ludus Magnus in Rome. It made me think... We know the Romans loved betting We know the Romans put a lot into training gladiators (at places like Capua) We know that gladiatorial TROUPES toured the cities We know - from inscriptions and graffiti that certain gladiators became well-known (Celadus and Crescens at Pompeii) But how long would horse-racing last if all but the three first past the post in any race were slaughtered immediately after the race? How good a standard would any professional sport reach if after any game the loosing team were killed? How would people know how to bet if they were constantly faced with newcomers, new names and untried contestants/players? So I have come to the conclusion that, while there were important exceptions when fights were to the death, in the main Roman gladiatorial contests (perhaps in 80% of cases) both fighters survived. As in modern boxing where a "knockout" can be literal, but also a technical term (ie the fighter does not get up before the end of a count, but remains conscious - perhaps in Roman times, "death" in the arena could be a technical term (and Romans knew the difference). Figures such as Charon with his hammer appeared in the arena - could a "tap" to the head of a defeated gladiator have equated to a technical "death", as distinct from the term "missus" (let go)? All this is pure speculation - and we know that some Roman writers hated the games because they were bloody and cruel. But I do think that logic and commonsense argue for a different approach. I have more i can say on this, but I'd welcome feedback on what I have said so far, and any views, supportive or alternative, from the informed users of this site. Thanks for reading what may just be my ramblings (and my apologies if this has been raised before - I couldn't find a similar thread), Phil

In the republican heyday, murder was not a usual way of settling political scores. Exile was the usual way of getting rid of rivals who were perceived as too great a threat to have around. The aim was to be seen by ones rivals as suceeding where they had failed, or surpassing them in opena and equal competition. All that changed with the fate of the Gracchi, of course, but even then the proscriptions of Marius and Sulla were open. As were those of the second triumvirate - no one doubted how Cicero died or who was responsible. Cicero had Catiline's co-conspirators judicially murdered. But there seems to have been no direct threat to Caesar's life at until he crossed the Rubicon - had he laid down his imperium, his Boni enemies would have tried and exiled him. Watching events, stripped of citizenship and rights was a crueller punishment. Clodius is perhaps one of the few exceptions. So why do we assume the principiate indulged in murder any more than its predecessor system? If we look at some of Robert Graves' (or Suetonius') candidates for murder, what do we see? Marcellus - could easily have died of food poisoning or "plague". The elder Drusus - war wounds (a hazard of his profession) Agrippa - was getting old for his time Gaius and Lucius - died far from Rome, one in the east where disease was perhaps more common. Augustus - a very old man, his death seems natural, no need to ascribe unnatural causes (as with Tiberius later) Germanicus was a somewhat hysterical figure - again he died in the east perhaps of an illness caught there. But he had enemies other than Livia and Tiberius. There is also a direct explanation if he was "executed" for treason - his unauthorised and politically dangerous visit to Egypt not long before his death - a forbidden land for senators without imperial prior permission. On the other hand, it is not impossible that there was a genetic fault in the Julian, Vipsanian or Claudian bloodline that led to early deaths in some of its members. Caesar's Julia died young. Gaius and Lucius both had Agrippa's blood, so did Germanicus. His younger son Gaius may have suffered from ill-health. I would not take at face value the sexual indiscretions of the two Julia's under Augustus - political conspiracy covered up is more likely given the different fates of Iulus Antonius and Ovid. But the exile of both women was public and they were not killed. On the other hand, Sejanus, known as ruthless, may well have had Tiberius' son Drusus killed, and certainly had Germanicus' elder sons judicially murdered. But we can see the shape of the politics that might have brought that about. And Sejanus, specifically, was attempting to break into the royal family from without. He had little option but to remove rivals. By the time we get to Claudius, I'll admit murder as a likely cause of death, but there is good political reason there - the struggle for the succession and the need for Nero to act before britannicus came of age. I'd also see the younger Agrippina as more ruthless than her mother or Livia (although that is, perhaps, just personal preference). But I'd argue the political dynamic had changed by the 50sAD. So, I think I still see Livia as an unlikely murderess. If she needed to act against someone, unlike Sejanus, she simply had to poison with words. All just my musings, of course, Phil

With Suetonius, we must also not forget that ancient writers believed that a man's (person's for the PC) character was fixed from birth - so, if caesar ended a tyrant, he must have been a tyrant all his life (he just hid it well). If Tiberius was a pervert, he must have been a pervert all his life, however well-concealed that was. We now know this is nionsense of course, but it makes a mockery of some of the judegements that Suetonius, in particular, makes. It is quite possible, reading between the lines and using other sources, such as Tacitus, to perceive an entirely different explanation of the lives of Tiberius and Gaius, or Nero. They emerge as much more serious, believable people. Suetonius makes them almost "soap-operaish". Tiberius emerges as a reclusive, introverted but capable man, inclined to philosophy. His privacy and remoteness in his later years fuelled by ignorance of what went on at the Villa Jovis, gave rise to feverish speculation about orgies and naked children. In fact that lofty residence was probably used for philosophic discussion and reading. Tiberius emerges not as a pervert, but as a much more believable man of his times - touched by the republicanism of his father, a reluctant princeps, a man thwarted in his one great love and married to a political heiress who was enmeshed in conspiracy, and harnessed to an equally determined and political mother who dominated him. No wonder he escaped for 12 wonderful years at Rhodes!! Similarly Gaius can be perceived as the first princeps born to the purple, knowing nothing other than the Augustan regime, conscious of Sejanus' failed ideas, and perhaps with an Antonian dream of hellenistic glory and monarchy bequeathed him by his grandmother. He may have been close to his sisters (who would not have been after their childhood and seeing the fate of their siblings); and he may have suffered an illness that affected his mind later on - or is that just a falsification by political rivals who were the but of a harsh and sarcastic wit. We must, it seems to me, be judicious. What I have set out above is no more than informed speculation. Suetonius was far closer to the events, and the spirit of the age than am I. But look at our own age. How partisan, even 20 years after their day, are biographies of Mrs Thatcher or Ronald Reagan (or of Nixon)? Then, in C1st Rome, biography was a political tool - look at the way allegations of sexual misconduct and sodomy were thrown around to besmirch the likes of Antonius and Octavian. How close, given the effectiveness of Augustan propaganda (I put him on a par with Goebbels, perhaps even rate him higher given that his means of communication were more limited) can we get to Antonius and Cleopatra, their genuine political agenda, or the meaning of the (so-called) Donations of Alexandria? Moving forward - I enjoy the Scriptores Historiae Augustae - SHA - (we don't have much else as sources on fascinating figures like Caracalla, Elagabalus, or Commodus). I have well thumbed Loeb editions by my hand as I type. But dip into the scholarship and one immediately finds that these "biographies are not what they seem. That said, how difficult it is to dispense with them - we WANT to believe that we can rely on them. We cannot, or at least not without enormous care. Suetonius, as others have noted, is beguiling precisely because he is so racy and glittering, so saucy and indiscreet. he seems to pull back the sheets on many an imperial sleeping couch!! But would we take the word of The Sun or the National Enquirer seriously - or the work of anyone who used those as his main sources. When any ancient author quotes a letter, document or speech, how do we know it is accurate. Battle orations we KNOW were invented - why not documents and other quotes. How would readers, even in the authors day have known? But we HAVE to make some use of Suetonius and Tacitus and SHA because we have comparatively so few other surviving records But these are different from say the Armana tablets or the Hittite archives, because although they are even more ancient, they are (to an extent) original documents. Those quoted by Tacitus, Suetonius et al, we have to take on trust. But I think we have to admit that the APPARENT charcater we can put on ancient Roman personalities, in comparison to (for example) Egyptian Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, may be spurious. Like detectives, we need to proceed with care and sift the evidence carefully. All just my opinion, of course, Phil

I'll check, but I seem to recall he paraded the connection in Greece and Asia Minor as well. Phil