phil25

Another topic I found as i explored this forum's backstory!! The end of Roman rule in Britannia is interesting and i think the view of historians has changed in recent decades. I recall childrens' history books from my youth that had pictures of Roamn legionaries filing down to the docks in their lorica segmentatae, pila in hand; or Roman soldiers kissing farewell to their loved ones as they went off to defend the City of rome (about to fall to the Vandals of course) in 410. We now know better - by C400 the legions, their organisation and equipment had changed. And there was no dramatic pull out - like the British quitting India, or the US Vietnam. Legions and troops of various kinds went off with pretenders from Constantine onwars - probably lastly Magnus Maximus c 383, and a later "Emperor" Constantine III, but there were probably still locally based soldiers on the Wall and elsewhere. These were often Frisians or germans imported from Europe. It also seems that it may not have been the Empire that withdrew, but the Romano-British who threw out the imperial administrators - then appointed emperors of their own. Later Aurelius Ambrosius would be said to have had parents who had "worn the purple" - does anyone have any views on what that meant. To me the possibilities include (but are not restricted to): descent from Constantine I; relationship to Maximus (though it would seem Vortigern may have been his son-in-law); or a relationship to one of the last emperors created in Britain c 400-410. I have also seen the argument that the phrase could mean simply that he was true born Roman; or that his parents had been leading members of the tribal aristocracy. Personally, perhaps romantically, I rather favour one of the earlier options. I see the end of Roman Britain as a slow process too - extending (at least in the western parts of the promise) over 100 years or so, and including the liftime of that celebrated warrior, Arthur. What do others think? Phil

Exploring old threads (from before my time) and found this one. The Prima Porta statue (possibly from a villa belonging to Livia (Augustus' wife) is truely fascinating. There is practically no aspect of it that is not redolent with imagery from the cuirass - the return of the Carrhae eagles from Parthia; to the bare feet (a sign of divinity). The whole iconography of Octavian/Augustus is an interesting subject - the British Museum did an exhibition on the theme many years ago - which brought together many examples. I have the catalogue - "The Image of Augustus" still. It would be fascinating to know whether this was a statue made after his death - hence the bare feet - but commissioned by someone close to him, meaning that it should have been a good likeness. There are no statues of the first princeps showing thim as "old" - although I think a togate statue at either Corinth or Epidavros, with the fold drawn over the head in priestly, mode might be thought to have an older air. It was made to go with a pair of Gaius and Lucius. Phil

This is nothing new, prehistoric graves have been found in the Forum area since at least the C19th. As I recall many of the finds are in the Forum Museum (if that is still open!!). In the earliest times there were settlements on the Capitol and the Palatine and the Forum area was common to both. I'm sure Michael Grant discusses it in book on the Roman Forum. In republican and imperial times burial within the city limits - the pomerium - was, of course, illegal (Trajan was a sole exception). Those who have been to Rome may also recall a tiny basement-like structure beside the temple of Antoninus and Faustina - sometimes referred to as the "brothel". This is, I think too quite early. No surprises in this find though. Phil

I was actually thinking of the Annals and the histories in my comments about Tacitus' sources. i don't challenge what you say about the Agricola, but, of course, that has other problems of closeness to the subject and bias. In regard to comparisons of Gibbon and academic historians of today, I think their job is different. I love a good "narrative historian" - among my favorites is Shelby Foot who writes about the American Civil War, but there are tons of others. Their job, IMHO, is to allow a general reader to understand the sweep of events, to grasp the unfolding of a theme. But an academic historian can have much wider aims - to explore and criticise the sources perhaps (understanding the references and allusions, clarifying language, investigating motive and purpose); he might be looking at detailed interconnections between (say) the economy and expansion; health and political vivacity; he might be focusing on interpreting archaeological evidence; or seeking to cross-reference cultures. Where, I ask would the narrative historian be without the academic detail - it is far more likely to be the "scholars" who make the break-throughs and lead to new interpretations of events, than the narrative generalist. I heard an archaeologist say not long agao, that his teams were made up of scientists, being an historian wasn't important, he could buy those in if he wanted them!! But the best academics also write goo narrative - in our period Syme is a key example. Superb scholar, his broadly scoped work was based on his detailed studies. Give me the footnotes and the scholarly paraphenalia - that way I can assess the basis of the writers evidence and how he has used it. But let me curl up with the thick narrative for a long read. Phil

Which period are we talking about? It is not clear from your post? As far as i am aware, there is NO evidence (written or archaeological) that the British legions were ever so seriously affected by plague between 43-410AD.

What is accuracy in an historical source? IMHO (inserted for tflex benefit) but I think also more widely recognised by academics, one in analysing historical sources one MUST consider the motive in writing and the position someone held. I recall an article in the London Times about 35 years ago, written by Bernard Levin. It has always been a salutory reminder to me. he wrote that in 1912, the Russian Tsarist authorities were celebrating the 100th anniversary of the battle of Borodino. There were many centenarians living in Georgia (the Russian state) and experts went to see if there was anyone who had fought in the battle who had survived. Eventually they found a man who had been a 16 year old drummer boy in 1812. They asked him about his experiences, and with mounting excitement at last asked, "And did you see Napoleon?" "Yes", replied the drummer boy, he was a big tall man with blond hair." Now the point is that there is no need to doubt the sincerity of the man's testimony, he believed what he said, but it could not have been Napoleon. had he seen Murat, maybe and assumed a magnificently equipped general must be the great Emperor? Had memory played tricks? In evaluating a story like this, surely an historian must ask several questions: a) was the man in a position to see what he saw? (A general might meet important people regularly, a common soldier rarely or never - so how would he interpret what he saw?) was he educated, equipped or trained to recognise what he saw? (In an age before mass media, how would a farm boy from a remote area know what napoleon looked like?) c) how long had passed before the memory was recorded - could the mind/time/age have played tricks? d) what sources were being used, how close was the wtiness to the event? (Anne Frank may have been much more reliable about events in her house or in Amsterdam, but if she reports what was being said in Hitler's HQ, how much reliability should be placed on that? e) is the material first or second hand? f) not in the case of the doldier, but is there room for bias, distortion for political reasons (an Appeaser in the 1930s might write a different account and emphasise different points to say WS Churchill, or Moseley (a fascist). I could go on, but i hope you'll take my point. EVERY aspect and issue around an historical source needs to be analysed. Tacitus was writing after the event, from sources, not first hand experience (even human sources must have been old by the time he talked to them). He wrote from a Senatorial perspective, had a grudge against at least one Emperor (for the treatment of his father-in-law). His sources may have been senatorial archives which given fires in Rome may have been incomplete. Tacitus may also have had contemporary political views, lost to us now and irretrievable. He was not an eye-witness, did not know the individuals he wrote about, may have had private motives or tastes in writing or a bias that influenced his interests or choice of material. we do not know what he rejected or his method. All this and more is surely relevant in interpreting and using Tacitus as a source? Phil

All my arguments and points are "my humble opinion" - how could they be anything else? What is history but subjective interpretation and opinion? There is NO objective history. EH Carr made that point decades ago. The only point in using boards like this is discussion - hence anything I say is there to be argued against, and tested against the views of my peers (other posters here)? That's the only reason I post here. So what's the problem? By the way, what have I done or said in a month on this board that makes you think I am so arrogant that I need to be told what you told me? If you disagree, or think I am a fool, then the way to proceed is surely to show how my argument is flawed or my facts wrong - is that not so. But you did not do so. why? Is it that you don't like my view but cannot argue against it for some reason? I frankly doubt that. Only a day or so ago it was pointed out that I had got the name of Caligula's horse wrong (I wrote Cincinnatus when it was actually Incitatus!!! I readily admitted my error. So why this attack? I often include a phrase like "it's just my my opinion", "I think" or "IMHO" (in my humble opinion) in my posts, but it get's boring and limiting to do it every time. I take the view that others capable of posting here are also capable of appreciating that anything said here is a personal opinion. Is that not so? Do i have to spell it out each time for the juvenile? Finally, if my posts offend, I am happy to withdraw from this site. It is quite possible that i have intruded on a clique, or been too forceful, or unintentionally am arguing in a way at cross purposes with this largely excellent site? Is that what you want me to do tflex?? Sorry to others for this off-topic post, but I think it had to be said. Now back to the discussion!! E-mail me if you have a problem or want to respond tflex, so that other posters are not disrupted. (Perhaps in doing so you can explain to me what an "historical fact" is.) Phil

In Britain, until the early C19th, every town kept its own time - noting the actual time from the heavens etc. As a previous poster has observed it was the railways, and the need for timetables, that caused the |UK to adhere to a single timezone. Oxford, in terms of latitude, is nine minutes behind London. Even today the bell of Christ Church collge is rung at nine minutes past nince each evening - 9.00pm precisely in Oxford, but nine minutes later according to GMT!! Don't forget though, that in addition to time, the seasons were out of kilter for Romans until Caesar reformed the calendar. You could have winter in Sextilis, and summer in December!! Phil

Nah - Cato's a pussycat. You know that they say about protesting too much. He's a secret Caesar fan.... Phil

Just to point out that it was Antonius' generalship that defeated the Liberators and not Octavian (whose whereabouts at Philippi remain a mystery). Antonius did not initially want to go to war against the assassins, and Octavian's prompting was probably what changed his mind, but Cassius would probably have eaten Octavian alone. In my post, I was not seeking to do more than to point out that Caesar was more able than those who killed him. He was, in a sense, part of the solution, they of the problem. But I don't think he had a clear idea of what to do in 44 - hence his decision to go east and try to find breathing space, and hope time might bring enough changes to allow some new options. Phil

One of the great myths of politics is that killing the strong man changes anything. As the dimwits who murdered Caesar (the one man who might have saved the republic) demonstrated, conspirators are usually disgruntled little fish acting on motives such as jealousy, envy, revenge, and who are incapable of organising a party in a brewery. To remove a madman (Commodus, Caracalla, maybe Gaius) is one thing, but to remove an effectively performing head of state is quite another. The Liberators were plain wrong. Fortunately, they all met their just deserts. To answer the original question - I don't condone murder (unlike some here) under ANY circumstances - but the removal of Commodus has some amusing features. Phil

The Julian family in the early principiate was not something out of Dynasty, Dallas or the Godfather - pace Graves. Life was often short and brutal in imperial Rome - disease, inbreeding, lack of health and safety rules may all have contributed. All the sources seem agreed that Livia was a woman of impeccable descent, strongly Roman virtues, and a model wife. She may well have worked for her family (ie Tiberius) to inherit power over Julia/Agrippas, but I don't think for a moment she could have had people assasinated over the distances involved. We must avoid getting sucked into the Roman view that as a man was at the end of his life, so he was (even if it was concealed) earlier. Tiberius may always have been a reluctant soldier and a happy philosopher. He may have been quite content to be on Rhodes in "exile"; more so than on duty on the Rhine. he may have loathed marriage to Julia - and leaving aside the rather unbelievable allegations of sexual misconduct - may have preferred to distance himself from anti-Augustan political machinations. Gaius and Lucius would not be the first hopeful young men to die prematurely. In part the number of deaths of heirs is simply a factor of Augustus' very long lifespan in an era when men were said to reach their prime at 42!! he lived too long. No, Livia, IMHO may have been a consummate politician, she may have conspired and may not have been as virtuous as her public persona would have us believe - but a murderess? I think NOT. Phil

Thanks for the correction on Incitatus - you are of course correct. I was writing in haste - thank heaven for the true scholars amongst us. While I enjoyed the "reconstruction" of the Senatorial discussion (it may even be right!!) - I can see a more "serious" possible explanation. Perhaps annoyed by Senatorial opposition, Gaius remarks that he might impose his favorite horse as Consul - suggesting both his contempt and power at the same time. My own reading of Gaius is that he had a very serious and focused agenda, at least in the first years of the reign - and that was to make Rome very visibly a monarchy. It maybe why he got such an incredibly bad press from an early date, especially from Senatorial writers. I think the possible explanations of the Jerusalem incident and the Phideas statue are also good ones. Many Roman statues did have heads that were separate, so changing them was not a problem. The method of construction of Phideas's Zeus (I have seen the original moulds for some of the drapery in Greek museums) would make replacing the head very easy. We also know that after Nero's death, the head of his colossus was altered to that of Apollo or the Sun. Did not one of the authors also say that Gaius used to receive vistors while standing between the statues of Castor and Pollux? Their temple in the Forum Romanum is EXACTLY in front of the vestibule Domitian built to give access via a ramp to the Palatine palace. I believe that under the Flavian building of the vestibule, there are remains from Gaius' period. It may be that here we are misunderstanding an author's witty reference to the location or access to a new reception hall built by Gaius. We may never know. But I'd love, one day, to try to write a piece that would reveal a very different Gaius, and reinstate him as a "serious" princeps, at least to some extent. Phil

I must be brief - but just a thought. It has been suggested that under "totaliatarian" regimes - where attacking the ruler is (shall we say) unwise - history provides a way of making points which cannot be made directly. So we have to read the past as the present. An example from outside the period would be Thomas More's "Richard III", which it has been suggested is actually about Henry VII. I don't agree with the hypothesis in this case, but the idea is not impossible. How would we know if (say) Suetonius had used this "trick"? The question then arises, particularly with regard to Suetonius, as to whether some of his comments about earlier emperors ,ight have been read by his contemporary readers, as applying to Hadrian not (say) Tiberius. Tacitus, I need hardly say, writes from the Senatorial viewpoint, and that needs to be taken into account. He was also clearly in a position where bias, family or personal agendas may have crept in over Agricola. That has to be taken into account in assessing what he says about Domitian - but I agree that no writer can stray too far from the broad presentation of facts simply because others will recall them. On the other hand, we know that today writers can take a position in the face of conventional wisdom, or on the edge of credibility and still be successful - David Irving on Hitler and "Holocaust denial" would be an example of the former; Erik von Daniken ("Chariots of the Gods") of the latter. How would an historian 2,000 years in our future regard these woorks if they had by chance survives where those of others more in the mainstream had been lost? Finally, because I must go to work, I always have to remind myself when reading ancient historians, we must make many assumptions and speculate about what happened, simply because we do not have the sort of detail of daily events we have for more modern periods. Our knowledge and understanding of an event such as the assassination of Caesar may actually be deeply flawed. We also lack a great deal of knowledge about the minutiae and background that might have informed the writing to someone of its own time - humour, allusions, irony, literary taste - all of these can transform the meaning of a text in both subtle and dramatic ways. Editors often do a great job in hunting these out and throwing light into dim recesses of works, but i doubt we can say 9or ever will) that we read them as did their first readers. Broadly though I agree with the points made in this excellent discussion. Phil

I was pondering Caesar's greatness today - tell me, some ardent adherent of Caesar: Why, if he was so unchallengably, undeniably great as you propose, did so many of those who had served under him so loyally in Gaul and elsewhere turn against him to the extent that they were eventually part of the conspiracy, and in some cases wielded daggers against him? Decimus Brutus, Trebonius, even Antonius possibly are names that spring to mind, Titus Labienus earlier. Surely it can only be that something happned in Caesar to disillusion them - perhaps that his character changed before the end... Grateful for an explanation, Phil

A major source of lead poisoning may have been water-pipes!! You can see them in places in Pompeii. Infertility, as a result, has long been argued - hence the small numbers of children we know from the sources were born in noble families (there were many cases of adoption to keep a name alive), and why some families died out. Phil

I don't doubt, however, that the Roman empire fell-- I agree, but I think we need to be sure of what we mean by the term. In Britannia for instance, elements of Roman culture seem to have survived for decades in some areas? And when did the empire in Britannia "fall" - was it with adventurers like Magnus Maximus? With usurpers such as Allectus? There is even some evidence that in the early 400s the british threw out the imperial government but appointed their own emperors and continued in an independent way. In other areas the empire was simply taken over by Visigothic and other leaders - there is eveidence in the Palatine Palace in Rome of structures erected by one such character. Even before we usually think of Rome as having fallen, non-Italians such as Stilicho were prominent. how do we tell "before" the fall from "after". Emperors were no longer resident in Rome by the time it was raided in 410 - was that move part of the fall? Should Constantine's decision to move his capital to Constantinople be considered part of the fall, or a solution to try to stop it falling earlier? Did Rome "fall" or was it transformed over a period? We no longer perceive the "dark ages" as our forebears did, neither as an age, not as quite so dark. One could say that the British empire "fell" after 1947, but actually it was part retreat, part a realisation of a changed world order, part economic necessity, part transformation into a "Commonwealth" (which still continues. I think there are some serious questions here about interpretation. And eggers, please don't apologies too much about your initial post _ i for one enjoyed it. Phil

It's age tflex - initially your comments didn't show up for me. But you have still not responded to my points? my questions still stand. Phil Sorry tflex - I kept seeing different versions of your last post. I am certainly not a "Caesar basher" i have commented on my admiration for him elsewhere on these boards. But you still have not answered my direct discussion of your post - and if caesar was killed half-way through his reforms, then he certainly did not save the state - he can merely be said to have been trying to do so. In any case, perhaps you can elighten us as to what those reforms were? Had he not been murdered, he intended to quite Rome for some years to campaign in the east. So his reforms would still have been left to settle without him. It has been argued that he had to absent himself to give himself time to consider what needed to be done, and/or because he was actually bankrupt of ideas. I'd be interested to hear your views. I addressed your initial post seriously, I'd be grateful if you would do the same for mine. Phil

Perhaps on a slight tangent to the main thrust of the thread, but I'd be interested in the views of others on this: It seems to me that from C1st AD onwards (perhaps before but I am unaware of any evidence) the so-called "mystery" religeons of the east seem to have gained in popularity among Romans. Christianity was, of course, the final victor - or at least was the one eventually chosen to be used as the veneer for a re-directed/refurbished paganism, but the Elusianian mysteries, Sol Invictus, Mithraism and the Cult of Isis all had their devotees. The main thing in common between all these is a faith that was personal, redeeming and which appears to have involved some idea of resurrection (the corn that has to die to be reborn at Elusis; Isis/Osiris; symbolic rebirth was a right of passage/initiation in Mithraism...). I'd be interested to know what others think on the reasons for this. Was paganism failing, or was there some new spirit abroad? was it that the mystery cults were stronger than the old pagan ones; or was there a knew need aboraod in society that these imported cults could answer, but the old temples could not? If so, what was the force behind this? Secondly, it is clear that Christianity took on aspects of it's rivals - the Madonna and Child is clearly Isis and Horus (such an image is not in the gospels or the epistles); Christmas Day- 25 December has links to the bithdate of Sol and Mithras; Mary as mother could well be Bona Dea; the pope took the title Pontifex Maximus - a title carried by Caesar as head of the Roman religeon. So was it Christianity that triumphed (I write as a practising Christian in case there is a feeling I am knocking something)? Or do we have, in orthodox catholic Christianity today, some survival at least of ancient cults, including that of Isis? Phil

There are some good "popularisers" who write readable books accessible to the general reader - Tom Holland is an example. I rather expect some books to follow up on interest in the "Rome" series (HBO/BBC). I think one question is whether academic writers will be widely published. In the UK I see a lot of excellent detailed stuff, but if for the academic market it is expensive (around double the price of a standard "popular" hardback). I also wonder whether the "classical" world, once so dominant, is now having to vie with other subjects - Egyptology, mezo-America; China; to name but a few. Schools in the Uk used to teach Greek and Roman history as a background to teaching Latin (and sometimes Greek) as languages - Latin was a mandatory requirement to study history of any kind in my day. (I failed it and read international politics instead!!) But that is no longer the case. Culture too has moved away from the classical in terms of painting and archietecture. So I wonder whether the demand that was there when Grant was in his heyday, is still there? Others will know (as I do not) the state of the market in the US. Phil

Your point might be of value in explaining why the Romans may have been limited in the extent to which scientific progress was possible, but i doubt whether it contributed to the "fall" of the empire - whatever that meant. After all Byzantium (the eastern empire) survived as a form of government until 1453. And Roman tecnology improved over the later years of the empire - have you ever looked at the Pantheon in Rome with its incredible dome and mathematical proprtions? or the Basilica of Maxentius in the upper Forum Romanum? Both are improvements over what could be achieved in (say) Caesar's day. Done without maths or an understanding of the laws of force and dynamics, or of proprtion? I think not. In medicine too the Romans became very skilled. Rome fell for political 9and geo-political), social, cultural and environmental reasons (perhaps aided by lead poisoning, epidemics, climate change and natural disaster) as well as invasion. the principles of government may have been ineffective, I doubt there maths were. If in terms of technology or industry Rome was unable to advance, I would be inclined to suggest that slavery had something to do within. A slave-owning state with sufficient labour has no need to invent efficient mechanical devices to augment or replace cheap human labour. That may have stilted innovation. So on balance, I am not inclined to accept your thesis, but it was a thought-provoking one. Phil

But tflex, Caesar dd not "save" Rome. Some of his ideas and decisions may have helped blaze a trail for Octavian/Augustus, but they did not offer a solution - not even one as effective as Sulla's was (at least temporarily). The proof? That the moment Caesar was killed everything reverted to the chaos and confusion of before the Rubicon - Antonius seeking to dominate - resistence to him; a weak Senate easily co-erced into granting extra-constitutional favours to Octavian; civil war (even leaving the Liberators aside) between the Antonian faction and other Caesarians under the consuls Hirtius and Pansa. In what way, pray, had Caesar "saved" the republic in any sense? He dominated it, and his will gave the state direction, order, strong government - but it was a Dictatorship (literally in both senses - as office and style) and it was resisted: Caesar died at the hands of Senators!! Neither did Caesar restore any energy or potency to the republic. It was within the lifetime of all the leading figures that Pompeius (and Lucullus before him) had conquered in the east and before that put down the pirates. Caesar had only just returned from gaul which he had added to the empire - and he had voyaged to far Britannia (crossing Ocean for the first time in that sense). he was about to go off to war in Parthia when murdered. In what sense is this a stste or society needing "*iagr*" - you must live in a dream world. I think you ignored my last post pointing out the deficiencies of your logic and facts - no doubt you'll do the same this time. Phil

As I recall, Syme was fairly young when he wrote "The Roman Revolution" - a very radical work based in part on then current events (Mussolini's march on Rome). Radical, and in an odd style, yet it's greatness was evident to all. Of course, one places greater faith on someone with credentials - but in my experience, they don't have a monopoly on insight or knowledge. Phil

I'll just live with ideas, at a push. That's what matters - the fuel for thought. Much of the rest is, IMHO, just snobbishness. Phil

A question arising from, but at a tangent to this thread: Why should academic views be regarded as the be all and end all of debate or rectitude? No one could hold academic excellence in higher esteem than do I, but it can (rather like views in a convent) run on certain tracks and get caught in a lcircumscribed conventional wisdom. In my experience, academics can be very bad at examining radical views because to do so may undermine their own credentials with colleagues, or their own published views. I think that any writer who argues his case well deserves a hearing (I include in that statement such outre studies as UFOlogy and alternative approaches to very ancient history - Velikovsky, Sitchin etc). Anyone with half a mind and a knowledge of the basic material can assess the quality of the work for themselves. I would also include in my list historical novels which can often move into speculation and imaginative areas where academics fear to tread. If Mr Parenti (an author I have not read) wishes to delve into new areas or express radical views, then that's fine by me. I think most of our views of the past need to be challenged because they are too beset with a Victorian ethos./ One of the things that I liked about HBO/BBC's "Rome" was that it challenged the Hollywood view of white marble and pristine togas. It gave us an alien society which would frighten most of us were we to find ourselves there. Any regular poster on this site or others similar, stand or fall by their mastery of the facts and the quality of their argument. That is even truer of published writers. We should surely not seek to "ban" certain books because they don't agree with our views. Such views are personal. As for: Controversy is fine--but Parenti's book is essentially a political pamphlet that merely uses Roman history as a backdrop for his modern political arguments. We normally keep a tight leash on that sort of thing from posters to the forum, and there's no reason we should do an end-run around that policy through our book reviews. I understand the site rules, and in part the reason for them, but I think it is the weakest aspect of this largely admirable board that I have found, and may yet limit the length of time I remain here. History should NOT (IMHO) be "safe". It should challenge, annoy, ittitate and perplex - and above all it should do that by being relevant. Unless one can draw analogies from the present, the past is a distant fiction. I applaud MP Cato's passion, his knowledge and commitment add lustre to this site, but I don't think we should dismiss views because they are radical. Phil