phil25

I'll have a look at it sometime, but I'm afraid i'm sceptical of ideas like that. I've read too much over too long a period about Rome to believe for a moment that the mass of society there was enfranchised in more than name. It is not a concept that the ancients would even have understood. And i am afraid that in politics cynicism is the only frame of reference. Phil

The Wishart "Sejanus" is fiction, but he writes well. Especially recommended for those who like Lindsay Davis; Stephen Saylor etc. Phil

I am all for revisionism of Caligula (and Nero) since the view of them we have is almost certainly wrong or at least incomplete. By the way, do you know Anthony A Barrett's biography of the man "Caligula: The Corruption of Power"? I have not read the one you mention. I believe that to understand Gaius (part of the problem, for me, is the constant reference to the nickname "Caligula") we need to do at least three things: i) look at him in context; ii) look at what other interpretations there might be for his recorded actions; iii) look at how the deeds of others sround the same time are interpreted. To give a few examples only at this stage: On i): Gaius was a direct descendent of Marcus Antonius, and knew his grandmother Antonia (Antonius's daughter) well. Could some of Gaius' attempts to introduce a Hellenistic-style of monarchy into the principiate, be a direct reference to some of Antonius' policies? Tiberius had, for part of his reign at least sought to play up the republican credentials of the principiate (he failed). he then retreated into seclusion and was an invisible figure. Gaius may have sought a reaction to both approaches - reduce the fiction of continuing republicanism in favour of realism; be much more visible and glorious. Gaius was the first princeps not to know any other form of government. Like Commdus later, Gaius may have been seduced by his birth and blood (Commodus was the first "porphyrogenital" emperor in several generations) - and this went to his head? On ii) a (deliberately??) misunderstood sense of humour might be responsible for some stories - Cincinnatus as consul; as with the legions collecting "seashells" (their huts??) on the seashore.. The maoeuvres in the Rhine could be training or discipline. On iii) Claudius faced a serious mutiny before his invasion of Britannia. Did Gaius face something similar which is interpreted one way for him, another for his uncle? Anything that allows us to see this politician and ruler as a real actor in affairs rather than as a madman or monster, helps out understanding of the early empire. Phil

ND: Who were the "true statesmen and Romans who kept pushing back the death date" to whom you refer - who could they have been? the list must be short. I genuinely believe that Caesar, for instance, had no interest in destroying the republic. It was only by being seen to be the "first man in Rome" ahead of his contemporaries that he could measure success. To conquer was a poor option. To be recognised as primus inter pares the great achievement. As with Sulla, I think Caesar hoped that he could "tweak" the system enough to preserve most of its features - perhaps more than Augustus did later. It was the Bibuluses (Bibuli for purists); Catoes (Porcii?) and Brutuses (Junii?) of the later years who were blind to the changes, the fractures and the weakening of the republican system - who looked back not forwards, who seem to have been more part of the problem than of the solution (to use modern management speak). And perhaps that is one way of seeking to examine this: In (say) 60BC what were the problems facing the republic? What were the key issues to be resolved? Who stood where on what issue? Was the position taken by each main protagonist (on the basis of the evidence we have, at least) one that sought to ignore the problem; or one that offered solutions? A grid would summarise things nicely. Phil

I can't think of a single system of government ever devised that is entirely altruistic and starts from a blank sheet of paper. Almost all seek to carry forward the aspirations of the controlling group (usually a clique of some sort) and to address whatever the perceived problems were of its predecessor. The "consitution" written or not, will also seek to bind the opponents of the regime and control their "fears" - of the "mob" or revolutionary change; or extreme groups or whatever. The Roman republican constitution was rather like the modern British one: a collection of laws and customs, traditions, common law and practice, rather than a single written document. As the british system is extremely flexible, evolving by interpretation of the past and of law against the circumstances of the day; so the Romans moved forward by interpreting and re-interpreting the mos maiorum. To a certain extent even Augustus did this in creating the principiate - few of his innovations were wholly novel, from tribunician powers to the idea of a princeps. Another point, politics is entirely perceptual, subjective. Change is made by people who perceiv a weakness or seek to build on success. the system is like a river with currents ebbing and flowing - it is never still or fixed. The later republic changed as it addressed challenges, the Gracchi; Marius' domination of the consulship; demagogues like Saturninus, Carbo and Clodius; Sulla's right-wing backlash; Pompeius exta-constitutional activities and rise; Caesar and his battle with Bibulus etc; aggravating sores like Cato who so often blocked change or necessary, practical steps being taken and were essentially backward looking. The triumvirates were simply vessels floating on that river, or even dams or additional currents within it - to provide several applicable analogies. They were of the problem as well as attempted partisan efforts to change the situation and overcome perceived problems. But the perceived problem to (say) Pompeius was not the same as it was to (say) Cato; indeed the latter may have seen the former as the problem!! caesar saw problems in the state that needed action; Bibulus saw Caesar AS the problem. Finally, to address a previous comment: but the problem still stems from human nature, if it wasn't then government should need not have to concern itself with watching it and to not ignore it and account for it. Modern governments (in terms of infrastructure, permanent bureaucracy; continuity of officials etc) exist to a certain extent outside politics and thus can "watch" the process and analyse it, suggesting and advising on changes to law or constitution. But I would argue that as all officials (aediles, quaestors etc) and all ministers (praetors, consuls) only existed and held office during their terms, there was no stable body to "watch" how things unfolded. The Senate, which might be perceived as having some potential to do so (because it contained former officials and ministers) could not do so because it acted in an entirely partisan and individual way. I think the republic was probably lucky to survive as long as it did. Could one even argue that it died with Marius (around his sixth consulship), and that Sulla, the triumvirates, Pompeius as single consul and caesar as Dictator were simply proto-principiates - attempts to find a system of domination by a small group or an individual, to restore the state? Just for arguments sake of course, Phil

My problem with McCullough's portrayal of Caesar has nothing to do with my personal views on him or others, but on the reading of her text: - every criticism of him (whether his relationship with the King of Bythinia or his severing of hands at Uxellodorum is excused, portrayed in a good light, or made the groundless "smears" of his opponents. Even his temper is frightening but controlled. Events NEVER take him by surprise. he handles women, troops, daughters, wives, brilliantly...... I could go on. A bit of a "dark side" might actually have made McCullough's Caesar more interesting - a youthful gay fling that would prove a potential weakness; his epilepsy, his baldness, being wrong-footed now and again. But this character is almost "Superman" he has no flaws, no weaknesses... and that makes him slightly unbelievable, though not unsympathetic. It is clear in the context of the whole series that from the start the six books are about Caesar (almost McCullough's Harry Potter!!) even before he is born. Marius is initially seen in his dealings with the Julii, and Sulla given a Julia as a wife. Caesar is evidently the author's hero - and I would argue that it is HER views of him (perfervid adoration almost) that are a flaw in an otherwise laudable, useful and reliable series. Phil

Augustus On Augustus, I too endorse Syme (but be warned his Latinate style, abrupt and terse, and his very exact use of words can be demanding. But it is one of the greatest of history books and well-worth reading. I recently enjoyed, very much, Richard Holland's "Augustus: Godfather of Europe". "Rubicon" (confusingly by TOM Holland, has I think been reviewed on this site before. A good overall coverage. Augustus caesar by David shotter is a short pamphlet examining some key questions.. I also have a work "Augustus" by AHM Jones. On Caesar - Rex Warner did an excellent (and in their day much admired) series of novels (but excellently reserached and written). I have "The young Caesar" on my shelves (Fontana 1965 - originally published 1958). I also have "Party Politics in the Age of Caesar" by Lily Ross taylor (Univ California Press c 1949) which has a bust of Marcus Porcius Cato as it's frontispiece!! Sejanus - I am not aware of anything on his, but I'd be fascinated to hear if there is anything available. I see him as a pivotal character in understanding the early principiate. Hadrian - "Beloved and God" by Royston Lambert is good, focused mainly on the relationship with Antinuous. Stewart Perowne (1960) wrote a "standard biography" - I have a US edition. Aurelius - the Birley is good, as might be expected. Phil

The "people of Rome" were never enfranchised in more than name. the system, whatever it might nominally offer, was strongly weighted in favour of the Senatorial and wealthy equestrian classes. Frankly, I think this casual use of the democratic idea in connection with Rome between 500BC and c 30BC is dangerously anachronsitic and sentimental (as I have note before). I am also amused by the implication that the Roman republican system could somehow have been "saved". All political systems evolve, and the Roman one did too - into the principiate and then a full imperial system. No system stays static - neither did the Roman one in the 500 odd year period I mentioned. Throughout it was a fount of corruption (not least bribery) autocracy and abuse of taxpayers - though the latter was simply taking the standard practice of tax-gathering throughout history, a step too far for the tastes of that period (and they changed). Politics in Rome were never "nice" always brutal (though not always violently so) and to romaticise it it simply laughable. Phil

The problem is not human nature; the problem comes only when government attempts to ignore human nature--and a triumviral monarchy ignores human nature and turns harmless faction, vanity, and greed into a threat to the system. Unfortunately, no system of Government yet discovered has proved entirely capable of resisting human nature - particularly ambition. Perhaps the British and American systems have proved most resisilent, but even they have had their lapses (Cromwell, in the case of the UK). On a separate issue, aren't most systems of government essentially a form of committee - even dictatorships below the central figure. That's how bureaucracies and cabinets work - what they are? Phil

Surely, the triumvirates were primarily about the self-interest of their members. By uniting in a pact, the three leading figures could negate to some extent thir two rivals scheming against them, and channel that into other activities/influence it. It also allowed them the power base to ensure they got at least some of their own way - more than they would acting singly within the system. For all the pious statements and propaganda, neither triumvirate was essentially formed for the good of the state, or the people. That was interpreted as equivalent to the purposesa and aspirations of the three men involved in each case. So it follows that: a) the triumvirates were always going to be limited in life because eventually the interests of the three power brokers involved would diverge; they were never intended to carry out long lasting reforms; c) the system would (if allowed) probably just have reversed any measures it did not like - as they did those of Sulla (who did to some extent act to restore the republic), once the triumvirate had broken up. History shows what happened. the first triumvirate, which was essentially of three co-equals (at least much more than the second) broke apart after the death of one member (Crassus0 and as the presteige of the remaining two clashed and became rivalry. The second triumvirate was never more than a convenience, to harness Octavian and to avoid prolonged civil war. It was a division of responsibilities and spheres, rather than the sharing of power, and the thrird member was a nonentity, brought in as a make-weight. So my answer is a firm NO, to both parts of the original question. Phil

I cannot now recall where i read it, I'll try to track down the reference, but I had understood for years that parthian captives sort of drifted east and ended up in western China. My memory suggests they might have been some of Crassus' men after Carrhae, but that may just be my memory playing tricks. Phil

I think one point to be made is that all these people would be totally alien to us - even assuming we could understand their language and accent, they worked within a totally different frame of reference to us. I remember about 20 years ago being on a london bus. As usual, for me when I've nothing better to do on public transport, I was studying the faces of my fellow passengers to see whether any bore a passing resemblance to a historical figure (of any period). there was one blond young man with hair that stood and fell rather as Alexander the Great's does in statues (a style copied incidentally by Pompeius Magnus). As I looked at the lad, who could physically have passed I suppose as Alexander - it dawned on me that I would never see in the modern world anyone who would carry themselves, or have the look in the eye, that Alexander must have had. A man who considered himself the son of God, whose confidence could win him battles against staggering odds, who could defy convention in many ways, must have been overwhelming - his charisma; the (probably to us extreme) arrogance of his manner and air; his assumption of superiority must be something gone from this world. people speak of the almost tangible majesty that surrounds HM The Queen today (I mean in personality terms) that affects them when they meet her. That must have been true in spades of Alexander... or Caesar, or Cleopatra, or Augustus... What I am saying is that we would have to make so many allowances in meeting the sort of people mention in the title of this thread, that we almost would not be meeting them... To meet them on their own terms would, I suspect, mean that we simply would not understand their approach to life (belief in fate, luck, attitude to human life, slavery, women) and - I suspect - we would dislike them so much that we would loathe them. Moreover, their bearing, gestures, use of the voice and expression, might have references that we would not even begin to understand. How could we judge them, since their civilisation and belief systems were not ours, and ours are not theirs. And on what basis would you assume you meet (say) Caesar? As an equal? (Did he have any - and how would he react to such assumption?) As a slave? As another soldier or politician? As a friend? or an enemy? As someone he liked, or found useful? Or as a rival? Balbus the financier must have known a different Caesar to that whom Cato, Cicero or Pompeius were familiar with (and each of them might have known a different facet of Caesar. All that said, I would be fascinated to see Caesar (but maybe to be a fly on the wall during his triumph, or watch his assasination, rather then to meet him); to see Antonius and Cleopatra and to understand what the Donations of Alexandria was all about; to be among the crowds when Jesus walked the Galilean hills. One thing I am sure - that all our preconceptions of the "look" of the past, and academic explanations of cause and effect, would be shot out of the sky in seconds. Phil

I'd also recommend Peter Connolly for reconstructions of the classical period. he has a fantastic book on the Ancient City - half of which is about Rome, 2 volumes about a Roman cavalryman under Trajan ; one on The Holy Land in the time of Jesus; and one on Pompeii. very painstaking artist - and the one who by practical experimentation has rediscovered Roman practices, such as how their four-horned saddles worked. Phil

In conservation terms the great paradox of our day is how to prmote, facilitate and increase access to sites of physical and historic significance, and yet to preserve them. I don't know how the balance is to be achieved, but it has to be. I am probably as fierce a critic as you of EH, but they do have a major problem. It's like the modern city of Rome - simply too much to handle in terms of ancient remains. Phil

I don't think I claimed that Clodius was the first, or created precedents, it is just that IMHO the impression one gets when one puts it all together is unpleasant - like something one has stapped in. But it's a purely personal view. Phil

No, I am a Brit, Pertinax. I think I have loved Housesteads every time I have been there. When i first went, the Alan Sorrell drawings were about the only reconstructions atround 9of any period) and i loved them. He did a very dramatic one of Housesteads with the rain sweeping in. When I got there, the bleakness of the place entranced me. You stand on the north wall of the foot, with the scarp dropping away in from of you. Behind, the hills could almost be southern England, rolling and green, but northwards it is purple and grey, with hints of silver where the lakes are, and a vast expance of sky!! terricic. It never disappoints. I love too the walk along the Wall, westwards, over Cuddy's Crag, to the milecastle, then down past the iron-age farmstead site, and across the fields to Vindolnda, the into Haltwhistle for tea and the train back to Hexham. It's about 10 years since I was last on the Wall and quite a lot of work had been done at that time. I hadn't realised it was a concern now. As to the National Trust, are they the responsible body for the wall, or is it English Heritage? I suspect the latter, as the NT is usually houses and gardens, rather than monuments in public ownership. But I maybe wrong. I think they do a huge amount of good, but they can be a dead, risk averse, hand. I'd like to see much more imaginative management - with reconstructions in situ of parts of forts (where the remains are not particularly novel) and more excavation on the lines of that the Burley's understake. The military zone of the wall, as you say, holds immense promise of great finds. Phil

I don't know whether this is the thread or forum in which to discuss acting styles, but: I think until the late 60s, actors had to make their name on the stage. Even a fairly young man like James Dean had first acted on Broadway before getting his Hollywood break. A then anglo-phile America also liked the british accent - so there was an assumption that the Colman's, Oliviers, C Aubrey Smiths (in the 50s Burton) of the profession were the "actors". And "great" acting was established by conquering Shakespeare. But from the 60s on the screen began really to overshadow the stage as the basis of decisions on effective acting. I would argue that Hoffman, Pacino and de Niro are three of the great actors on the basis of their screen work. These - not the Ken Brannagh's - are the ones who are emulated. Brannagh chose the olivier path to glory - Royal Shakespear Company, solid TV roles, directing himself in Henry V, then to Hollywood. I would argue he has found fame, but not renown, because he took the wrong route. The greatest actors today are screen actors and the style is a natural, unforced one. This is wholly in line with the development of acting, where each dominant figure - Burbage; Garrick; Irving; Olivier... has been seen as more "natural"/less theatrical than what cam before. 20 years later they are being seen as hams and a new generation of young Turks emerges. So I think the US rules today in terms of acting greatness - though I'd defend the quality of our English actors (Holm, McKellen, Emma Thompson; Robert lindsay, Ioan Gruffydd; Bernard Hill....) to the death. But I could be wrong. It's largely a question of taste. Phil

An interesting and worthwhile project. I know Vindolanda quite well - a wonderful spot in my favorite county. Do you know that they found parts of a prefabricated palace there - perhaps used by Hadrian on his visit when he ordered the wall to be built? The site also boasts excellent reproductions of both the turf and stone walls - last time I was there the turf wall was suffereing rather from age, subsidence and rot, but I think they may have allowed this to happen deliberately to see how long the original structure might have survived without repair. I assume that you are also aware that all the digging that has produced the tablets has been carried out OUTSIDE the walls of the surviving fort. Inside belongs to the National Trust and no digging has been allowed. Outside the land belongs to the Vindolanda Trust. I had the privelege, in my youth in the 60s of hearing Eric Burley (father of the two current academics) speak at my local archaeological society meeting. Even 40 years and more on, I can still recall his talk - he reminisced about spending summers on the Wall doing excavations, with his family in tow. Vindolanda was known as Chesterholm then. It was a couple of years later when I was about 14 that i first went to northumberland and visited Chesters, Houseteads and Corbridge. There was no considered much to see at Chesterholm in those days. I have been back many times since and am never disappointed. Incidentally, the mystery of Vindolanda for me does not relate to the tablets, but to the round hut foundations thathave been excavated just inside and under the line of the wall of the stone fort. Anyone any ideas on what they might have been? Phil

What do you find strange about him? Won't don't I - his tactics, his desire to desert his own class, his odd relationships and willingness to court scandal, his resort to violence.... nasty individual all round as far as I can see. Phil

But tflex, the foundations of the Roman empire WERE laid down - and indeed largely completed - under a REPUBLIC!! Pompeius' conquests in the east, the accession of Greece and Macedonia to the empire, Caesar's conquest of gaul - the taking over of Spain and Africa from Cathage, ALL happened under the republic. The empire, is anything, stalled growth. Augustus played a bit with Germania but stopped expansion after the Varus disaster; Claudius conquered Britannia - but how does that compare to the earlier work of Caesar in the west or Pompeius is the east? Trajan extended the empire in Dacia and Armenia, but this was not long-lasting, and was relatively soon given up. So I don't think your argument stands up. phil

The world - in the sense of its various political entities, nations, countries etc - has been governed by forms of personal rule for far longer and far more effectively than it has been by representative or democratic governments. If we consider civilisation as going back to say 3,500 BC (a fairly conservative estimate) then Egypt, Assyria, the Hittites and Mitanni - were all ruled by kings of some kind (called Pharoahs, emperors etc). China established itself under emperors. Later the Macedonians conquered the world under a king. More recently, britain, France, Spain etc all founded great empires under monarchical rule. So I find all this about "a good father [letting] his children grow up to become self-governing", pretty platitudinous. It isn't true for most of history. You can almost trace those ideals back to 1776, and to the French Revolution which followed the American. It's about the last five minutes on the clock face. True some of those ideals were borrowed from the past - Greece, republican Rome, but democracy (or whatever term you wish to employ) was used then in an utterly different context to that of today. So please, let's have some realism... Phil

Reverting to the "Rome" series: Has anyone else seen the TV (mini-series?) "Julius Caesar" with Jeremy Sisto in the lead (Christopher Walken also stars)? It covers part of the same ground as "Rome" and is another interesting recent TV "take" on the period. To me it plodded a bit (I picked up a cheap dvd in a sale) and showed the strengths of "Rome". I'd be interested to know what others thought - I did look for a thread on this but could not find one. Phil

I looked for this thread, as I am currently re-reading the series after a lapse of some years. (I bought the hardback of the first volume when it was initially published and devoured it and subsequent ones as they came out - until now I have not read them as a series.) I was impressed by McCullough's evident research, and her devotion to getting into the detail - it is a different sort of historical novel, aimed at filling a gap between the history book and fiction, by allowing "serious" speculation about those aspects that the academic approach will not permit. Filling gaps and providing personalities for names. It's a brave and challenging task and I'd certainly give McCullough six or seven out of ten, and more for effort and endurance!! By bringing characters of whom little is known back to life and giving them personalities (although these have to be created from whole cloth in many cases) the author does breathe some life into what can be quite dull academic material. I'll freely admit that there were aspects of the marius/Sulla contest, Carbo and Saturninus - in the early books - that I had never really understood before, that I began to get a grip on after reading these books. But she does either like or dislike personalities - thus Cicero largely does not get a good press from her; neither does Clodius, and she obviously HATES Cato!! I actually came back to these books (now in a slightly larger format p/back in the UK which makes for easier handling and reading) with even greater admiration than I had first time round. They are not written in the most stimulating prose and some of her characters don't work (it's not that they are cardboard, they simply don't spring to life for me). But given the size of her cast that should not be surprising I think. Two examples of failings in this regard seem to flow from McCullough's tendency to hero-worship certain figures (as mentioned above). I did not find the development of the noble marius of the first book into the nasty tyrant credible; it is not enough, I think, to just give him a stroke. I simply don't think her heart was in the older version of the man. The reverse is rather true of Caesar - he is too perfect, never makes a mistake, and is whitewashed of all "sins" (so his relationship with the king of Bithynia is all malicious gossip). He never makes mistakes - other's do but Caesar doesn't. While the portrait is impressive, it might have been more interesting had he had a few black-marks or failings. But these are quibbles. McCullough provides what the TV series "Rome" did with greater fidelity to historic fact and academic precision. Not that McCullough is not capable of re-arranging or glossing over events when it suits her. But for those who found "Rome" too quick-paced, and as missing out the detail of the politics and political machinations - then this series provides the remedy. It is really with that question in mind that I have posted here. How do others feel that "Rome" the TV series and (perhaps the relevant volumes of) the "First Men in Rome" series compare and contrast. Personally, I like both - but I have written enough for now, Phil

In the novel "Caesar's Women" (Part of the "First Man in Rome series") Colleen McCullough gives a good account of what might have happened at the Bona Dea and provides some motivations that i find ctredible. McCullough has a serious purpose in these novels, and her research is deep. So the reconstruction - though fictional - is credible. I recommend it. My own view? That Clodius was out to get "publicity" - he wanted notoriety (maybe for reasons now lost). He may also have been seeking to embarrass Caesar (in whose residence the ceremony was taking place) either personally or as Pontifex maximus - in which role Caesar was responsible for the chastity of the Vestal Virgins. I think Clodius' plan back-fired, or the implications were greater than he had bargained for. Of course, it's always possible Clodius (apparently a very strange individual) was simply curious to know what went on at this most secret of rites... I would also endorse the Holland recommendation. Rubicon is an excellent book and a very good introduction to the period. Phil

So you condone murder, Cato? Actually, I don't disagree with you that much - I had been going to post this response to tflex last night (UK time) but the site seemed to be down. Caesar ultimately failed. there is ample evidence that he was baffled by the state of rome and had no ideas on how to solve the problem of the decadent republic. hence his intended withdrawal to fight a war in Parthia. Augustus solved the problem of the republic - he gave it strong personal direction. he did not shy away from finding an alternative to kingship in name if not in fact. Caesar lacked the moral courage to do so. Caesar showed folly in being merciful - and those he pardoned, betrayed him. Octavian made no such mistakes. Caesar could not work with others - he fell out with Pompeius, was unable to act in tandem with Bibulus, Labienus deserted him, Antonius was probably in on the fringes of the conspiracy that killed him. Caesar's record in Gaul is brutal to the point of incredibility. And Caesar's motives - almost always for the dignitas and auctoritas of Rome, not of Caesar. I'll grant you that in intellect, personaility, charisma and achievement Rome produced few, if any, men to equal him. But he failed. And that failure - a ctually the fact that he had been for once bankrupt of ideas - was evident not after a lapse of time, but on the day after the Ides of March 44BC Phil