phil25

Cleopatra - at least the version I am familiar with (which was the video and dvd version in the UK) starts with Pharsalia. Caesar only gets to Alexandria and receives the head of Pompey about five/ten minutes into the film. Laughton was difficult on "Claudius" apparently because he couldn't "find" the character. He is said to have eventually discovetred the motivation he needed in a recording of Edward VIII's abdication speech!! But the rushes reveal none of this. His performance is deep, warm, touching, vulnerable and once Emperor, has command and intelligence - wit even. I think it would have been wonderful. But Charles always had to find part of himself to bring to the role, and I think he always doubted his genius. there was always a tortured, self-damaging aspect to his work - at least that is Simon Callow's view in his masterly biography. Laughton and Olivier (for long my own hero as an actor) were like chalk and cheese. Laughton dragged a part from within, Olivier assumed it. Do you know the story about Larry and an agonising method actor, DustIn Hoffman (whom I admire tremendously. In "Marathon Man" there was a need for both actors to be exhausted, and Hoffman made a frail and ageing olivier walk around for a long time to get the right feeling and mood. Eventually Olivier said, "Why not try acting, dear boy!" Something of tht attitude may have influenced Olivier's view of Laughton. They appeared at Stratford around the same time that they made Spartacus together, and the same attitudes prevailed there. I don't know whether Olivier despised laughton, but they were chalk and cheese. Phil

I don't know what the film was that had bosies burning after Phillipi, but the Liz Taylor "Cleopatra" begins with an exactly similar scene after Pharsalia. Could you be thinking of that and perhaps have conflated two memories? Merle Oberon was to have played Messalina in Korda's "I Claudius". She had a car accident, but I think the film could have been completed with a new star - not much had been shot that involved her directly as far as I can see. The implication is that Korda saw the film very much as a vehicle for Merle (his wife) and when she couldn't be in it, cancelled the show. But the documentary hints that Laughton was unhappy in his role and that the whole film was "troubled", and thus brought to a premature ending. But laughton was almost always "troubled" and the material he had shot on this film was brilliant stuff. The "I, Cl-cl-cl-claudius, will teach you how to... fra-me... your laws!" speech to the Senate sticks in my mind. So I think Merle's accident was an excuse. Oh - and Messalina appears to have been envisaged as a Vestal Virgin to start with!! They, by the way, according to the film were dozens strong and dressed in gauzy veils through which their nubile bodies could be glimpsed!! Some of the Head Vestals who's statues still adorn the Atrium Vestae might have been a little put out, I fear!! Phil

The topic here is about the Principate versus the Dominate. American politics really don't apply here. I must say I'm starting to become a tad annoyed that whenever we have a discussion on Roman government, it's not long before contemporay American politics is brought into the picture. My apologies as a newcomer if I ruffled feathers. But it is difficult to draw comparisons between perceptions of historic circumstances and situations/systems and modern ones, if one is barred from drawing examples from current affairs. It is only when we see that the past was just as emotive - and subjective - to those who lived through it, as the present is to us, that we begin to appreciate the reality of the past. Are Americans really so sensitive to discussion of how they are perceived in the world, though? Once again my apologies if I have offended more sensitive fellow posters - but history should never be an easy, comfortable or convenient subject. The past is an alien place, and current events and circumstances are tomorrow's history. But it was not my intent to do anything than foster intelligent discussion. Phil

Which is why I deleted my post rather than add to an escalation (I meant to illustrate how we will never agree on the issue but sounded a bit harsher than intended). No worries though PP - there is no harm in disagreeing, as long as it is amicable. And your post was perefectly civilised and understood. I don't see that it would have led to anything save useful discussion. Thanks for coming back at me - that's what I am here for, infiormed discussion and debate. Cheers and in friendship Phil

Primus Pilus - you make my point for me. estimations of whether a governmental system is good, bad, or indifferent; best or worst; or whatever, is largely in the eye of the beholder. It is a subjective valuation. I did not set out to COMPARE systems, simply to show that (what i think is not a bad system - the US) can be depicted with some truth in an adverse way. Equally, to try to show that European and US bases of comparison may be different for social, political, historic and cultural reasons. I have had fascinating discussions with American friends which founder on one issue - should the advantage of those who have it naturally be impeded to any degree by giving advantage to those who lack it for physical, mental, educational etc reasons. Freedom for one group can be disadvantage to another. So I have concluded (also for good historical reasons) that comparison is pointless - unless to make a point about similarity or difference, because it lacks validity or objectivity. The roman republic was hat it was for good reasons, men such as Cicero dreamed of changing it and failed; men like Caesar sought to change it and failed. better than comparing the system to some other that prevailed in different circumstances, is to me to analyse what the system was and how and why it failed or succeeded. But I recognise that many do find satisfaction in talking about what "ought to have been", which to me is pointless. I apologise sincerely if I offended US posters or others by my earlier remarks, they were there simply to draw the reaction and make a point which they evidently did for PP. Phil

The documentary "The Epic That Never Was" (narrated by Dirk Bogarde) about the making of Korda's incomplete "I Claudius", is an extra in the UK dvd of the BBC "I Claudius. It dates from the 60s and includes most of the surviving footage. Excellent. Whether it would be an historically distinguished film, I don't know. But I think Laughton's performance might have made it a classic. Emlyn William's Caligula and Flora Robson's Livia were shaping up well too. The Ivanhoe series I loved a a kid (Moore was my hero for a while); Pleasance was prince John in Robin Hood 9with Richard Greene) and Andrew Keir did the part in Ivanhoe. Moore's later "M", when he played Bond was his squire Gurth. Ivanhow has never been repeated or released on dvd/video as far as i know. Some of the other 50s series of that kind - The Buccaneers (Robert Shaw); William Tell (Conrad Philips with Willoughby Goddard as fat Gessler); Greene's Robin Hood (Alan Wheatley as the definitive Sheriff); and Sir Lancelot (William Russell) have been issued complete on dvd in the UK. They stand up remarkably well. The Caesars which I mentioned was an ITV production with a big budget for the time - in addition to those I have mentioned, I recall Andre Morell (TV Quatermass and the Pit/film Ben Hur) as Tiberius and Barrie Ingham as a chilling Sejanus. I can still visualise the scene in the curia as he sits and listens to Tiberius' message, and the truth gradually sinks in - superb. Michael Bates was the best Caligula I have seen too - they even got the "I'm not dead yet" line in as he is assassinated. Earlier there was a BBC version of the Skaespeare Roman plays (c1960ish), called "Spread of the Eagle". this followed up a brilliant similar series of the history plays "An Age of Kings). Robert Hardy was Coriolanus; David William a cold Octavian, with I think Keith Michell (later a notable Henry VIII) as Antony. The Forum set was "under construction" in Coriolanus, then complete for the plays set later. It made a vivid impression at the time. Thanks for helping to bring fond old memories to the surface. Phil

OK, Arthur... Sorry if i haven't read every post in this thread, forgive me if i repeat anything. But this is my take on Arthur. Someone like Arthur, if not of that name, almost certainly existed in the years around 500AD. Someone or something held up the saxon advance for a period - the likelihood is that the event which did so was the battle of Badon, and that its victor was the original "Arthur". Now that individual may have been Aurelius Ambrosius misremembered, or a successor to that gentleman - whomever he was, was probably not a king but a general serving minor kings, perhas a successor to the Roman officer titled Dux Brittaniorum. He would not have commanded legions of auxiliaries. The legions as fondly remembered were long gone and their form had changed from the classic type represented by (say) the famous IX Hispana. Nor did they leave Britain on a certain day in 410AD. They were drawn away slowly by imperial adventurers like Magnus Maximus (c383AD) remembered in Britain as Macsen Wledig. Those "auxiliaries remaining were by that time local inhabitants, perhaps descendents of the foreign levies brought in during the 300s, but now resident on the Wall and elsewhere. Arthur's force may have been mounted and may have retained some Roman tactics and training. Above and beyond all they were fighting for the Celtic/Romano-British tribes. Cadbury Castle (actually an iron age ring fort) and Wroxeter were both resored around this time - the latter may have been the capital of the overlord known to history as Vortigern (maybe his name was Vitalinus); and may have been re-used by "Arthur". Following the withdrawl of Rome, the old celtic tribes were restored to power. These had never gone away and their "civitas" or territories, had survived within the Roman province. Their aristocracies now took over power. Now it is even possible that the Romans did not withdraw but that the imperial administration was expelled (circa 400) by the Britons, who then took power to themselves. There was a history of British "emperors" including Allectus, and the family of Amrosius may have originated from one of these (his father and mother were stated to have "worn the purple". We do not know whether Mordred (more properly Medraut) was an ally or an enemy of Arthur. the chronices merely say that they both fell at the battle of Camlann. Arthur was probably Christian (sources speak of him carrying the cross - probably painted on his sheild - at Badon). Notwithstanding that, he appears to have offended early Christian writers who do not mention his name. Maybe he was a pelasgian "heretic" or his deeds brushed them up the wrong way. I have no doubt that Arthur was not invented out of whole cloth. He existed and won Badon. I am unconvinced that he was a myth made real; an iron age figure; or that he was many men - though I do think the deeds of others from around his time have have gradually merged with his and been attributed to him. I don't think he fought twelve battles; but he won the key won, on that I am clear. neither am I convinced that he was some Welsh kinglet such as Owain Dantgwen, whose deeds have been magnified. Arthur was a key figure at a key time on the national stage. Everything points to that/ Of course, he sleeps now, ready to return to save God's favoured nation in its hour of need. Phil

Check out this thread i opened... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2916 cheers viggen Thanks, Viggen. I'll take your advice. Phil

Caesar ultimately failed, but I would certainly rate him as one of the greatest individuals - in terms of foresight, intellect, personal ability, dynamism etc. Did he lose his way at the end? Octavian/Augustus must surely rate high - he founded a system that, though evolving, lasted over 400 years, 1450 odd if you allow for Byzantium as a direct descendent. But was the ability only his or must we also credit Maecenas and Agrippa and others (Tiberius?) with some of the achievement? Pompeius magnus perhaps added most to the empire - he masterminded the clearance of Mare Nostrum of pirates, but his personality was curious and he largely acted outside the system. How does one rate Gaius or nero - madmen, or farsighted rulers who were misunderstood, seeing the need for Hellenistic absolutism long before others did? What about early republican figures: Marcus Junius Brutus the first consul? Scipio Africanus? the empire was smaller then, so achievements less dramatic - but less important? Then there's Trajan "optimus princeps" clearly held in highest esteem in his own day. Or Hadrian the great traveller and problem solver? Or Constantine who changed things? I hate this picking out one, but if i had to chose it would be between Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, I think, with the laurels going finally to the latter. he was a man as admired in his own day as he is now, compassionate, thoughtful, a strong ruler... but then he too had a weakness. He left his throne to his son, a disaster. Phil

I couldn't agree more, Pertinax. I think few coups or "official" assassinations (I exclude the lone assassin) are planned or carried out purely on "political" grounds, there is always a personal reason. Even with lone assassins there is often a perceived "grudge". The Army officers who plotted against Hitler weren't doing so on moral or constitutional grounds - they thought him unworthy of the position he had attained. They would have been quite happy to see him replaced with Goering - more, one of their kind!! Does anyone know whether a date has been fixed for "Rome" to come out on dvd - either in the US or UK? Do we have to wait until re-runs on cable etc have completed, or will it be imminent, to latch on to the success of the series. I assume if there are to be lots of "extras" - deleted scenes, behind the scenes stuff, commentaries etc, that might add to the timescale. Anyone heard anything? Phil

Roddy McDowell was SUPERB. not only was he the spitting-image of the busts of the young Octavian/Augustus that we know, but I think he captured the spirit of the young adventurer excellently. To me this WAS the way the 18 year old Octavian would have been - unlikeable and a totally political animal - never relaxing for a moment, eye always on the advantage. I think after Actium, as master of the world, he could relax, but his treatment of the two Julia's (and their lovers, including a son of Antonius) showed that even later on he could be as ruthless as necessary. Do you recall an old ITV series from the 60s (I don't know whether it was ever shown outside the UK) called "The Caesars"? It was in black and white and is best remembered for Freddie Jone's Claudius (better in some ways to my mind than Jacobi in the later "I Claudius". In that series, Augustus was played by Roland Culver, an old actor with a wonderful "edge" to his characterisations (he later played the old Duke of Omnium in "The Pallisers". To me Culver captured the older Augustus better than Brian Blessed did (he played him as a "Godfather" style gangster, fun but inaccurate in appearance and manner). I agree with you on the screen Cleopatras. I still like Liz Taylor's regal performance. The girl in "Rome" with her rope wigs was too immoral for my picture of the great Queen. What do you think of "Caesar and Cleopatra" (Claude Rains and Vivien Leigh) from the late 40s? The script is pure Shaw, but some of the design is, I think, stunning. Phil

As I recall it is in one of Cicero's letters. he describes the whole meeting and is clearly very much in awe of Servilia. In dramatic terms, I liked Servilia being the driving force - it had been set up long before in the series when she inscribed the curse on Caesar after his rejection. It was just a shame the whole thing was a bit rushed. Among things that might have added to the drama were: * the presence of Cleopatra and Caesarion in Rome, which would have added a level to Servilia's jealousy and antipathy to Caesar; *an attempt to seduce Antony into the conspiracy (which may have been the historical fact) with further debate on whether the Liberators should strike only at Caesar or undertake a more wide-ranging coup; * the Lupercalia and Antonius' offer of the crown/diadem to Caesar and his rejection - dramatuically this could have been made a two way test. (Antony could have used it to decide whether to join the conspiracy - should Caesar accept); also caesar could have been shown to be tempted, but to refuse given the crowd's attitude. A slightly slower pace in the final episodes could really ahve given this series an electric charge. Phil

On the subject of Cleopatra's lovers, I think we have to be careful. The first point is that we must drop hindsight. Cleopatra did not know in advance that either Caesar or later Antonius were going to come into her life. She may have made a deliberate attempt to seduce the latter (politically and sexually) but the former could easily have resisted her blandishments; or gone away to fight wars elsewhere much more quickly. One question, therefore, must be - what would Cleopatra have done had neither man entered her life? Did she take any steps (now lost to us and the record) to ensure her that there was a successor to her throne. Personally I doubt that Cleopatra did enter into any relationships (at least formally) other than the two we know of, because the rank of her "partner" would have ensured some notice of him survived. Also any children would have been acknowledged. Unless, of course, the Queen made a deliberate distinction between royal and state marriage producing heirs (such as Caesarion, Selene, Helios etc) and other offspring of non-royal or state partners. On that basis she could have had many lovers. Which brings me neatly to the second point, that the sexual morality and culture of Egypt in C1stBC must be taken into account. As a divine Isis-figure, it is not impossible that Cleopatra took lovers in a religious context. Isis was, after all, a mother figure. It is largely covered-up by the Victorian-values of Egyptology, but there are clear indications from Pharaonic times that the king fertilised the land in a literal way, with his semen, and that his chief "queen" (pun intended) had a hand in this. I have no idea whether such rites survived into Ptolemaic times, but they may have done. Cleopatra was also royal and this probably choosy about her "official" partners - who would need the same divinity and regal blood. On the other hand, in a slave-owning culture - male slaves would have been readily available and could be silenced if necessary. I doubt we would have heard of it. Caesar knew that any heir had to be Roman, and that marriage to a foreigner, however noble/royal, would be invalid in Roman law. Hence thre treatment in his will of Octavian - adoptive heir - and Caesarion (probably blood heir but ignored). Distinctions are being made here. Just so, Caesar could "marry" Cleopatra in a way that would be understood in the east, but knew that under Roman law his wife remained the noble Roman lady Calpurnia. So I suspend judgement, but in practice - whatever went on behind closed palace doors in Alexandria - I suspect that Caesar and Antonius were the only men that "mattered" in Cleopatra's life. But what does that term mean? How did she spend the majority of her years - when Caesar and Antonius were not with her? I doubt she was a nun!! And had she not been, I doubt it would have mattered, or been thought odd, in terms of the values of the day. Phil

Cato - I suppose at the end of the day it all comes down to what one means by the term "best". As I said in my first post (IIRC), I don't like these rather puerile games which serve no point. the judgement is entirely subjective and each of us will reach a different conclusion. the only way one could seek a concensus would be to agree some list of criteria against which to measure the variou systems and then "score2 each against the criteria. But I suspect we would disagree on the criteria and the scoring even so. Again, statistics are not everything. You make some powerful and effective points about the republic, and between shall we say the Punic wars and the arrival of Marius, I'd say the system largely worked. But by C1stBC, it was a failing system, not adapting quickly enough to the demands of a new era. It was repeatedly falling apart at the seams. The principiate - which was in many ways (to me at least) an EVOLUTION from the republic rather than a replacement, simply recognised the realities (strong men will dominate so have a stong man in control) but kept many of the forms. I suspect that had you asked people in (say) the provinces of Asia; or Spain which system gave them most satisfaction, they might have gone for the Principiate because it was more stable (ijn terms of bureaucratic consistency), reduced the number of rapacious governors making a killing from their proconsulship; and reduced the number of civil wars - more stable in political terms. To many monarchies (not least in the east but also in the west, a principiate may have been more intelligible to the people than a republic. Speaking personally, I don't think therre is a place for sentimentality or sentimental judgements in politics or history. As "1066 And All That" pointed out decades ago, it is somewhat childish and nonsensical to label rulers as "good" or "bad" - same for systems of government. the US system may be all right for Americans, but I would not wish to live under it (I dislike its principles, and its style - but then I am a European). look at the difference in meaning of the word "socialist" between an American and a European - that will inevitably affect judgements by either about the other's systems. To Europeans, socialism is at least in part about basic human freedoms and dignity; as I read it, to many Americans the same word is akin to communism, and unthinkable. So we have to watch our use of language and our preconceptions in looking at the past. Augustus introduced an effective and long lasting form of government and made it work, replacing a decaying and decadent system that seemed unable to heal itself. That is the reality. no "better" no "worse" -but different. Who knows where the republican system would have gone had Octavian lost at Actium and Antonius and Cleopatra imposed their vision? If Antonius had then fallen to an Agrippa or a Tiberius (assuming them as rival generals) I suggest that the republic would still have changed. maybe Rome would have "fallen" 350 years before it did!! I think we must also take off the rose-tinted spectacles in judgeing or assessing forms of government. The republic may have "democratic" features, but it was also venal, corrupt, shot through with bribery. It was a system based on survival of the fittest. But that does not, of course, mean that it was not a perfectly fit form of government with some good features or effects. I applaud the fact that the USA is intrinsically the greatest support of liberty and freedom in the world - but it is also corrupt, ineffective, dominated by big business, heavily racist, economically and militarily imperialist... I could go on. To have a voice you have to be rich - either in politics of business it seems. but the system works, and that's that. No one has the power to change it - to take a blank sheet of paper and start again. It can only evolve, or hopefully not, change in some revolutionary way. there are no other choices - no deus ex machina to alter the realities. So why judge it good or bad. It's like the curate's egg - good in parts. Same could be said for the British system - which admittedly is deliberately flexible. I am not seeking to annoy American colleagues here, just to draw out some parallels, to make my point, which is this which is "best" is a rather stupid and facile approach. Why not use our time to consider a much more useful question - was the republic in (say) 50BC, the same as the republic in (say) 150 BC? Because if the system had changed, which are we sayiong was the "best"? Phil

But Cato, the republic was failing and the number of civil wars and periods of violent internal instability increased proportionately as time went on. The latter years of a republic which could not reform the res publicae were at least equally violent to the principiate if not worse - not many heads and hands on the rostra under the emperors!! Moreover the empire was better and more consistently governed under imperial rule. Phil

To be honest, I have so much about Cleopatra that I cannot, without taking the book off the shelf again, tell you what Grant's view was. But then it would not bother me if it WAS revisonist. I am strongly in favour of questioning historical conventional wisdoms, both because it can jolt us out of mindless complacency andunquestioning acceptance of outdated thinking, and because it necessarily increases historical understanding, even if we reject the proposed revision. To me questioning is ALWAYS good, even if the conclusions are bad or wrong. Cleopatra has had a wholly misleading press from Actium onwards - depicted as nymphomaniac; oriental; decadent; avaricious... (even African) one could go on. Yet here was a woman, of largely Greek descent, of charm rather than beauty (if her coin portraits and alleged statues are anything to go by (!!); intelligent, far thinking, and politically adroit. She and Caesar, later Antonius, may have perceived a truth 300 years before Constantine - that the empire would be best ruled from the east (perhaps Alexandria) rather than Rome, because that was where the wealth and the food and the intellectual heartland (as well as the major rival - Parthia) were located. Hers was a Hellenistic dream, but who is to say it was not every whit as realistic, practical or potentially enduring as that of Augustus. Octavian had no choice but to cast Cleopatra as the villainess, as the focus of his drive for supremacy. He would have faced opposition on his own side had he sought to defame Antonius, consul and triumvir, in his own right. That view, unjust and unsupported has lasted too long. Long live the revisionists who make us think again, Phil

Michael Grant was (I don't know whether he is still alive) a good writer and a reliable populariser of classical subjects. His Cleopatra I have in a fairly recent UK p/back reprint, but I have a fair amount of his stuff - a "coffee-table" format Nero, and two wonderful tomes on the Roman Forum (my bible on the subject for many years) and on Pompeii and Herculaneum. I think there is also one on the Antonine period and after (The Climax of Rome). He translated my Penguin edition of Tacitus' "Annals" and wrote the introduction to the Penguin Suetonius (translated by Robert Graves). I cannot put my hand on it at this moment, but I think he may also have penned a book on the Roman arena/gladiators. A remarkably productive man to whom I (and I suspect many others) owe a great deal. Phil

No, it was called "the 300 Spartans" and had Sir Ralph Richardson as Themistocles, and an American actor, Richard Egan, as Leonidas. David Farrar was Xerxes and Donald Houston one of the Persian generals. It was directed by Rudlph Mate. "Thermopylae" appears to be the title of the new film being made, mentioned above by Plautus. Phil

Valerius - I don't know whether you are aware, but in the bookshops around Pompeii and Herculaneum they still sell many modern illustrated books with titles such as "Forbidden Pompeii". Essentially these are about the material that was once kept locked away. From my visits to Naples Museum, I don't recall seeing much of the erotica on display - so those collections may still sit in the same rooms they always did, largely unseen and unpublished. Phil

Pertinax - I agree with you about Jolie!! On the other hand I thought Val Kilmer made a good stab at Philip (though Frederick March in the 50s version still takes the laurels for me). Kilmer was younger and reminded me that in the past, could we but travel back in time, we would be amazed at how young many of the great men were. Personally I liked Colin Farrell's Alexander most of the time, he conveyed a damaged, ill-concealed emotional fragility to me, with a physical strength. Where i think he failed was in the great rousing speeches, before battle and during the mutiny, where a more classically trained actor could have used his voice to lift the hearts and send the words soaring. With Farrell, I felt we got an emotional truth but no inspiration, and thus i felt his men would not have been as swayed by his words. Not that a Burton or Olivier would have been any closer to reality - I think we would find the ancient manner of orating very stylised, alien and odd. Plautus - excellent post with some good points about Ridley Scott. For all their failings though, I can usually find something interesting in even the less good films about the past. Were I a teacher, I would want, I think, to use films to ask questions of my students and send them back to the sources: * did the Forum Romanum look like that? how do we know? *if Colin Farrell's Alexander is "wrong" why? how would the original have differed? * did Commodus die in the Forum? if not, how did he die? *was Marcus Aurelius murdered? what do the sources suggest? *which parts of "Fall" are accurate? which are historically genuine but relate to other periods? * what sources were used in film X for the plot? the dialogue? the design? One could go on. On balance though, I like to look for the good in historical films and the insights the depiction of events or the design, or the nuance of characterisation can bring. Talking of Thermopylae: what do my fellow posters think of the old 60s film, 300 Sparatans? Phil

I would suggest that we don't fall for the fallacy that the Emperor was so crucial to the empire for most of the time. It is only when we focus solely on Tacitus or Suetonius that we get this impression. The empire itself largely prospered even under those often classed as "bad" emperors: Nero or Gaius are examples. There are also long swathes of time when government was very stable - not least under the Antonines. Hadrian (usually perceived as a "good" emperor on the whole) was vindictive towards the Senate, but the ambit of his anger was strictly limited. The vast bulk of the population during his reign benefited. Given the speed of communication in the first few centuries AD, the personailty of the emperor was never going to be able to affect directly more than a tiny percentage of his subjects. It was Senators and Knights (Equestrians) who suffered most, and even there the numbers affected were relatively small. but Tacitus wrote from a senatorial perspective and had a father-in-law (Agricola) who had suffered somewhat under Domitian; Suetonius had a personal gripe about Hadrian. if one looks at other sources, much of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae is suspect and may be wholly invented. Now I am not dismissing these sources, I enjoy reading them, but IMHO they do provide a very biased viewpoint, and create a false impression of the way in which emperors impacted on the lives of those around them. One could go further and say that, for instance, those condemned and executed after the Piso conspiracy against Nero were guilty of treason. They had sought violently to overthrow the legal head of state. In the short time I have been contributing to this site I have seen Cicero strongly defended against charges that he was not the saviour of his country for supressing the cataline rebellion. HE killed senators without trial - where, I ask, is the difference between him and Nero? The republic produced many examples of purges that the empire would be hard-pressed to emulate - Marius, Sulla, the second triumvirate. Even outside those periods, the life of a senator was fraught with danger and the possibility that one's rivals would force one into exile or destroy one's career. It nearly happened to Cicero - so beloved of some of you. Come away from personality - stop seeing the empire in terms of personal rule and see it as a system of government, and the empire was more peaceful, more stable, more propserous, better and more consistently governed (less rapacious governors) than under the republic. I rest my case, Phil

Zeke - I am not sure that leaving out Tyre comletely destroys any account of Alexander's life. I'd rate the trip to the oracle at Siwa higher. The burning of Persepolis is also crucial. But to me the main "beats" were present - Bucephalus' taming; the early friendship with Hephaestion, Olympias dominant role; Philip and the love-hate relationship with his son; the assassination of Philip and Alexander's ambiguous role; at least one major battle; Xerxes; India, Roxanne; the deaths of Clitas and Hephaestion; and finally the question was Alexander murdered. Not bad on the whole. Shame that Hopkins was such a lousy Ptolemy - a more inteligent reading of that part (Hopkins appeared to have given no thought to it and to be reading his lines from cue cards!!) might have bound the film together more strongly. Neither do I think the filmmakers were "more intrested in bisexualism" (whatever that word means). Alexander lived by different moral standards to western people today. His closest relationships appear to have been with other men - Hephaestion/Bagoas so is it not right that is depicted rather than ignored (as in the 50s Burton film?) But even so - bisexuality is not a term that Alexander would have understood (nor homosexuality for that matter) - it was not unusual for n older man to have a younger male lover. But it would have been unusual for two men to be lifelong, exclusive partners. Indeed, that would have been frowned on. Alexander seems to have been inclined more heavily towards men (emotionally perhaps as much as physically - we do not know) and this attracted comment in his own day. Even that could be explained by a jealousy arising from Hephaestion's unique [/u]political position. But even so, Alexander married and had a child as would have been expected of him. Do you not find it distorts our understanding of history to impose C21st morals onto the past? Surely we have to seek to perceive and understand the past in its own terms. I felt the Alexander film was a brave attempt to do this. It is immensely flawed, but the life of Alexander is not easily compressed into 3 hours!! Phil

Flavius Valerius Constantinus: I think you and I are both trying to say the same thing in different ways. I certainly think your analysis is a good one. There is no RIGHT system - whatever is in place works until it fails when it is replaced by whatever is pragmatically possible; or desired by the strongest "party" of the day. I would disagree though with the misleading phrase "history repeats itself". It doesn't and cannot, because no two sets of circumstances are exactly alike. They may appear similar on the surface, but any deeper analysis will reveal huge differences in detail - political, economic, social... Neither is "history" a player... that is simply a term that avoids discussion of the real factors in play; the strengths and weaknesses, power blocks and aspirations prevailing at a particular time. And, of course, the analysis changes over time because history is entirely subjective. We (today) make our judgements on the cause and effects of past events, which may differ from those of previous generations or our descendents. What do exist are certain "principles" that may apply at various times - we might call them by different names, but powerful nations and/or individual leaders sometimes fall victim it seems to "hubris" - they assume they will win and are contemptuous of the opposition. the result? The "little guy" wins. One might see that in Xerxes and the invasion of Greece; Napoleon; Philip of Spain and the Armada and Hitler. But the circumstances as to how the "principle" might apply would be different in each case. So, through the history of Rome, regimes and systems fell or evolved (gradually or dramatically) but they did so not because some were right or wrong, or some system intrinsically "better" than another. They did so because there was probably little choice at the time. Alas, with Rome, we have very little evidence against which to seek to understand why the monarchy fell; why the republic tottered from the time of Marius on (yet produced some of its greatest individuals (Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero, Augustus - one could also add other influential political and cultural names too) in a comparatively short space of time. Or is that simply that we have comparatively full recorrds for this time, and see the period as dramatic - that if more material had survived from (say) the period of the Punic Wars, or of Tarquinius Superbus/Junius Brutus - we would be less focused on or impressed by the C1st BC? If we knew more about the detailed history of the "kings" would we be as inclined to classify that period as a monarchy - in any sense that we would understand that term today? Phil

Whether this thread should be here or not, I'll just observe that Hadrian's Wall is a World Heritage Site.

Neither the similarity of the republic to the monarchy nor the similarity of the prinicipate to the republic demonstrate that each form of government served a purpose at their time. This is an utter non sequitur. If the monarchy served its purpose at the time, what exactly was that purpose? Whose purpose? Did it do so better than the alternatives? It's as if you assume that whatever exists (and whenver it exists) is for the best, which is simply intellectual laziness. It may be true that what existed *was* for the best--but one cannot *assume* that it was merely from the fact that it existed. The evidence must come from the consequences of the change, not the incrementality of the change. Cato, there are times when sentimentality clearly blinds your logic. I'm afraid I'm a pragmatist, pure and not so simple. the names mean nothing to me. The US is a concealed monarchy - what is the president but a constitutional monarch without the name. the US even have dynasties, only the Bush's are somewhat less interesting or historic than the Hapsburgs or the Windsors!! The Roman monarchy reflected the customs and norms of the day - peoples tended to have kings. the trick is to understand what the Roman monarchy was - at times clearly Etruscan. Was it thrown out not for tyranny but for being foreign? The consuls had just as much power, and the sacred religious aspacts of the king continued down to the empire in the rex sacrorum. Augustus used the republican powers - tribunician, consular and proconsular, but adapted them in a system in which he had overpowering auctoritas. It was throughout an evolution, NOT a change per se. Purpose in politics is about usefulness, practicality and success - if those things don't apply, things change. Who does the changing? Who has the purpose? - why the elite/the ruling oligarchy of the day. Who else is there? if systems don't work they change perforce (failure or defeat as in Germany 1918) or are changed (US 1776; England 1649 or 1688). By and large there is no choice until change is imposed or forced by circumstances - government continues and reflects what has been. Unless or until someone decides to change it. The US system today broadly reflects what the founding fathers wanted to keep or change in the previously imposed system. It also reflects the power that the founding elite wished to take from the crown into their own hands. It continues because it has not yet failed or been over thrown (it may have come close in 1860ish). by the way cato - I never assume anything is for the best. I also never said that. Conventional wisdoms surivie because that is what they do, until they cease to be the conventional wisdom. Systems of government the same. there are no certainties in politics - all is about perception and usefulness. Phil Quite apart from that, I disagree for the same reasons with Pantagathus- none of the systems were "honourable"!! What does the word mean in political terms/