phil25

Roman sexuality and sexual issues are a fertile (pun intended) area of study. Over the years it is a subject I have returned to, not least given my visits to Pompeii and Herculaneum. It is clear that the Romans had no "moral" problems with sex in the early imperial period (all that is an entirely Christian problem) and we need to drop some of our preconceptions and values if we are to understand the roman approach to sex from their perspective. It is clear to me - for instance - that nudity (male or female) was not something that bothered Romans as it would bother many western people today. Slaves and others would often have been seen in nude or near nude conditions, and at the baths same sex nudity would have been common. Privacy in the home was of a different kind to anything we would know and understand. If one needs any further evidence, the phallus was depicted with no embarrassment and completely openly in fresco and sculpture - it was more about luck and warding off the evil eye that about sex. In Pompeii it greets you at the House of the Vettii (on a huge scale!) and is used to mark brothels and give directions. What we would call homosexuality also clearly existed - there is a silver cup with a depiction of such activity - but would have been seen more as I believe it is perceived in arab and south American countries as about status and role rather than being good or bad. It was more important and acceptable to be the active partner, OK to receive oral attentions but less so to give them. An older man and a youth was acceptable, two men of the same age more scandalous. two men setting up as life-time partners would ahve been shocking. The Satyricon provides a lot of clues to such things. But over the whole of Roman history things must have changed and evolved. No doubt Cato the Censor's attitudes were different (narrower?) than those of Commodus!! Roman theatrical farce could be very bawdy and full-on!! How much was a sexual frisson part of watching the games - scantily clad men fighting and sometimes dying? Look at the built-in bed supports in the lupanar (brothel) at Pompeii and it is immediately evident that they could not have been used for the missionary position, unless both participants were less than five feet tall. This must tell us something about Roman sexual practices at that time. So do the wall-paintings in the same building - about preferences for positions. Juvenal and martial provide many examples of humourous sexual comments that must be based broadly on what actually went on. Reading them, I believe we get a clear snap-shot of the tastes and actions of at least a small cross-section of roman society. A fairly recent book drew attention to the apparent fascination Roman had with being watched by a third person while involved in sexual activities. Happy to discuss more fully ( though I hope tastefully) if any other posters have an interest in this huge subject. Phil

I think the Pullo-in-the-arena "thing" was a direct lift from an actual event when a condemned legionary at first refused to fight and then killed five gladiators single-handed. I'll try to look out the reference. On having Octavian in Rome, I suspect that they are simplifying things - they don't want to have a hiatus bringing him back from Apollonia. But more important, they wanted him involved in a dramatic confrontation at the end of Series 1 (not knowing if there would be a Series 2). Does anyone know what the arena in which Pullo and Vorenus fought was based on? I have never seen an arrangement with those "metae" like objects with spikes surrounding a rectangular (!) space depicted before, and i have made something of a study of the arena. The series design has been, on the whole reasonably well-founded, but was this design made from whole-cloth? Shame we didn't see the Lupercalia, with Antonius and his fellow priests running naked, and then Antonius offering Caesar the crown and its being refused. Thiose could have been good scenes and possessed the sort of attractions - nudity, drama etc - that the writers favoured. Another episode to draw out the politics - and to hint at Caesar's plans to invade Parthia, and perhaps placing Cleopatra and Caesarion in Rome, would have been excellent. I felt Antonius got a bit lost towards the end - but a good final shot of his face as he takes in Caesar's murder. It said a lot. I am not too worried about the absence of battles personally. The emphasis in the series was on character, so I think (for instance) Pompeius' reactions after Pharsalia were more important than seeing the battle. We have had plenty of (bloody) violence. Phil

Each served its purpose at the time. In a sense the republic was an adaptation of the monarchy which avoided rule by a single individual by splitting his powers between two men. But the essential system remained intact. Similarly 400 or so years later, Augustus' principiate was an adaptation of the evolved republican system - most of whose features remained in operation. A monarchy would not have served in 14BC, nor a principiate in 509BC. So why have preferences? Value each. Phil

So far as Roman remains in Italy are concerned, there may be an historical complication here. I seem to recall (it's all set out in JJ Deiss's book) that in the early 1900s a group of politicians and world-figures proposed international assistance with the preservation and exploration of at least Herculaneum (possibly pompeii as well). this foundered on misunderstanding and complication, and successive Italian governments have been resistant to outside "interference" in archeaological affairs. Anyone else know about this. My information may be out of date now. Phil

The republic could not have been saved. The need to rule and empire meant two things - the requirement for large standing armies. As numerous generals from Marius on showed, these were a risk unless they could be harnessed. A single imperator at the centre of affairs was largely able to contrive this. The second requirement was for an effective bureaucracy - under the empire this was created and continued to function even through poor reigns (Nero) and periods of civil unrest. The republic was intrinsically unable to promote or manage either of these. Indeed, as the old system tried to repair itself it came increasingly close to evolving naturally the Augustan system - in the last 60 years or so of its life, it saw increasing dominance by a single will - Marius, Sulla, various demagogues, Pompeius, Caesar, the first triumvirate, Antonius and finally Octavian. The Liberators finally revealed how ineffective was the older form of government - neither the conspiracy nor the aftermath was well-handled. It could not have been. The republic got sick and died - Augustus gave it surgery that transformed it and kept alive enough for thre to be links between old and new. But I'd see it more as cloning than mouth to mouth (bad analogy but it'll have to do). Phil Phil

For all the blather about the long years of peace and harmony under the consuls, Cato, you hide the fact that the choice of those individuals was limited. Those such as the Gracchi who sought to open up aspects of the res publicae, were ruthlessly put down. Rome was an oligarchy. Besides, at the end of the day the Roman Republic failed - is that then a good argument for democracy (if you count the system as that - which it wasn't)? And why should the views of the masses influence decisions, - most of them are under-educated, uninterested and uninformed - despite attempts to offer education, newspapers and media, etc. As most of you here seem to be Americans, I'll draw examples from your culture? America is now the world's imperial power (in economic if not purely political terms), yet it is clear that the majority of Americans take little interest in the wider world and know little about it. Secondly, the present administration is in power largely because it defrauded the electorate in Florida five years or so ago. And the individuals running it - Cheney, Rumsfeld etc appear to be pretty corrupt and pretty resistant to "democracy" or the voice of the people in many of their policies. I'll also ask a question - if democracy is so important and good, why does not the US immediately surrender all power to the UN and allow world democracy to govern - reaching the excellent compromise decisions so lauded above, for the good of us all? Give me Sulla, or even better Caesar, anyday. Phil

I have never seen why "democracy" gets such a good press. The best I'd give it is Churchill's quip that it is perhaps the least worst system... But actually, is it even that? Why does anyone consider a majority opinion to be of value - 999,999 people can be wrong and one right; so why should the greater number have their way? democracy is so often about compromise, or as in the US, degenerates into a hidden oligarchy. Give me benevolent despotism any day... And Rome was certainly never a democracy in any sense - all the assemblies were wholly mainpulated by the ruling elite, or by others (demagogues such as Saturninus, Cato or Clodius etc). It took "dictators" (I use the word loosely) such as Sulla, Caesar or Augustus to do anything or give Rome good government. Phil

The ones capable of re-interpretation or whose "case" appears to have got lost.. Sulla Antonius and Cleopatra Tiberius Gaius Nero Also many of the named individuals we know of from Pompeii and Herculaneum, whose homes I have visted - in particular the family of Marcus Nonius Balbus, once proconsul of Crete and Cyrenacia. Phil

I'm not sure that i agree the question which is (IMHO) over-simplistic. Political, economic, social and religious circumstances were quite different in C1st and C4th periods. Moreover, the principiate did not remain static - Augustus ran things differntly to Tiberius; Caligula tried despotism; the whole things changed both under the Flavians and then after the fall of Domitian. Both Augustus and Diocletian (even more than Constatine) had to pick up the pieces after prolonged periods of civil war and to construct settlements (we might say, write constitutions today) which reflected the needs and conditions of their day. One might equally ask do you prefer the Sullan or Augustan settlements. Again the prevailing circumstances (not to mention the political agenda of the ruler) influenced their approach. I don't find questions like this of any particular value, or as taking an issue forward (individual replies may be interesting) and i see them as somewhat immature. They remind me of the TV polls one sees which ask a deliberately false question (with options unsubtley wide) and then ask for votes without any control over who contributes. My interest is firmly in the evolution of the Augustan settlement from the republic, and in the early empire, partly because the situation is so fluid and changing. ut i don't "prefer" that system 9if so it could be characterised) because it is not static enough to define. One could argue that what you call the "dominate" (horrible term which I have never heard before) was the more successful since as the governmental system of Byzantium it lasted over 1,000 years - a lot longer than the 300 or so of the "principiate". Indeed, one could argue - I usually do, that the principiate only lasted around 100 years, and that the "Antonine" system which replaced Domitian's altered principiate (Lord and God seems more appropriate to a "dominate") was something completely different. So to conclude, I suppose I fall in the "Huh!" category - if that. Phil By the way (post edited to add this) where did the term "dominate" - in this context - arise? Anyone know?

The "Alexander" Director's cut is the only version of a film so labelled that I have ever found worse than the original. It is a re-ordering of scenes rather than an "extended" version (it may even actually be shorter than the cinema release!!) and in my opinion, the re-ordering does not work. On the use of Brits as villains/Roman conquerors, I think this was natural in the 50s/60s when the Uk was still an imperial power (so there was a modern association with the ancient empire) and the view was that classical actors such as Olivier, Laughton, Hawkins could handly the dislogue better and in a more sugical way than their American counterparts. In some films (Ben-Hur) there was, I believe, a deliberate attempt to differentiate races: British accent = Roman; US or other accent = Jews, heroic rebels, noble slaves, etc. More recently the habitual use of brits as villains in any film (Rickman in Die Hard etc) has a more sinister impact - I think it may actually have damaged the view of the British around the world. Just my view, of course. British can be used quite loosely in some ways though - a GREAT screen villain (again just a personal opinion) was Frank Thring (Vikings, Herod Antipas in King of Kings; Pilate in Ben Hur) who was Australian. Titus Andronicus was mentioned by a previous poster, and Thring played a memorable Saturninus to Olivier's great Titus in Brook's memorable production in the 50s. Christopher Plummer is, I think, Canadian by origin. Where did Hurd Hatfield hail from? "Titus", by the way is very imaginative and enjoyable, but mixes costumes and styles at random. Nothing to do with history in any sense, but a powerful and adult film. When discussing films about Troy earlier, I forgot to mention the Italian "peplum" versions from the 60s. Steve Reeves (best known as Hercules) played Aeneas in two interesting films called (I think) "The Wooden Horse of Troy, and the "Last Men of Troy" the latter based on Vergil and Livy. They are interestingly done and not bad for their type. Anyone else seen them? Phil

Butl, Princeps, like Brutus, maybe you're wrong!!

Claudius sp: Caesar had an affair with Servilia (Brutus' mother) but he was NOT Brutus' father. He forgave Brutus after Pharsalia but Brutus betrayed him. If he had been caesar's son, then Gaius julis would not have hidden it. He was desperate to show that he could sire a son even out of (Roman) wedlock - vix Caesarion. He made his distant nephew octavian his heir. if caesar had had a Roman son of his own body, do you not think that he would have sought either to adopt him (or marry the mother); or to proclaim him as heir to his estate and name? Phil

I haven't yet read the intervening posts, but my answer to the title question would be, not much. Christianity as passed to us by the catholic church is essential paganism dressed up in the guise of an eastern mystery religeon (I speak as a Christian by the way). God and Jesus (Father and son) are not much removed from Ahura Mazda and Mithras (who's bithday was 25 December). The old "gods" became saints - Apollo = Michael (or Lucifer or both). The Mother Goddess = Mary. Christian churches are not so much Jewish synagogues as Roman temples with an altar replacing the cult statue. I could go on. There is little of the faith taught by Jesus in all this. Had Christianity not been to hand then the pagan priests would have co-opted some other religeon - Mithraism without its anti-feminine side perhaps. Personally, I don't think we would recognise much difference, or that the world would be in any less of a crisis of religeon now. All just my opinion of course. Phil

Frankq: I largely agree with your criticisms of Troy, I was simply seeking to draw attention to what i felt were some of it's good points in my earlier post, not least the adaptation. Bad accents don't worry me if used properly - I suspect the Mycenaeans were probably pretty uncouth. I have always had a soft spot for the Trojans though, and Troy itself - to be there sent goose-shivers up my spine. To touch those sloping walls and stand within the citadel.... something I never expected to be able to do. Hissarlik is such a seemingly remote spot. I just took the recent "Troy" as - "this is how it might have been, the myth changed things". But films do have to recognise that writing out a star name too early is a bad thing. It's a fact of life, especially for blockbuster films. (I thought that in "Kingdom of Heaven" killing off Liam neeson after 20 minutes robbed the film of all his vitality and talent - and Brad Pitt is a talented actor too. on the whole I liked his Achilles - quite brave of a star like that to essay an anti-hero who may be charismatic but is ultimately unlikeable and unsympathetic. I have often discussed with friends (who know much less about all this than you, Frankq) that adapting the epic of Troy for the screen is almost impossible. If you make Helen and Paris the "good guys" then they loose and the whole thing an anti-climax or a tragedy. Paris is also a problem character. If you make the Achaians the heroes, then either Agamemnon or Achilles has to be a villain. All very intractable. Mycenae was also an experience to visit, simply because I had read so much about it in my youth. To walk through the Lion Gate and later to enter the Tomb of Atreus was to go back in time. But Tiryns gave me a great thrill too, such a wonderful fortress, EXCATLY as i had imagined it when I was 11. Did you ever read Leonard Cotterill's books (he was very popular in the 60s)? Best of all was Pylos,where you could imagine that old Nestor had just risen from his throne and left the room. Back to films though, I DO very much like the 50s "Helen of Troy" - superbly cast with Cedric Hardwick (a great Seti I too) and Harry Andrews. But I thought Jacques Cernas very wooden as Paris. It used the trojans as heroes, but became a tragedy in the event. Not an easy love-story. There is a version made within the last 10 years with Rufus Sewell as a very evil and ruthless Agamemnon, and John Rees Davis as Priam, which is worth watching. I have it on dvd so it should be available. It's a made for TV spectacular, but better than most of that ilk. It certainly had a brave shot at tackling some of the adaptation problems i discussed earlier. Mature's "Hannibal" impressed me when I saw it aged 10. Now, I have an old video of it, it looks cheap. It's an Italian sword and sandals/peplum film (with some of the usual cast of such things). Mature is badly superimposed on the elephants as the cross the Alps!! But he does bring something to the role (as he did to Horemheb in "The Egyptian"). I suppose it is his face I see in my mind's eye when Hannibal is mentioned!! Cannae I thought wonderful in memory - a vividly green battlefield with Romans in red and white as far as the eye can see. It's not bad on re-viewing it, but not up to modern standards. Worth seeing if you have never seen it before. Burton's Alexander (actually Roberto Rosselini) has the same problems of adaptation. the pre-story (Alexander's youth) takes too long before you get to the meat - his conquests - but is too essential to the character to lose (Olympias and all that). I like the film for many reasosn and in my humble opinion it stands up well. It's out on dvd in the Uk. Phil

Claudius, I can sympathise with your view. To me there are three types of adaptation. Two of these I am OK with (usually): - those like "Troy" which are intelligent and "interpret" their source; - and those which are simply fun, like the latest "Mummy", and which make no pretence to reality. (Some of the design in "Mummy" was incredible!!) The type of film I heartily dislike is those which claim to be authentic but then betray the trust of the viwer - my pet hate is "Braveheart" (not only because it denigrates one of the, in my opinion, greatest of English kings - Edward I), but because it interprets Scottish culture of the time in a way that insults the Scots. Painting yourself with woad was (if anything) for ancient Brits and Picts, NOT C14th Scotsmen!! I am concerned (seriously) by the tendency to actually misrepresent facts on screen as in "Elizabeth". This put on screen in words (not dramatised) that Burghley was dismissed (he served until almost the end of the reign and died in harness); that Walsingham served loyally until the end of the reign (he died c 1590); and that Robert Dudley was banished (he remained the Queen's principal favorite until his death in 1588). I wonder how much difficulty this poses for history teachers seeking to get their students to understand the truth of the Tudor period? Gladiator's heart was in the right place, I think (though as I have said in earlier posts, I prefer "Fall"). On the other hand, Scott's more recent epic on the crusades (with Orlie Bloom in the lead role) looked fantastic but had a rubbish plot and probably lost its point because "political correctness" undermined the Crusader/Saracen enmity. Alexander (more our period) I found an intelligent attempt to tell a diffuclt story - and while the lead didn't have the technique to carry some of the rousing speeches, I thought he got to the emotional heart of Alexander as near as anyone can. I don't know whether anyone else felt this, but to me, the more one knows about the subject the more one gets from Alexander - there are all manner of unexplained and subtle hints and references. A bit like "Fall". Above all, Alexander gave me a visual reference for the period which I don't think will ever leave me. I'd give it 75 out of a 100 , though as a film it is deeply flawed - as is the earlier (50s) Richard Burton version, which I also like for Frederick March's Philip above all. Going back to Troy, there was much I disliked about the film, but more that I loved - for instance, Brad Pitt's charismatic Achilles with his amazing leaping technique in battle. I liked the way he was shot several times, but the arrows removed except for that in his leg - one could see the origins of a legend straightaway. Nice touch. The way certain aspects of the story were telescoped so that it was true to the spirit if not the letter of the myth was also clever. But at the end of the day the film was aimed at a "fantasy" audience, NOT historians. On the other hand the escape of Paris (inevitable, I suppose given the overall treatment) was not something I admired. Film is about drama and thus one has to understand why writers and directors have to be ruthless in moulding their material. But there is a difference to me in editing "King Lear" for time and a changed medium, and re-writing it to have a happy ending; or making Cordelia evil and Goneril good. While film involves the former I am usuaklly happy; when the latter, I have concerns. Phil

I thought Lycia wonderful, not least Xanthus, which really captured my imagination. The stories attached to it and its position on a crag high above the River of the same name. Caunus is also a spectacular site especially if followed by a trip to the nearby beach. I went about 10 years ago, during a tour of Aegean Turkey (also saw Troy, Miletus, Ephesus, Aphrodisias, Pergamum, etc) run by a UK firm called "Explore" a company that i would recommend. We began and ended in Istanbul - a magnificant city for any classicist to visit. I love the Turks for the honesty, friendliness and charm and want to go back. Phil

Wasn't Augustus said to have liked to deflower young girls (provided for him by Livia)? I think I recall that from Suetonius' smutty book. Incest seems highly unlikely given what we know of Octavia's charcater. I am slightly surprised at the take the series has on both her and Atia. So far as I was aware both were highly respectable ladies. But then one of the series few major faults is that it has gone for tittilation with the women. It degrades them on many levels. Servilia may have had a relationship with Caesar, but she was also a great political lady and a formidable political influence in her day. Cicero was clearly in awe of her!! But this is drama - so if Shakespeare can paint poor Richard of Gloucester as a black-dyed villain, I suppose we can allow John Milius a nymphomaniac Servilia and Atia!! In conclusion, I think that Octavia's incest as well as her lesbian fling are complete fabrications, and wholly imaginary devices on the part of the writers of this series. Phil

...what emetic do you give an elephant? A very large one, I guess. Then stand well-clear!! I thought for a while Vercingetorix was going to be strangled in the Tullianum - I liked that short scene. Shame they copped out and garroted him in public. Phil

Great post Frankq Bronson's last project was to have been one about (I think) Colombus, in which Glenda Jackson was to have played Isabella of Castile. Costumes had been made but he went bust. There were calls for the Forum set from "Fall" to be preserved as a tourist attraction, but it was torn down to make way for a circus (big-top kind) set. On Heston, I'm not sure he is a ham, but one thing he always did was to ensure that he was clear about what his character represented and what his "journey" was (in terms of character arc). I can't agree with you on Livious (though I like Stephen Boyd and some parts of his portrayal) as I feel he meanders through the plot in a rather indecisive way. Heston would have had more presence (he could certainly pull together tableaux dominated films like de Mille's "10 Commandments"). In my view Heston could have made Livius a more tragic figure, bringing a greater equality to the relationship with Commodus (Plummer might have stood out less or had a better foil to act off) and a better rapport with Loren (with whom he had starred in "El Cid"). Look at what Heston did with the pretty non-descript role of the US Marine officer in "55 Days". But I am pleased to see you argue the merits and desserts of the film so well and so strongly. I return to "Fall" time after time and always find something new, and that it never stales. You are right too about the score, which often reverberates in my head as I day-dream about ancient Rome. I wish someone would publish some of the designers' notebooks (as they have done for Lord of the Rings) - they would be a wonderful reseach tool. There are so many subtle points to notice: Guiness in a philosopher's dress when in his private quarters; Commodus' subdued Bacchanalian gear in the last scene); the use of the Hand from which he emerges illustrating the changing nature of Roman religeon (yet never commented on or mentioned); the dress of the lictors and the presence of secretaries in the Senate chamber - I could go on... except... have you noticed the tiny detail of the man who claps his hands for luck over Commodus' head as he enters the Temple of Jove? I could discuss this film for ages, but enough for now. Thanks for responding and for the additional info Frankq - much appreciated, Phil

There is, of course, a sense in which Augustus DID restore the republic - or at least a version of it. He certainly learned from his predecessor Caesar the Dictator in concealing his rule - no titles of "king" or even the (by then anyway abolished) "dictator". He did not even monopolise the consulship after his early years in power, and dated his "reign" by the years of his tribunicias potestas. But he certainly COULD HAVE imposed a much more obvious monarchical style had he wished - and as later emerged (even in the Principiate under Gaius and Nero) under the full blown "empire". It was even less obvious than either of the triumvirates in it's wielding of naked power. As it was Augustus (a title then of extreme dignity but with none of the later accretions of imperial authority it acquired) ruled within the old forms of republican government: * men still held the great offices - quaestor, aedile, praetor and consul, in order and with the increasing nobility that went with the rank * he used the tribunician power, though altered, rather than creating something new * the Senate still met and was respected * and governed the non-military provinces * the imperial arrangements for provincial government - proconsuls, governors, legates etc was a development of pre-existant forms (Pompeius had governed Spain through legates, and had had a higher imperium over other governors during his special commands * much of his ability to influence affairs came from his overwhelming auctoritas and dignitas - the same methods used by major figures under the republic * he was indeed the Princeps Senatus (though perhaps somewhat young for this title by previous standards) and First man in Rome - the position that most republican politicians and nobles of former days had striven to attain. For all that, though, it was NOT the republic, for the reasons i gave in an earlier post. But what an achievement!!! To transform and stabilise a major power, transforming the spirit while seeming to retain the substance of the older system. Slight of hand? Much more surely - the result of learning lessons, of being willing to adapt and change. But above all witness to an incredible political understanding and will - perhaps among the greatest the world has seen. Surely Augustus and his advisers (especially Maecenas and Agrippa) should be up there with the Founding fathers of the USA as creators or constitutions of profound moment and influence, and of proven lasting quality. Phil

El Cid is a remarkable epic - one of the best. Interestingly made by Samuel Bronston - he also produced "55 Days at Peking" (another must see) - the film Heston made in preference to "Fall". There are some connections between "Fall" and Cid" too. The tent which Livilla uses in her rebellion is the same as used by King Sancho in Cid, just redressed. A rocky landscape with huge grey boulders also features in both films. Some of the armour in "Fall" was made for "Cleopatra" but refurbished, and the breastplate used by Commodus during his "triumph" (based on the Prima Porta statue of Augustus) was worn by George Baker as Tiberius in the first episode of the BBC "I Claudius". I don't think timing was the only reason "Fall" failed at the box office. It is a subtle film that is VERY long even by epic standards, and never manages to find the tension that serves Ben Hur so well (Judah/Mesalla). It thus rambles somewhat. Livius is also a weak and unfocused character - this is where i think Heston would have insisted on and sought clarity and strength (even in adversity). Boyd make Livius a rather boring and staid personality and is never quite at the centre of events, more often their victim. I still think it an adult, deep, entertaining movie though, and my favorite among the epics of that era. the first half (Rex Harrison) of Cleopatra comes close behind. Phil

We need to separate propaganda and spin, from the reality. Augustus and his advisers wanted the world to believe that the republic had been restored, and put a lot of energy into creating mechanisms that seemed to reflect this - Augustus stopped monopolising the consulship so that the cursus could resume for others etc. But think of the image of themselves that Hitler and the Nazis put out in the 30s - and compare that to what they were actually doing and saying and preparing for (as we now know) behind the scenes. Without all the monstrousness of C20th fascism, the Augustan regime was little different. But the debate about a return to republicanism does not seem to have gone away. I interpret some of Tiberius' actions (especially in his early years0 as trying to move away from the "monrachism" of Augustus, to even more traditional methods. But the Senate had become to supine to function. However, the one thing that Augustus and Tiberius never overlooked was the fact that there had now to be a "strong man" at the centre of affairs, directing things. Without such a ruler, the republic would soon descend again into civil war as rival generals vied for power. Even so, civil war erupted again in 69 after the collapse of the Principiate under Nero (only just over 50 years after Augustus' death remenber). You know, there is an easy test as to whether Augustus did or did not retore the republic in form or substance. Simply define the criteria that for you define the essence of Roman republican Government - role of the tribes and centuries in elections; method of election of magistrates, role of the consuls, public careers etc. (Note that it doesn't actually matter whether others agree with your chosen criteria for this purpose.) Then make a second list of what defines the Augustan settlement for you. Compare the two. Finally (or you could go straight to this third stage) list those items in your first list that remain true under Augustus. Just my views, of course, Phil

...but then I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did in fact have those things in the days of old which were uncommon and never made it to the history books. That would allow almost anything to pass - "Oh, electric street lighting in first century Rome. Well, maybe they had it and we just never read about it!!" One of the problems of history in the C21st is the anachronism that is creeping in. Show Henry VIII as a gangster, and we'll all understand. Never mind that it's neither accurate nor in the spirit of its period. In historical terms, "Gladiator" was pretty appalling in almost every regard - I'm not saying it wasn't a powerful film - but neither the depiction of events, the sensibility or the look of rome was as it would have been. Perhaps Ridley Scott should be taken at his word that it's more about modern Hollywood/California than second century Rome. Phil

Flavius, you wrote: "...I found a new respect for Commodus out of the movie's portayal of him. He brought a feeling of the insanity of Caligula..." Was that a typo, or are you saying: a) that somehow Jacquin Pheonix's portrayal of Commodus gave you an insight into Gaius Caligula; or that you think Commodus and Caligula are the same person? Grateful for clarification. Phil

On the subject of Porcia (Shakespeare's Portia, of course) - she is supposed to have died by swallowing live coals. Does anyone know whether that is physically possible? Surely your body would react with pain before it got to the gullet!! Phil