phil25

I am quite surprised to find that no one here has mentioned the fact that "Gladiator" is pretty much a modernised re-make of the 60s epic "The Fall of the Roman Empire", in which Alec Guiness was a wonderful Marcus Aurelius and Commodus was ably played by Christopher plummer (much more like the famous Capitoline bust than his later counter-part. "Fall" is a much more complex and detailed attempt to depict the reasons why Rome fell - using a heightened version of historical reality to reveal themes. It starts as with "Gladiator" on the danube, with a big battle (though with more "politics" to give context) and the death of Aurelius. between the two, we see a great gathering of Governors and kings representing the whole empire. The "Maximus" equivalent in "Fall" is Livius (Stphen Boyd - Messala from Ben Hur), who's under-developed part is one of the film's weaknesses. (If only Heston had played it as intended all might have been well!!) Livius, appointed heir in private by Aurelius, hands the throne to Commodus (his former friend) to avoid civil war. There is a wonderful scene of Aurelius cremation, and then an incredible "triumphant" entry of Commodus into Rome, which utilised a full sized set of the Forum Romanum, and ends with the interior of the temple of Capitoline Jove. Commodus descends into tyranny (he is shown as illegitimate son of a gladiator) while Livius brings peace on the Danube, and later in the east, fighting a civil war, and then the Parthians. Returning to Rome, his attempt to subvert Commodus' rule is defeated by bribery on a colossal scale. He fights and kills a Dionysiac Commodus in the Forum, and refuses the throne once more, departing as it is put up for auction. This bald summary does not do justice to the film's style, depth, design, or the performances. "Fall" is a very different, consciously more epic - and in my view, more accurate - film than "Gladiator". We deal with high politics and grandees, rather than with the raining and life of a gladiator. Anyone who has been to Rome will immediately recognise the Forum set - I use film stills as guides to reconstruction for less-classically imbued friends when we visit the site. the interior of the Curia Julia is superb, as are the interiors imagined for the Palatine palace - the baths with the mosaics from the baths of Caracalla re-created and used as wall decoration; a elborate interior court; and the basilca/audience chamber. The research must have been painstaking - the exterior of the senate house has the wooden portico shown on certain coins. I hope what I have said is enough to persuade those of you who enjoyed "Gladiator" but have not seen "Fall" to look it out. Clearly the later is an older film which may seem dated to younger viwers (and those who saw "Gladiator" first) but if you love and are interested in ancient Rome, give it a chance and give it time, LOOK at it. It is, I think, the unrecognised masterpeice of 60's epic film-making - challenging, adult; informative - and rewards repeated viewings. If others of you have seen "Fall" already, i'd be interested to hear what you think both about it as a film and by comparison/contrast to "Gladiator". Phil

Generally, I agree. My guess is that the Liberators avoided getting Cicero involved because they knew what a blabber-mouth he was and that they suspected he wouldn't have the stomach to follow through. Cicero, I think we can both agree, was a very fine lawyer and his rise was an accomplishment in its own, but he was never able to match his political vision with actions that were equally worthy. I admire the Phillipics as an eloquent (if belated) protest and a fitting (if now quixotic) attempt to prevent the permanent loss of Roman freedom, but Rome's need for a Washington was greater than its need for a John Adams or Patrick Henry. Cato The American republican references (was Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty of give me a Coke"?) are somewhat lost on a British monarchist like me, but I think I grasp your meaning. At the end of the day, I respect your view, and in reality I suspect there is little difference (save nuance) between us. Happy Christmas, Phil

Cato: I am unjust in my opinions of historical personalities, because they are just that, subjective opinions. There is no right or wrong here - it is simply an evaluation of the scanty evidence we have. By the way, at the time of Catalina, Caesar had no military machine at his back - but I still cannot imagine him being as supine as Cicero. And as for courage - it was Cicero himself who continually harked back to his courage against Catalina - courage not much in evidence later. Unable to bring himself to actually help kill Caesar, Cicero was happy enpugh to carp and criticise the "Liberators" for not going farther; and was keen to ensure the coup was effective, but only if he himself could avoid responsibility or danger. But, I am not against Cicero for one moment - i regard him as a significant figure and a great lawyer. I just think he needs to be seen in perspective. Phil

CATO: "The picture of Cicero that emerges from these writings is no different from that of other sources, so there's no point attempting to disparage primary sources in favor of rank speculation and pedestrian cynicism." Cato, you're obviously not an historian, or maybe your critical faculties are simply weak. My point was that we simply do not have the materials on which to make the comparison you suggest. We do not know Lucullus, or Hortensius in anything like the detail we know Cicero. Secondly, my post in no way "disparaged" primary sources - I merely evaluated and used them. I am not denying Cicero's sature - I (as many in his own time did) do not see him as one of the greatest of Romans. I find his pomposity and self-regard humourous more than admirable. So often he was caught out in his own cleverness - unable to counter Clodius' imposition of exile for what he felt was his finest hour (can you see Caesar settling for that? as I asked before); or Octavian seeing through him and his "cunning plan". But if you like and admire Cicero - that's fine by me. No need to be defensive about it. You are entitled to your view. But equally, be realistic. Cicero's reputation is largely posthumous and the result of the survival of so much of his writing - Seneca is another example. Whether edited by Augustus or others hardly matters in that statistical sense. Phil

I'd love to see the second series emulate "The West Wing", one of the best things I think ever to have come out of American TV, and consistently good over seven series now? Imagine getting an insight into thr workings of the Senate secretariat, or Maecenas' advisers, or Agrippa's staff, and seeing the rise of octavian through their eyes. Detailed examinations, in dramatic terms, of the key political events in all their subtlety. I doubt we'll get it. But maybe, one day, we'll get "Palatine" or "Aula Regia" - set in9say0 the reign of marcus Aurelius, or Trajan. Thinking about it, Jimmy Smits might make a great Trajan... Phil

The Romans were superb engineers and developed a great deal during the empire. Look at the brick vaults that constitute the Basilica of Maxentius/Constantine between the Forum Romanum and the Colosseum; or the under-pinings of the palace of Septimius severus on the Palatine. The use of concrete is also impressive. Incidentally, a classics teacher in the 60s once told me that the secret of Roman concrete remains unknown. he was referring to its amazing longevity in holding buildings together. Does anyone know if that is true? They Roman engineers may have emulated things they saw in Parthia, but I don't think that given the idea, they needed much help from anyone. Phil

Cicero's posthumous fame depends almost entirely on the survival of his writings. There are NOT in the most part what he said, but rewrites aimed to present him in the best light. some, like the (second?) Philippic he was even too craven to speak, but simply circulated among his friends in an attempt to besmirch Antonius. I don't find that particularly laudable. If the writings of more men of his rank and time had had their works survive them in such quantity, I wonder whether we would hold "Tully" in such high regard. I don't think his contemporaries were that impressed, except, as I agree, about his ability as a lawyer. The fact is that several generations of classical scholars, over the C17th-C19th were brough up on Tully and told he was "best" in everything. His ideas chimed with Western liberalism in many ways, however misguided or impractical they may have been in Rome in C1stBC. As must have been the case in his lifetime, there is room for two views of Cicero - I just happen to adhere to the overblown charlatan,self-deciving opinion. Would Ceasar or a Pompeius, had they been Consul at the time, have made the mess of countering Catalina's threat (assuming there was one) that cicero did? Would they have allowed themselves to be "punished" thereafter as Cicero was? Phil

The latest episode screened in the UK (that containing Cato's suicide after Thapsus) was interesting. It was, for one thing much more focused on the "pleb" perspective - Vorenus' domestic problems - and sex in high places (incest at Atia's), rather than high politics. But for me it contained two of the really great scenes so far, ones which will remain with me for a long time: a) the gang-bosses diatribe against Vorenus and his family (VERY strong, Italian, well-acted and truthful). I was suddenly IN ancient Rome. Caesar'[s arrival at the Vorenus' home, with his lictors and retinue - THAT, I thought was exactly the way a magistrate moved around the City - it was just so RIGHT. I too hope that the dvd will be out soon, and in an uncut version, WITH all the politics. Great stufrf, Phil

Interesting though that in being "steadfast against tyranny", Cicero was silent under Caesar (apart from snide remarks in his letters) but sttod up against a lesser man (Antonius). Could it be that Cicero was afraid of what a really great man could do to him, but thought his chances better against the lesser? If so, it was yet another, and final, miscalculation. But to me, Cicero's silence under Caesar, speaks volumes. The "saviour of his country" was 9to some degree at least) a coward. Though he faced his death (after much dithering which led to it) bravely enough. Phil

I am always suspicious of overly superficial comparisons - "the Egyptians and the Maya both built pyramids, so the cultures must be connected" would be an example. But look at the two types of pyramids involved; look at their style and what we know of their evolution in the two cultures, and we see that a connection is not required. I think the same might be true of the great wall and Roman frontier fortifications. Hadrian's Wall, which I know quite well, evolved over time. It was never intended that - illustrations in popular books notwithstanding - to fight Brigantes, Picts or Scots from the wall top. Look at the positioning of wall-fort gates. Look at the location of the "vallum" or ditch BEHIND the Wall (ie on the side that was supposed to be the civilised Province. Was the Wall rather perhaps to separate two parts of the Brigantian tribe? or to control the passage of people and goods, or as a customs device? I am less familiar with the Great Wall, but it seems much more of a defensive line, with substantial capacity to move troops along and to fight from the wall-top. I would be sceptical about any obvious links, though the Roman knew China and India, and received goods from both, and some of Crassus' captured troops from Carrhae may have found themselves living on the borders of China. So maybe some ideas did travel. Phil

Cicero's death became him probably more than anything in his life. A good lawyer, her certainly deserves credit for creating a new style of oratory. But as in so many things, his self-advertisement was over-blown. He became consul only because it was convenient for the boni to oppose someone else (Catalina), and then blew out of all proportion his deeds. I don't think there is any way that Catalina was the threat to the republic that Cicero made him out to be, or Cicero's action so important as he maintained. It would be interesting to know whether - if more individuals' writings had survived in the quantity that Cicero's have, they would make similar claims about their deads - surely Pompeius would!! But i doubt, even so, that those other statemen of the republic would have been so pompous and franklyself-satisfied as Cicero. A man who had a moment of fame and could never forget it. Phil

On balance, I would agree with Primus Pilus. Had the slave leaders agreed and left Italy, then they might just have been able to establish their own community somewhere - but as Roman Blood observes, it is likely that pomeius and crassus would have pursued them - if only so that no precedent or example existed for slaves thereafter. In Italy, against the legions, they had no chance. If all else failed, Pompeius would have extirpated them by organisation and numbers as he did the pirates. Phil

Well, Cato, one can't have everything!! I don't think Antonius was such a fool - like most Romans he was an amateur, but his rivals and competitors were largely of a similar ilk. I think he might have had problems had he come up against an Agrippa who clearly had enormous talent as a general and as an administrator, but then Agrippa was not such a great politician. In the early 30s BC Antonius' auctoritas and dignitas were immense, but that in part depended on Philippi. Without an Octavian to pique him into action, I think Antonius might well have allowed a form of thre Republic to re-emerge, as I have said elsewhere. My own view would be that he might still have set up a dynasty in the east with Cleopatra, and have beaten Constantine to his setlement by some 300 years!! He might easily have disappeared in a renewed bout of civil war, however. I don't for a moment believe that Antonius could have restored stability as Octavian did. Phil

But even "the world's greatest politician" needs a starting point - I'd be fascinated to read an outline of events in 44BC or any other year, starting from the assumption that Octavian was 9say) a legatee of Caesar's will but not his heir, or able to take his name. Phil

Caesar's name was what gave Octavian his start - without the name Gaius Julius Caesar, Octavian (essentially a callow youth) would have had no status, no locus and no hold over his uncle's veterans. Antonius knew that. If Octavian had had to work froma standing start, Antonius would have buried him - unquestioned leader of the Caesarian party, Marcus would have smoothed over differences with the "Liberators" and a form of the republic would have been restored. Antonius, was primus inter pares, would no doubt have based himself in the east and controlled Roman politics discretely from afar. He might even have wed Cleopatra - whom he already knew from her time in Rome as Caesar's mistress- and might have founded a divine dynasty which would have ruled the east as Rome's regents. Eventually, the capital might have moved to Alexandria - or how about a new city - Antonopolis on the Bosphorus? That model might have worked. If Antonius had sought to continue with a controlled Republic, I think Rome would have faced decades more of civil war, until a Vespasian or Trajan emerged to make it an undisguised monarchy. But Octavian - where would his power base have been without the power of the name to rouse the troops, to seek to have Caesar's chair placed in the theatre and at the Circus, to demand the destruction of his assassins? In my view, nowhere. Cicero recognised it - "everyone calls him Caesar, but Phillipus doesn't and neither do I". Clearly Octavian was using the name, the persona, as heir. Chance is Octavian would have had a knife between his ribs one dark night... and the whole of the rest of history would have been changed. Just my view, of course, Phil

I think there are parallels between Rome and the modern western world (wider than the USA). None of them are particularly encouraging as I think they equate to reasons why the Roman empire fell. A few: * the bread and circuses culture (the average man is more concerned with his pleasures TV, sport etc, than he is with issues and politics; * immigration to fill posts that nationals will not fill (so that we are increasingly dependent upon non-native labour) * a degeneration in art and literature * a lack of decisiveness in political terms * a tendency to look back not forwards * the failure and decline of traditional religeon and its replacement by alternatives * a lack of confidence in many areas (introversion over things like the environment, climate change, conservation) * fragmentation internationally * a cessation of expansion - a withdrawl of outward growth * a loss of assurance in aims, goals and assertiveness * relatively weak, scandal prone rulers (compare C19th or midC20th US Presidents and British Prime Ministers with todays crop) * plague (AIDS, bird flu...) * the decline of aristocracy and the rise of the new man That should be enough examples to encourage discussion, I think.... Phil

I too come from a Roman town - in my case, Lindum Colonia, now Lincoln in the UK. My childhood home was situated right above the principia of the Roman legionary fortress - for a time garrisoned by the famous IXth Hispana - and later the forum and basilica of the Colonia. In a cellar between our house and the next were columns and part of the pavement from the forum colonnade, eight feet or so below modern ground level. 150 yards away at the end of the street, was a Roman arch - the well-known Newport Arch still straddling a major thoroughfare almost 2,000 years after it was built. It was the north gate of the city. As a schoolboy, in my teens, I helped excavate the east gate of the Roman city, close to the medieval cathedral, and part of the northern wall, where the foundations of a water-tank which served the baths was found. Lincoln is rich in Roman antiquities - an intact sewer runs below the street I have spoken of above. When part of the forum was excavated in the 80s they found a very early Christian church - its successor was only demolished in the 60s. The Roman connections continue to run - my "house" at school was Lindum. the word is pre-Roman in origin, coming from a celtic word meaning pool. A colonia, by the way, was a settlement for veterans, aimed to help educate the natives in the benefits and richness of Roman life. there were four in Britannia - Colchester, Gloucester, Lincoln and York. Lincoln was later the capital of the province of Flavia Caesariensis - part of a sub-divided Britannia. I think it was, perhaps, being brought up in such close juxtaposition to Roman remains that has made me so intrigued by their civilization and history ever since. Phil

I don't think that Primus was one of the approved praenomina. The name is not thus ROMAN in that sense. Cicero was "Tully" after his nomen (Tullius) to the C18th and C19th. Phil

First: on the FORA. I assume you mean the imperial fora in Rome itself? If you have been there, the answers tend to be obvious and do not (unduly) in my opinion, include egotism. The Forum Romanum, dating from the earliest days of the city's existence, became cluttered with monuments and famous buildings. It was, frankly, too small for purpose. It was also damaged in the late Roman period, when the Curia hostilia (the old Senate House) and the Basilica Porcia were destroyed by fire. Caesar radically restructured that end of the Forum Romanum, repositioning the Curia and its adjacent records office, the Comitium and re-orienting the Rostra (Speakers' platform). In that context, the Forum Julii is an extension of the Forum Romanum, beyond and to the back of the new Senate House. It held, as its focus (as each new Forum did) a temple - in this case dedicated to Venus, his reputed ancestress. Caesar's successor, Augustis built a forum behind the Basilica Aemilia centred on a temple - this time dedicated to Mars the Avenger. It provided more public buildings (especially as additional law courts), and the decorations and sculpture were a propaganda exercise for the new regime - with schemes of statues on either hand, This was widely copied - the Basilica Eumachia in Pompeii seems to use the same artistic sceme. Generals setting off on campigns were supposed to start from here. Nero must have changed much of the town planning in the neighbourhood when he built his Golden House, but he does not seem to have built another Forum. This was left to his eventual successor Vespasian, who built a Forum of Peace. Given its position, this may have been part of his redesign of the Golden House as public (rather than private) space. One of the wings of the temple included the marble map of Rome. The forum area, appears to have been maintained as gardens rather than an open space. Vespasian's son, Domitian, began a "Forum" eventually named after his successor, Nerva - sometimes called thre Forum Transitorium. It is actually a formal entrance to the Forum Romanum from the Subura, making an impressive, pillared (and narrow) space from a road. It always reminds me of the Sebastion at Aphrodisias. Trajan added a new huge Forum named after him following his Dacian campaigns. Engineering skills and archietecture had moved on since Caesar's day, and the new Basilica Ulpia (named after Trajan's family name, must have dwarfed its older companion next door. Again I suspect this was now required for the business of an enlarged city and empire. Beside Trajan's forum are his more down-to-earth and wonderful markets - highly practical and useful. Hope this gives an insight into my take on the imperial fora of rome. On Caesar and Britain - I don't think Caesar ever intended to stay, while Claudius did. But it is possible that britain was regarded as "conquered2 and continued to pay tribute to Rome, for some years after Caesar's departure. So it is not impossible that caesar's vision of the relationship was different to what we sometimes think. Phil

Yes, I believe that it was treated as the same thing Coming late to this topic, excuse me if I repeat anything that has been said before, I have skimmed previous posts but may have missed things. Caesar wore a laurel wreath (earlier a corona civica) - it is said to hide his baldness. At the Lupercalia in February 44BC, Antonius offered him a crown three times - he declined it. Whether this was a diadem (difficult to "offer" for reasons given below) or a rayed crown is difficult to say. The "diadem" was an inch wide strip of linen, usually plain, sometimes with the ends fringed and long enough to rest on the shoulders. It was tied around the brown of a ruler, either across the forehead, or just behind the hairline. Ptolemaic rulers of Egypt used it as did other rulers of Alexander's successor states. this is unsurpring as Alexander took the diadem from the mitre-crown of the Persian monarchs, where it had enricled the taller felt cap. Apollo was often depicted with a rayed golden crown, and some rulers - perhaps Nero - may have taken to wearing this. the huge Colossus beside the Flavian amphitheatre (originally with the head of Nero - later had such a crown. Later Emperors may have adopted other forms of crown, including the helmet crown, from which the arched crowns of later times developed. I am happy to expand on this if it would be useful to anyone - royal regalia is an interest of mine. Phil

If one takes Gaius Julius Caesar as an example: GAIUS was his given name - there were a limited range of such names: Lucius, Marcus, Gnaeus, are examples. JULIUS - is the family or clan name. Caesar belonged to the Julian clan - allegedly descended from Iulus son of Aeneas and thus from the goddess Venus. He was a patrician, of high-born ancient stock - his forebears had been Senators (Patres or fathers) in the days of the kings of Rome, before 509BC). Daughters took this name as their own - so any daughter born to a Julian was likely to be called JULIA - they were differentiated by pet names, or numbers used as names - Prima (first or eldest), or Tertia (third) etc CAESAR was a family nickname - this one means a head of hair (which, if Caesar's famous early baldness was hereditary, may have been a pun!) In early Roman times, men usually had only two names. the third name (the cognomen) as has been said, could come to identify a branch of (say) the Julian clan. Gnaeus Pompeius was awarded his cognomen (again perhaps ironically) by Sulla, who greeted his young ally as "Magnus" (the great). Pompey eventually came to use the name - which was somewhat justified, iff a little arrogant - by his achievements. Does that help? Phil

The "flotsam and jetsom" explanation is attractive given the present conventional wisdom about contacts with mezo-America pre-Colombus. But I do wonder whether the future may hold some surprises. The Azteca "expected" the return of a "White God" - so some early contact might not be ruled out. Also there are interesting developments about travel to north America pre-Colombus, not only by Vikings, but also by the Templars. While I currently incline towards a conservative view on contacts, this head (if a genuine find in the context given) may be an indication that "there are more things in heaven and earth" than we dream of. Phil

At least there are some things we can agree on. Nothing else can be proven beyond doubt. The reason this discussion goes round and round is that it's kind of like a "What if" thread. Would the republic have renewed itself if there were no Caesar - not in my opinion, it was doomed, but we'll never know, at least we know we don't agree. Nice one Virgil, one of things I loved about the book was his bluntness.....and his disdain for Cicero, but that's just me. Anyone who has a disdain for Cicero has it right in my book. One of the great distortions of history was the way the "Enlightenment" made a hero of old "Tully". Never was there a more bombastic, ineffective, self-important and pusilanimous man. I don't wish him the death he eventually got, but I do deny him his claims to greatness save as an orator and lawyer. Even the, his reputation is more than partly due to his own self-publicity. Cato - I'll even address your ill-mannered response to my post when I have a moment tonight. tell me, is your resemblance to your namesake natural or feigned? Phil

The republic had been failing since Marius' time. Had the system been healthy it would NEVER have allowed Marius six consulships, let alone so close together. The Sullan response was inevitable, and the republic died in the welter of blood that ensued from both Marian and Sullan proscriptions. That the constitition was terminally sick was further demonstrated by it's treatment of Pompeius Magnus - especially the consulship without having experienced the earlier steps of the cursus. The nature of the sickness was illustrated by Pomeius' activities -a government designed to rule a city was no longer capable of governing an empire of the size of that augmented by Pompeius. In that context, Caesar, the Liberators, Antony and Cleopatra and Octavian/Augustus were simply experiments in designing new systems of government - that experimentation went on under Tiberius and Gaius Caligula, but it was Augustus who found the recipe - the later efforts were modifications to his constitution (though Gaius might have had a more radical and farsighted vision). Phil