phil25

Even in the case of the rich Roman, "rooms" did not have the clear designations they have nowadays - furniture could be moved into different rooms for different purposes, or a bed could be present in a room used for purposes other than sleeping during the day. Until relatively recent times even the rich in western Europe would have found little privacy as we would have known it. That is why, in Shakespeare's time and after, beds had curtains. Often a servant or children would sleep in the same room. Even then rooms often linked and were accessed from each other, not by means of corridors, so passing through a room others occupied might be essential. A room at the end of a series of interconnecting rooms DID have privacy and thus might belong to the most important person. Roman ideas of privacy were also different to ours. Public toilets were communal and unpartitioned, for instance. Even in private houses, the toilet (if there was one) was often adjacent to the kitchen for plumbing reasons - see surviving examples in Pompeii. As far as I am aware (in Rome the baths apart) it was far less common in the past than today for people to undress completely to wash, to go to bed or to make love, or even to change their clothes. In colder climates in the C19th people would SEW themselves into their underwear through the winter. Kings and rulers did business in their chamber or bedroom up to Tudor times. And the closer you got, as a visitor to the bedroom, the more honour and intimacy you were held in. I use these as examples to show that the past was very different in its assumptions than today. What might be unimaginable or unliveable for us may have been perfectly usual then. Pertinax's example is an excellent one. I could refer you to even more (by our standards) appalling examples of living conditions from London's East End in 1888 - the squalour was unbelievable. Jack London the novelist and researcher visited a workhouse and doss-houses in the same area c 1900 and had to leave because of the stench. One would need a strong stomach to be a time-traveller!! Phil

My thanks to PP for his response. Caesar 23 - The question relates to Augustus, and my examples relate to him and his immediate successors - several times, I refer to the Julio-Claudians as my model in this discussion. I entirely agree about the Flavians, but whether they are part of the "early principiate" is another question. The "secret" of empire, as Tacitus puts it was known by their day. I would argue the circumstances, and the "rules" had changed. We cannot know what Augustus would have done if (like vespasian) he had a legitimate son or sons to succeed him. We cannot know how the situation would have resolved itself if Augustus had died very early and Agrippa and Marcellus had both survived him. Would there have been a civil war - loyal lieutenant v son-in-law/heir? Did Augustus know? Did Agrippa have to MAKE the princeps change his mind, as Syme infers? What I am clear about is that in Augustus day there was no clarity, because of the early deaths of likely or designated successors (Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius) and partly because Augustus "vision" changed. He was a realist and at the end recognised that the "strong man" had to rule if there was to be stability, and Tiberius was that man. Yet he seems to have had no warmth for that choice. Thus Germanicus was inserted into the process - indubitably because Augustus wished the principiate to descend in his own bloodline. So I agree, there was a definite hereditary principle in the intent; but i argue that the reality was somewhat different, and that was and is what matters. Oh, and as for disagreeing with scholars, I am quite happy to do so. Isn't that what debate, discussion and the academic method is about? We evolve our OWN views from our reading and understanding of the evidence and then put that up for argument. Arguments put forward in 1936 deserve challenge. But that is NOT to say that I disrespect for the scholars concerned. Phil

The Caesar overcome scenario is excellently depicted by Rex Harrison in the 1960s epic Cleopatra. I suspect that writers and producers alike wished to avoid duplication of this scene, as they specifically did the "look" of Alexandria. Film producers are not - as historians are - bound by the sources. They are creating drama and entertainment. hence, they will often look for the original angle. Look at Cleopatra, you'll have your moment. Phil

I entirely disagree with Caesar 23rd's views. The "hereditary" principle cited is disproved by the effective EXCLUSION of Posthumus Agrippa - notwithstanding his (un)timely death - he was never a real political candidate. In EFFECT the Augustan "monarchy" may have been perceived as hereditary, but this is a post hoc, not a contemporary judgement. I have argued elsewhere that Augustus wanted descent through HIS blood, hence his insistence upon the adoption, by Tiberius, of Germanicus to the injury of Drusus. But I also argued that Augustus saw a "duality" (and this I think is my own hypothesis, so blame me for it) with a blood descendent and a loyal supporter - hence Augustus/Agrippa, and his desire for Germanicus/Drusus. Tiberius too may have recognised this, perceiving Sejanus as HIS Vipasnius Agrippa. Would this be too wild an assessment, that the empire needed two men in tandem to govern it? - certainly Diocletian (in different circumstances) seems to have thought a similar arrangement appropriate. Caesar 23 writes: So , again , the only way to transfer the "throne" is from father to son , a biological son . In a case when there was no such a son , the only way was to adopt one . the facts are that when a biological son was alive he took the "throne" (the only extraordinary case was Britanicus and Nero , but that is another story) . There is no example of a biological son who did not succeed his father . when Constantine the great won the empire in 324 he orderd Licinius and his son to be murdered , why ? Because the son was the heir to the "throne" Let us leave aside later examples, since "Spittle's" question related to Augustus. There is NO example in the principiate of blood-son succeeding father - Augustus was succeeded by his step-son; Tiberius by his great-nephew; Gaius by his uncle; Claudius by his step-son. Not until Commodus do we find a successor "born to the purple" (porphyrogenitus). Given rates of infant mortality and the facts which were as apparent to the Romans of the time as to us, Augustus and his successors must surely have been aware of this probablilty. De facto, Augustus DID intend to have a royal family descending in the "Julian" bloodline, and this is demonstrated by his immediate adoption of his daughter's sons by Agrippa; and by his insistence on the adoption of Julia's grandson (Germanicus) by Tiberius. But none of it happened, and it was concealed by a welter of other titles and powers ostentatiously bestowed by the Senate. At the very least there is a distinction between the fact and the perception, in fact the reality was changing and pragmatic. Phil

Historians usually make a distinction between the early "imperial" period (which is known as the PRINCIPIATE) and comprises largely the julio Claudians, to Nero; and the later period where the nature of the monarchy was clearer and we begin to call the rulers "EMPERORS. as tacitus said, the year of the four emperors revealed the secret of empire - that it was essentially military and relied on control of the legions. That is one part of Augustus' panoply of titles and powers that i forgot to mention before, he was given control of the vast majority of the legions by the Senate through the greater "imperium" or power he held over all the provinces. which contained Roman military forces. He outranked every Senatorial legate, Governor, pro-Praetror etc, whatever their magisterial rank, and appointed his own legates or deputies to run "his" provinces. In this he copied Pompeius' earlier practice in regard to Spain, and (I think) Agrippa ran the east via legates from Rhodes for a time. Re the title AUGUSTUS: Tiberius declined to take it, believing that it should be unique to it's first holder (it was after all his name). But the idea of the ruler being the "August One" seems to have been considered appropriate by Gaius and later principes. In his will, Augustus re-named his wife Livia Drusilla as Julia Augusta; and gaius made his aunt, Antonia (Claudius' mother) an Augusta. It was not, at least originally, I think an automatic title of the princeps' consort. I believe that Messalina and Agrippina Minor (Claudius' last two consorts) were both given the title (someone please correct me if I am wrong). In the later empire, after Diocletian's reforms, the senior two rulers were titled AUGUSTUS (in plural Augusti) while their junior partners were titled Caesars. But that was a comparatively late development. The whole point of the early Augustan settlement, post Actium was to conceal the fact that Rome and its empire were now effectively ruled by one man. I always assume that Octavian believed that the reason that his great-uncle and adoptive father, Julius, had failed so fatally was because his titles and powers were too overt - Dictator in perpetuity, offers of crowns, thrones at games etc. Thus, Augustus took a name that was also an honorific title and that had no previous cnonotations (Romulus was apparently an alternative that was dismissed as having kingly associations. Also Romulus, the first king was reputed to have been killed by the Senate in some versions of the legend.) he ruled initially by taking an annual consulship, and I discussed the implications of that earlier. The fiction was that Augustus had restored the republic, that he was a modest, private man, whose outstanding and unparrallelled (certainly unmatched in his day) authority and dignity (auctoritas and dignitas in Latin) gave him influence and a leading role in affairs - BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DEMANDED IT. This was, in truth, the iron fist in the velvet glove. You need to be subtle in your thinking to understand the nature of the Augustan regime. It is clever, precise and was not arrived at overnight. It was then further modified by his successors. In time, divinity came to hedge the role too, at first after death in Rome (though Augustus was worshipped as a god in the east in his lifetime, and was divi filius - son of a god - in light of his adoption by the deified Julius Caesar), then gradually this became a divinity during life. By Domitian's time, he seems to have expected to be referred to as "dominus et deus" literally lord and god!! (A parallel might be Kaiser Wilhelm II's penchant for being called "All Highest".) I could go on, but I don't want to bore you, Paul. Phil

I have no idea in terms of percentages, and thus have not taken part in your poll. But the exterior walls of the houses of Pompeii were covered with electoral and other advertisements, which must have been aimed at "someone" - one assumes the man in the street. Equally the interior and exterior walls of brothels, taverns, the basilica, a toilet in Herculaneum, baths and many other places are scrawled with a vast amount of graffiti, evidently written by a wide variety of people, from slaves to one of Vespasian's doctors. Thus IMHO all the indications are that there was a widespread ability to read and write at least to some degree. Phil PS Edited to add that my information relates to before 79AD, roughly 100 years earlier than the date you specify. I have no evidence relating to that era at all.

The Roman racing chariot was a very light vehicle - in some sculptures it is little more than a place for the driver to put his feet, which perhaps demonstrates how they were PERCEIVED rather than actually were. I don't think the remains of any have ever been found, so we have to base reconstructions on the interpretation of paintings and reliefs. Phil

Without going back to the sources, I cannot answer you authoritatively, Paul. However, my view would be more "subtle" than allowed for by a direct answer to the questions you pose. First the traditional concept of the "princeps" included certain priveleges regarding when he spoke in Senate debates, and Augustus was not the first man to hold the post - but the presteige and the auctoritas and dignitas that went with it were for life - thought not, of course, specifically granted by anyone. They were implicit in the individual unless "lost". Second there was no specific office of "Emperor". Octavian took the title "imperator" - traditioanlly awarded to successful/victorious generals, as a NAME. Thus he was "Imperator Caesar" by his own declaration - but his name changed several times. Augustus was the title that came to be the imperial one among his successors (Augusta for empresses) - and this Tiberius NEVER took - indeed, as i recall, he REFUSED it. The usually accepted identification as ruler was the award by the Senate of the TRIBUNICIAN POWER to the ruler or his designated successor - so Tiberius held the tribuncian power for about a decade before Augustus died. This provided the veto - ie control over laws and actions - and effective political immunity. It also had populist overtones - as the title related to that of the old tribunes of the plebs. It was usually awarded for a period of years and then renewed. (I cannot recall, off hand, whether Tiberius got it for life in 14AD, or was reawarded it later - this is what I would have to check.) Moving on - I don't think that Augustus ever envisaged anything approaching being given powers for life - that would have been to reveal the true identity of the principiate he had establisged. His secret was to conceal that secret and make it appear that the republic continued and had been restored. Thus he was at pains to take only constitutionally recognised titles and positions - with the exception of the NAME - Augustus, which was unique when awarded to him. Finally, the Senate was both concerned, after the initial post-Actium settlement, by Augustus taking a consulship every year (thus sort of demonstrates that he was using constitutional positions to signify his position and authority) because it blocked the progress of the careers of those required for other duties such as Governorships. but they would have been terrified if Augustus had simply stepped aside and taken no position. Thus emerged the second settlement in which Augustus took an occasional consulsip (as with Gaius and Lucius to add lustre and experience to their assuming the office at a younger than usual age) but "ruled" by the means I have already described. Hope this helps, Paul, though it is not a direct answer to your questions. Phil PS Edited to add that Caesar was a fasmily name among the Julio Claudians, who claimed descent from Augustus. By the time that the last of the direct family, Nero, was removed, the name was perceived as being a title, and was taken as a link back to the original ruling line. I would also question whether the Augustan system was ever hereditary, as such, partly because hardly any ruler had a natural son to succeed him. There were elements of election (as their are in the modern English coronation service) and also of appointment and "adoption". But Tiberius was no allowed to have his son Drusus succeed him (Augustus insisted that Tiberius adopt Germanicus as his heir to the throne). Nero took precedence over Claudius' blood son Britannicus. etc. And I would seriously advise against calling the early rulers "emperors" - it causes confusion (given later developments) and is not actually true in the sense the word implies. You run the risk of overlooking the actual position by applying a misleading term.

I too am re-watching the series, with particular emphasis on Hinds' performance. It reinforces my view that the producers and screenwrites developed their own view of Caesar - based on the historical man - but very much the "strong man" and a foil to the principal protagonists. ROME IS NOT IMHO about Caesar, it is about the people around him. Hence what was required was a strong and powerful but not dominating performance. had Hind's stolen the show, it's point would have been lost. We would have had a longer version of the other relatively recent TV mini-series "Julius Caesar" - and i think the ROME crew would have been anxious to avoid that. As the lack of impressive or more than suggested battles should tell us, this is a DOMESTIC soap-opery approach to ancient Rome. You could introduce the US President into Dallas of Dynasty for an episode or two so long as the focus was on JR or Joan Collins etc. Make US politics and the President the main show and JR etc have no place - you get the West Wing. Similarly with ROME, Caesar provides a context, a backdrop, but HE is not the story. In that light, I think Hinds does a superb job. Phil

Historically, there are only a few ways of using the chariot in war: a) to deliver the "hero" to the battlefield - the warrior then fights on foot - ie a "noble" resource given the expense. to use the chariot in single combat - "hero" agaisnt "hero". c) as a fighting platform for archery (the ancient Egyptians did this). d) like cavalry for use in pursuit, for rapid transit e) in a mass charge (again like cavalry) as it is thought the ancient Brits employed them. Before the introduction of the stirrup the chariot was a useful alternative to cavalry, but was relatively easy to counter - pits, stakes, the phalanx; could be unmanoeuverable, so if expected could be "guided" into particular "lanes" and neutralised. Even in quite early times the Romans seem to have preferred cavalry - the "equestrian" status existed early, as did the concept of the "public horse". Early on, the Romans were probably too poor economically to be able to afford a chariot force. But do I not recall a myth about Tarquinius Superbus running over someone (his predecessor) in a chariot? So it was a vehicle of which the Romans retained some memory. Phil

Classical names have had "vogues" in comparatively recent times. A character (the son of Soames sister and Monty Dartie) in the Forsyte saga (John Galsworthy) is christened Valerius Publius and is known as "Val" Dartie. I suspect that you might have found a rask of Vespasians, Theophiluses etc in the mid-C19th. Marcus is still a popular name (but do people associate it with Mark and biblical sources rather than ancient Rome?) As few now read, or have familiarity with the classics, let alone are even remotely latinate, it does not surprise me that there are few Roman names in use. Our heroes and role models come from elsewhere. In the UK even the old reliable "Christian" names seem to be in use less. We have had a fashion for names like Emma, Charlotte, Harry etc; old Testament parallels, Jacob; and those sourced from Ireland, Africa, the Carribbean and even wholly made up (along the "River" Phoenix model). there must also be huge numbers of Brad's, Harrison's, Sean's and other film-star parallels. Phil

Interestingly, the british monarchy makes no attempt to trace ancestry back to Roman origins. It traces descent from Cerdic the Saxon (c600AD). The French monarchy is descended either from a Visigoth (Merovee); a Frank (Charlemagne) or Charles Martel, Pippin the Short etc or such characters (I am no expert on genealogy) - none of whom was Roman. Hugh Capet was also non-Roman and comparatively late. I don't think the Hapsburgs, or the previous Spanish dynasties, were of Italian origin. Their contacts, to the extent they were, were with families such as the Medici - who would be Lombards, I guess. I'd be grateful for someone who is authoritative on genealogy to help me out here, but wishful thinking apart, is ANY European family known to have descended over such a long period. It is quite impossible in the direct male line, and i would have thought that even indirectly there would be many breaks in the succession. Phil

The Romans certainly did not use "chariots" in warfare in late Republican or early imperial times. The Hollywood epics, such as Fall of the Roman Empire, Quo Vadis and Cleopatra, which show officers using chariots like sports cars, are not accurate. Chariots, so far as I am aware were used in a "heavy" form by triumphing generals, and in a "light" form (with various numbers of horses) by charioteers in the circus. That's it. There is a strange sculpture in the Vatican Museum (Room of the Quadriga as I recall) which shows a "chariot" but last I read it was a C18th forgery, made up of various bits of broken statuary and sculpture, including - as it's body - a marble throne belonging to some goddess!! I cannot recall any other depictions of chariots, outside things like the Arch of Titus showing the victorious commander. Phil

I don't question a word that PP writes. An awesome display of knowledge if I may say so. Yet my own estimation would be that Augustus did less abolishing and more ignoring. Like the British House of Lords over the last 100 years, powers can migrate almost seamlessly from one institution to another. If the Assembles were not called, or were called only with only certain previously and rigorously prescribed functions, the result is pretty much the same. As far as I am aware, the "powers" of the Consuuls, and the presteige of the office never dwindled. It was just that a "higher imperium" now existed in the republic - that of the princeps (literally the first man) who could not be ignored. But note, Augustus and his successors never ceased to take office as a Consul at least from time to time. And the Consuls still gave their name to the year. Big deal - you may say - but an attractive memorial. And families were still enobled when a member held the office even as suffect (secondary consul for part of the year). Phil

But over time, and with debate and discussion the area of our knowledge and the concensus will develop and evolve, Paul. We have an interesting "rosetta stone" already - the engraved stump found under the Lapis niger. It comes from a fascinating spot in the Forum Romanum, not far from the site of the Curia Hostilia (note the name) yet we have not a clue to what it really means!! How much time is spent debating this object or using common sense and knowledge to puzzle out its implications? Early Roman history is an arcane area of study, yet the materials rest under the streets of modern Rome, just awaiting thespade and the intellect. Phil

There is, I think, still some debate about which era of Troy VII suffered the seige, two separate but adjoining layers are possibilities. I have been to "windy" Troy, and it was a very moving experience. the citdeal was tiny, but the remains are fasinating, especially the sloping wall, "Scaean" gate and the much older ramp and gates of Troy II. I very much believe that the Trojan war was a real event, probably part of a series of campaigns, fought against the backdrop of wider Hittite and Mycenaean/Achaian politics. The discovery that Alexandros (paris) of troy was a real person, I find amazing. But Homer paints a glorified, composite picture, including older elements and characters, and also some details that reflect his own day. But the Illiad is IMHO a tribute to memory and the relative accuracy of oral tradition. Phil

The original Ian Fleming novel "Casino Royale" certainly put James in an "awkward situation" - a very sadistic and painful one too. The scene is so central to the novel that it was always regarded as unfilmable - hence the spoof from the 60s with Niven, Woody Allen, Sellars etc. (In one shot a carpet-beater is glimpsed as a symbolic reminder to readers of the novel - if you don't get the reference you don't need to know!) As the first novel, Broccoli and Salzman did not have the film rights, so it was an opportunity for another film-maker to do something different. Personally, I wish they would do a TV series (of Morse standard production values and casting), faithful to the novels and set in the right period. I think it might work well - though it would be pretty adult viewing, but no worse than ROME for nudity or sex i would have thought. Phil

There is a lot one can do in regard to legends, historical fact and the extrapolation of evidence. Until the C19th - and this is the reason for the continuing attraction of myths for some - there was no real interest in history and certainly no historical sense. In England. Shakespeare was taught as "fact", but until the first quarter of the century, historical plays were all performed in a sort of mock Tudor style. Shakespeare himself would not have thought it necessary for a play about Rome to go to the lengths of costume and set research that (say) the recent series ROME did. What was important was the past as a source of lessons and models for present behaviour. Schliemann was ridiculed for wanting to give the Trojan war a basis in fact, for believing in it as an historical event. As recently as 30 years ago, the historian and literary scholar, AL Rowse, defended the "black legend" of Richard III as being better than revisionist history since it gave Richard a better claim to fame than his real deeds. Now. limited new major information about Richard has come to light in recent decades, but MUCH research has been done in the minutiae of his period and that has thrown a huge amount of light on the situation at the time. We UNDERSTAND the period better, even if we can neither "prove" nor "disprove" a legend. So turning to Rome: The seven kings (and there were seven hills, maybe the number is symbolic in some way) may well be a distortion. The Romans may have sought to cover-over periods of foreign domination, or made bigger the role and longer the reign of a king perceived as "good". Historically characters can become absorbed into others, so one king might be an amalgam of two or more actual rulers. But what does this matter. Archaeology will gradually provide us with a better understanding of the period. Inscriptions may emerge that prove the reality of certain kings, or provide names that we currently do not know. But it is UNDERSTANDING and insight that is crucial - proving or disproving legends takes us nowhere. It is akin to the old question, "Are you still beating your wife?" - the starting point is already established. It is this obsession with seeking to PROVE the historicity of the Bible that has bedevilled biblical archaeology for so long. It starts from the wrong premise. If archaeology throws light on literature, so well and good, but as schliemann found, assumptions about a period can lead you to overlook or even destroy what is important actually. (Schliemann practically destroyed much of what was left of the likely city of the Trojan war, because in his estimation that layer of the site was "too late". Someone or some group started Rome - they probably had a leader. Let's call him Romulus. the Romans did. They even had an idea of where he lived and postholes for huts of the right period have been found. Tarquinius Superbus may represent several Etruscan kings (perhaps conquerors) but his supposed character may accurately reflect their arrogance and the way in which those rulers were regarded by the Romans. Archaeology will never tell us. But excavation may well, in future, tell us much about the area, and expansion of the ancient setlement, its customs and life-style, its trade and other relations, even whether it was dominated by an external power for a period. I see no reason for a rivalry between "pessimists" or "optimists", buta need for open minds to consider and think intelligently about what we know. Entrenched positions are seldom right. We need to be prepared to pull down outworn assumptions and loosen our grip on fancy (however much we might treasure it). In doing so, we may find that those same fancies actually do have a relevance and even a solid basis in reality,and that we can re-adopt them with greater certainty and confidence. Purely my own musings, of course and as ever, Phil

There was a calculation done once about how noble families at the time of the Wars of the Roses died out naturally every so many generations. I cannot recall the exact figure. I think any family eventually dies out in the direct male line (the one that carries the surname) after a period, so links going back would be tenuous at best. We know the Romans experienced this - even under the Republic, many family names were only continued by adoption. Moreover, when Rome "fell" many families must also have been disrupted by deaths from pestilence, starvation and murder; by forceful separation or intermarriage with the newcomers (Visigoths, Lombards etc) Phil

I think I would agree with PP - who has written an exceptionally good reply. I think Ferrero (not I assume the chocolate maker, off his "rocher") is just too sweeping. Look at the way Augustus dealt with the two areas: Egypt - made exceptionally a personal fiefdom of the princeps, under a personally appointed prefect (NOT a Governor) and with senators rigourously excluded except by specific permission (a ruling that applied even to an imperial heir - Germanicus). Additionally, the princeps was identified as pharaoh and ruled as such. Gaul - Augustus spent little time there (more in Spain, I think), applied no exceptional rules, did not exclude senators... and where is any sign that Gaul became the bread-basket of the empire or the City? It was still that grain fleet from Egypt that was regarded as important as late as Seneca's day and after. Where are the arts of civilisation in gaul. Even if one assumes (as I do) that celtic civilisation was splendidly rich and significant, Egypt had a history of unparalleled sophistication stretching back millenia, was the mother of writing (something the celts never developed, to our loss, since they could not transmit their culture at all well) and of much else. Gaul had been relatively easily subdued by Caesar, compared to the immense struggle (at least as portrayed by Augustus - and isn't it his perception we are discussing here), matching culture against culture in a fight to the death - tota Italia against the foreign dominatrix - that almost destroyed rome, save for the crowning mercy of Actium!!! No - IMHO, there is no comparison. But perhaps I am out of sympathy with Ferrero, and another poster will see what it is that he is trying to convey, have greater sympathy with whatever insight he feels he has. Phil

I am obviously failing to make my point here. But never mind. Phil

Well, we'll have to disagree in a friendly way, then Kosmo. As I recall some 300 senators left Rome to join Antonius in the east at the time of the civil war. It mayt be that my approach is just different to yours. I tend to think in power terms rather than accepting that because something has always been one way, it always will be. If Antonius had won the civil war and moved the capital, we would accept that and get on with things. Augustus left it in Rome - though he was often personally absent in the first years of his regime - and his success reinforced the impression that Rome was somehow crucial and central to Government. But if you look at things in practical terms, if the wealth, rewards, jobs and ability to influence affairs, had shifted to the east, so, very soon would the power-brokers and supplicants, the legislators and administrators. By the reign of Claudius most of the detailed business of government was carried out by freedmen anyway - the trend was already underway under Augustus. There might well have been those conservatives who resented a move away from Rome - but with many of the movers and shakers, from Cicero to Sextus pompeius and Lepidus removed from the scene; if Augustus with all his presteige as Caesar's heir was defeated and probably dead, I doubt that there would have been any major figure to emerge as a focus of discontent. If they had, Antonius would no doubt have mopped them up as Augustus did similar problems. Power goes with power, success and perception. But then this is just speculation and I am a cynic - but I don't think my speculation is unfounded, or unrealistic. Antonius did not win, his policy never had the chance to be implemented in full (or at all). History was re-written or at least edited by the victor. The city of Rome remained supreme. But I don't think it hurts to ask seriously - what if? Or to question our usual assumptions and conventional wisdom. Hence my restatement of the hypothesis (nothing more) I have set out here. Phil

Oh,believe me, Augusta, there's nothing wrong with my imagination!! It is just as though the Romans (or at least the Pompeiians) debilerately and completely closed down a range of options, I find that strange. in the modern equivalent, wouldn't you find it odd if the only beds provided were four feet long?? (Not that I have ever visited such a place or think you have, Augusta!!) Phil

Roman Britain is a long held interest of mine. I grew up in Lincoln (Lindum Colonia) in a house over the basilica, with an intact Roman arch at the end of the street. I know hadrian's Wall quite well. Have visited Bath several times, sites in London, various excavated villas, Dover, and many many other sites. What are your particular interests Zama? Oh, and a warm welcome to the UNRV fora. Phil

The room with the two beds at Herculaneum would have allowed a couple to hear each other snoring!! They would just have been in twin beds. Personally, I doubt that the sleeping habits of Romans was a "class" thing. Perhaps more a practical one - the comfort in a relatively hot climate of personal space? Custom? The house I referred to, while on a main street, was not a high-class home, I think. One of my points re the brothel is that one would perhaps expect "beds" of various sizes to accommodate people of differing heights, and for different positions (something "experts2 seem to accept given THEIR interpretation of the little vignettes over each door. One possibility is that Roman taste was for "positions" that did not require the couple to recline full lengtrh - so kneeling, feet on floor etc would be entirely practical. I hope I am not being distasteful here, or too explicit for younger posters, but as i have said, I think there are as yet unseen insights into Roman life to be gained here. Phil