phil25

Indeed, some of the best narrative histories compare and contrast interpretations either of events or incidents as part of the narration, or in a sort of historiographical epilogue. Phil

I could not have expressed it better PP. I concur with you entirely. Phil

I agree with an earlier poster, that there is clear biblical evidence that "Israel" only slowly became monotheistic. Abhram left pagan Ur to follow the idea of a single omnipotent God and found him in Canaan. There he established a covenant with his God - but still it was only his immediate family that followed that path. He was promised that he would become the father of a great nation. His grandson Jacob, after a rocky, duplicitous start, wrestled with a spiritual being (symbolic of his own conscience?) and was rewarded with the title Israel. It was he and his sons who went to Egypt and from whose loins, if we are to believe it, the "people" or children of !srael sprang. But even a cursorary reading of Exodus shows that these children of Isreal were basically pagan. Moses (at the burning bush) has to ask God what his name is so he can tell the people when they ask which of the many Gods has sent him!! (There is also a very odd, fragmentary account during Moses return to Egypt after this incident in which God appears to attach him.) As soon as Moses goes up Sinai, the people make themselves a golden calf (presumably an image of the goddess Hathor) to worship. Time and again, in Canaan, they are punished for turning to Baal ( see story of Elijah) and other local gods and goddesses, including Ishtar. Wise Solomon himself turned to paganism in his dotage, probably under the influence of an Egyptian wife. Now I am NOT saying that Judaism changed, or was ever other than monotheistic - but the Jews seemed to stray often. Maverick though he was as a writer Robert Graves was well-read, and writes in King Jesus, of temple prostitutes which suggests potential correlations with other major pagan holy sites - Diana at Antioch for instance. A fascinating comparison with Herod's temple is that of Bel at Palmyra, which has a similar colonnaded court of massive proportions, and a central cella. In appearance, the Jerusalem temple must thus have drawn on pagan models (or vice versa, I suppose) but the similarity is there. As regards the subject of the thread, I rather think that the jews and Judaism rather perplexed the Romans, and probably infuriated them at times. Note the attempts of both Pilate (under Tiberius) and Gauis to erect imperial images in the temple. Phil

Does it? How? Sorry Spittle, I don't follow your logic. Phil

I agree, AD, and I used the word "tyrant" in its greek sense - I had always thought that the expulsion of the Peisistratid dynasty from Athens was seen as marking a particular stage in the political growth of the city-state - even though Peisistratus himself was not altogether a malign force. Phil

There was a type of book, in my youth, that used to have the title "The Life and Times of...." which wrapped up the sort of "Spartacus" treatment mentioned above. Out of fashion now. As ever, MPC, you probably over-state your point for effect - but surely individuals (like you and me) do play a role in events, and it is interesting to know what shaped them, what inspired or drove them, what the influences on them were - and biography (good biography) does that. Of course - as I think I said in my opening post - it almost inevitably exaggerates the importance of that individual - but taken in the round with other works, they have their place, I think. Like you MPC, I enjoy a stimulating re-interpretation of the conventional wisdom on any subject. I find they open the mind, and also (I collect Holy Blood, Holy Grail-type spin-offs), can be unwittingly amusing too!!Surely even you, MPC must have read some standard works at one stage to catch the overview and chronology of the period - else how do you know WHAT is being revised?? In my opening post, I suppose I had thought of such revisionist works as either narratives (if they are broad in coverage) or studies/monographs if detailed. But you are quite right to throw a light on them. Where would we be without them, as each generation re-interprets history in its own reflection? Phil

...Surely there was some inherent ability - 'From the beginning his sense for realities was unerring, his ambition implacable'. (Sir Ronald Syme) ? That I don't deny - indeed, I think my last post makes that very point. But I hardly think anyone could have foressen in early 44, the outcome or position reached by 31. Octavian was somewhat sickly - who could have foreseen his longevity? That - defeat and early death avoided - he would have been a significant player, I do not doubt. But did he really, at the outset, plan on the defeat of Antonius and the support of tota Italia? Even if he did, what would his model have been? Certainly not the final Augustan settlement, as that was only realised by trial and error. Phil

There were many Greek cultures and civilisations - Maecenaean, (maybe Minoan before that), Dorian, the age of tyrants and of Solon, classical, Macedonian, Hellenistic - but if you mean the classical world of Athens and Sparta, the age of Pericles, then my analyss would be this. They had behind them the example and the legends of the world of the Trojan War - Maecenae was never lost or forgotten They had a "literature" in the words of Homer. Throwing out the tyrants (rather like Rome throwing out the kings) gave politics and the energy of the state a boost. Solon gave wise laws. There was interchange with the Ionian/Asian greek city states (Miletus etc) and victory in the Persian wars gave Athens at least renewed confidence and sea power. Pericles presided over a state (and its democractic nature may have been important to its creativity) which valued the arts and sciences, debate and learning. hence their high culture and achievements (Parthenon, plays, sculpture, poetry) which still demand admiration. What do others think? Phil

I have no answers, only questions - which is why i was interested in the source/origin of your seeming certainty. I started a recent thread on the subject of exactly when Octavian began to conceive of and plan for his eventual sole-rulership. Whatever he aimed for in March 44 surely cannot have been that - did he even think he would achieve the consulship at such a very young age, at that point? Of course, he had parallels and predecessors to inspire him - Caesar himself, Pompeius Magnus, consul without holding junior office; Sulla... to name but three. But in those early days of his career, was Octavian out to ape Sulla's bloodthirsty rollercoater? Or did he model himself on Pompeius - but Octavian surely never perceived himself a great military man (such self-deception seems to me to be alien to his character, which was sublimely pragmatic). He had able allies in Maecenas (the politician and propagandist) and Agrippa (the soldier) but both were equally young and untried at this stage. Maecenas may have had a precocious confidence, but what evidence did he have of his abilities to convince others. Maybe they simply decided to join the game, play a hand, and go forward step by step, looking to see what "fate" had in store for them. Or maybe, they had a game-plan from the start - but if so, can we deduce what it was... It is others' analysis of these questions in which I am interested. Phil

Urine was collected - you can still see the containers in the streets of Pompeii - and used in laundry. Gaius (I think) taxed the income of whores. Phil

...his idea of how he would govern was there before Actium. Source, evidence? All most all you say is contention - you cite no evidence except conjecture. Phil

About two thirds of the Palatine is excavated and Domitian's place with later (including Severan) additions can be visited. Also viewable is the House of Livia (republican/early empire; the more ruinous House of Augustus, the site of the hut of Romulus and a number of other structures. The remains of the Villa Mills, and C19th dwelling is also extant and contains the Palatine museum, though it has never been open during my visits. About a third is taken up with the Renaissance, Farnese Gardens (themselves historic) which overlay the Tiberian or Claudian palace. A long subterranean tunnel, said sometimes to be where gaius was assassinated (untrue) lies beneath this area. On the Capitoline, in the saddle (arx) are Michaelangelo's fine museums (early C16th), and the Town Hall of Rome. This last is built on the top of Sulla's Tabularium, and the Temple of Veijovis. The site of the Temple of Jupiter lies partly under the Capitoline Museum and partly under residences (I think one an embassy). The site of the Temple of Juno is now taken by the church of Santa Maria d'Aracoli. Away from the Forum against the "rear" of the hill sits the Victor Emmanuel monument (the wedding cake) with the Italian Tomb of the Unknown Warrior and the Museum of the Risorgamento. Also nearby are the remains of an ancient "insula" or apartment block. In the centre of the Capitol square now stands a replica of the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius (9the original now safely in the museum nearby). Does that help? Phil

Were Caesar and Sulla both failures, or was either? Caesar was killed by rivals, but much of his direction was followed by his successor and adopted son - a monarchy by another name; domination of the state by a single man. Learning from the dead dictator's end, Octavian certainly adjusted the model but I would not say that he departed from it overall. Some of Sulla's constitutional reforms were reversed, but many were not, and he certainly restored order for a while. He recognised, as did Caesar and Augustus that domination by a single mind was necessary to the stability and future prosperity of Rome. It could be argued that Augustus was not successful either - he had to adjust his initial post-Actium settlement, which was evidently unworkable, and the second version may well have been forced on him by an intra-regime coup. He never managed to find a wholly suitable successor, and faced (it is alleged) mutiny from his daughter. Longevity and the war-weariness of Rome - an exhaustion and lack of suitable rivals for many years - could be said to have given Augustus the edge over his predecessors. But if caesar had been struck by lightning on the Ides of March 44 would we say he had been unsuccessful? His assassins were vastly less successful that he, if so. I think value judgements such as this are unhelpful in understanding politics. The political "game" is always in motion, never ceases or comes to an end. All politicians can do is seek to control the "beast" for a while, but they all eventually retire from the scene and others take over with changed problems and goal-posts. Thus, Augustus could build on what Caesar had established, Caesar (to an extent and after a gap) on Sull'a foundations. But Augustus did not have to play on the same board or the same rivals as Caesar did in the 60s or 50s; and Sulla had different problems and a different board and rivals again in the 80s. The potential and quality of the opposition also differed in each case - Caesar I think faced the most forbidding coalition when he crossed the Rubicon - seasoned performers on Italian soil. However far-sighted Antonius may have been in going east, he allowed Octavian to focus on a foreign for (Cleopatra) and abandoned the main game for long periods. Sulla largely faced vicious and radical, but second-rate politiocians and a Marius long-past his best, had he ever been a good politician. No, I would rather guage each individually, than compare them. the playing field is too uneven to allow us that liberty. Phil

...it was the sum total of local experience and experiment. Would you put the lamellar arm defences adopted by the eastern legions (not I think the western) and perhaps used by Trajan's troops in Dacia, into that category? Phil

But Caesardictator, your analysis seems to assume that Octavian had all the personal abilities and powers BEFORE Actium that he demonstrated afterwards (gained through experience?). I must admit I don't see him as quite so Athena like (ie stepping out fully developed from the outset). Would a lad in his 20s, in a society that put so much emphasis on maturity (ie no consulship until a man was 42) really have perceive himself as being a potential "daddy" when so young? Would not the mature Antonius have been the better placed to adopt that "pater /parens patriae" pose? As for escaping blame for the proscriptions, I always thought that Octavian was seen as a bloody-stained and quite vicious youth - along the lines of the young Pompeius Magnus (adolescens carnifex). Part of the puzzle of Augustus is surely quite how he managed the sleight of hand that changed his image? Just questions, Phil

I don't know whether this topic is in the right forum, but if not perhaps someone will move it. I don't know whether the subject has been discussed before - but I could find nothing similar. My apologies if this is old hat. I have been reflecting recently on the sort of historical approach that I, personally enjoy most and also find most useful (not necessarily the same thing). I wondered what the views of fellow posters were, on the various types of "history book" available. I evry much enjoy a good narrative history - and there are any number on ancient Rome around at the moment (Richard Holland's "Augustus"; Tom Holland's "Rubicon" to cite but two). I find these illuminating, if the author is well-read and has thought deeply about his period; but they involve assumptions about cause and effect, and often emphasise character, at the expense of the economic or social forces of the time which can be harder to make interesting. (That said, many authors do tackle such issues well.) A desire to appeal to a general readership can also mean that they can be simplistic or spend a lot of time on basic facts. yet they can be fun, and provide an epic sweep and a good introduction to unfamiliar territory. Yet when I am interested in a period and have some basic knowledge under my belt, I find that a detailed study or monograph on some aspect of the period draws me in and provides colour and granularity. Indeed, I find that as i try to put together a mental image of what (say) Augustan Rome was like, I wander into those areas of detail increasingly - military equipment, gardens, food, clothing - or politics - the nature of amicitia, client/patron relations, the role of freedmen; the nature of slavery; architecture... Then there is biography - a good study of an individual charcater (Augustus, or Goldsworthy's recent Caesar) can make one think about their impact on their day; the influences that shaped them, their experiences and relationships. But biography can also distort, by framing a period through the perspective of a single person. All these types of book, of course, throw one back on the original sources and for our period, it is fortunate that authors like Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Cicero, Caesar remain lively and readbale, even exciting. In the academic method one should go to these first, but I must admit that my usual approah is through a modern author first to catch the sweep and gain some insight into the modern thinking on the subject. I do try to establish a basic chronology of the period and events - a timeline if you will. Fortunately many books do contain such a timeline as an appendix or introduction. But adding to them and making them more detailed can be useful and fun. I also find inspiration, insight and amusement from good historical novels - there is a vogue for Roman detective fiction at present which is often well-researched. They can make one think about how life was like and even lead one to question the author's or your own interpretation. there are also more serious works by authors like Wallace Breem (his "Eagle in the Snow" about the barbarian crossing of the Rhine c 408 AD is superb) or Colleen McCullough Finally, I should mention the differences between academic authors and generalists. The latter can be very well written, racy, easyily digested and in all ways excellent, but a Syme or a Birley can be mined for information over a long period, even if sometimes rather dense and indigestable. So what do fellow posters think? What are your tastes and preferences? How do you approach a new subject? What is your choice of book? I look forward to replies with keen anticipation, Phil

Seneca's "Pumpkinification" certainly demonstrates the way some elite Romans saw their princeps. That said, Claudius' reputation may have re-gained some affection after Nero - who with Agrippina had an interest in side-lining him and his family (Britannicus and Octavia were neither persona grata with Nero and his mother were they?). Work on his temple (near the later Colosseum), was stopped and only re-started under Vespasian. Seneca had odd dealings with the Julio-Claudians being a lover of one sister of Gaius (I forget which - was it Agrippina herself?) and being exiled. So his motives and intent may have been anti-Claudius himself. De-grading Claudius' memory also helped bolster that of his protege. But the fact that Nero's fist five years were hailed by none other that Trajan as the best of any emperor, maybe (at least_ Claudius' declining years were not so hot. I have always been uneasy about Claudius' use of freedmen (Pallas, Narcissus etc) and development of the palatine in the period suggests increasing bureaucracy. Phil

I still have that "winter" picture edition, GPM, as well as a more recent edition. Phil

A figure of an eagle was found at (I believe) Silchester in the early C20th - it may have been C19th, I'm not sure). This was long thought to be a legionary eagle, and Rosemary Sutcliffe partly based her wonderful novel "The Eagle of the Ninth" on it. It is no longer thought to be a legionary eagle, so far as I am aware. I know of no other examples. Phil

The tribune you refer to was almost certainly CLODIUS - a Claudian (but he used an alternative, plebian, version of the name). Phil

I've just read a book about how eating habits and the times (and names) of meals changed in the UK through the Victorian period. It was affected by many things, but it seems the day began much earlier than most of us would conceive today, but finished earlier. In the mid C19th, the main meal (dinner) appears to have been at about 3.00pm. Phil

Do you mean Marcus VIPSANIUS Agrippa? Certain very ancient noble families were classed as "patrician" as against "plebeian" going back perhaps to the days of the kings or even before the establisment of Rome - to Alba Longa. Certain positions (such as the Flamen Dialis) were only open to patricians, who also wore certain distinguishing clothing. Senatorial or Equestrian rank was something different - based on the career path followed (ie you had to hold junior magistracies to enter the Senate) and on property/financial resources. I suppose there could be equestrian branches of patrician families (must have been since not all sons would enter the senate). I seem to recall that Claudius - later princeps - was of equestrian rank until he entered the Senate under Gaius. But there are other posters here who know far more than I about such matters. Phil

Mary Stewart was an emotional idiot!!! Take that as my considered judgement after many years of being repulsed by her utter willful stupidity!! I agree about the meeting between the Queen's - though dramatists love the idea (Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave met in Mary Queen of Scots too). Khartoum has Gordon and the Mahdi meeting (in that case personalising their correspondence). I'll live with the meeting. No IMHO the recent BBC Elizabeth was soap-opery, diminishing, with working-class actors trying to ape their betters with a total lack of conviction or success. They were out of their depth - apart from being BAD actors to start with (Essex appeared to have been cast for his bum!!). As for Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain!!! Radio Times had an article in which the costume designer said that they had been deliberately anachronistic in the design so as not to put off younger viewers with ruffs, hose and anything accurate - so they went for the jacket and jeans look!! I fear that the current generation of kids will grow up with a sadly distorted view and mental picture of the past on that basis. Sorry, I have tried to re-watch that series on dvd, but I find it rotten to the core. Helen Mirren got closer to the spirit of the Queen (not a patch on Glenda or my fave Flora Robson - Fire Over England and The Sea Hawk). Irons had a little of Leicester's style. Essex again missed completely, I admit - though I have yet to see a convincing Essex in anything. To end on a wry note, the casting of Iain MacDiarmuid as Burleigh threw me a bit - I kept expecting the Jedi to appear and the "Chancellor" to overthrow the monarchy in a devious Sith plot!! As far as the Blanchett film is concerned, don't forget Walsingham's taste for boys, and Kathy Burke's working class Mary - obviously a product of deep research!! Sorry I cannot agree with you on the BBC series though - I was mightily disappointed. Phil

I must have a look at what Goldsworthy says, but I thought that the "lure" of parthia (for the reasons I gave above) was underlined by the fact that within a few years Antonius was campaigning there. Phil

Surely it was PARTHIA not Dacia he intended to invade - to retrieve the eagles lost by Crassus at Carrhae and to avenge his friend and fellow triumvir? Phil