phil25

I thought the BBC series on Elizabeth I was dreadful and far inferior to the Channel 4 two-parter with helen Mirren. Neither compared to Glenda Jackson's "Elizabeth R" of the 70s. The recent BBC series was banal, inaccurate in detail and thrust, badly cast with juveniles who could not act, ineptly costumed for admittedly populist reasons and dreadfully scripted. The girl who played elizabeth was a common, working class actress with scant idea of either the notion of breeding or power, who seemed act a struggle to achieve those skills and qualities that the real Elizabeth took for granted - poise, natural charisma, being born to rule and self-confidence. It even lacked the style of the equally inaccurate (Burleigh cast off - he served until 1598; Walsingham at the Queens side to the end of her reign - he died 1590; Dudley/Leicester banished - he remained a major player until his death in Armada year) but brilliantly focused and achieved film, Elizabeth of a few years ago, with Kate Blanchett in the lead role. Phil

I see this question as one of the key differences between modern society (ie with electric light - even gas or effective oil - and predecessor cultures. Even in the C19th the patterns of life were very much dictated by sunrise and sunset - the length of Roman hours and the split of day and night reflected this. Longer hours of daylight in summer, of darkness in winter. I wonder whether there was a "twilight" period in the Roman day - the sunset is comparatively sudden in the Mediterranean compared to say the long evenings in Britain. I seem to recall reading that it took hundreds of candles/oil lamps to equate to the wattage of even a small electric light bulb, and they would have given a flickering light. Not easy to sew or read by. Mealtimes reflected the periods of the day too, with dinner (the evening meal) taken early so guests did not have to return home during the dangerous hours of darkness. I once had an interesting conversation with a custodian of the "Cadfael Experience" in Shrewsbury - we agreed that in the UK about 1950 was the "end of a thousand years. Up until that date (roughly) the patterns and rythmns of life in the UK had changed little from (say) the Dark Ages - farming was often still seasonal and used horses or tractors that were little better than mechanical equivalents; the seasons marked the foods available and the times of getting up etc. Until the need for national rail timetables in the mid C19th, different cities in the UK had their own times (rather like time-zones in the USA I suppose) - Oxford was about 15 minutes behind London. Edited to add - I don't think we can now entirely capture or understand those ancient rythmns - like the silence before the industrail age, it is gone beyond recall. perhaps those who go and live with native cultures in undeveloped regions might touch it. My assumption is that for the average working Roman, the end of the working day was a time to eat and sleep, with dawn the start of the next working day. So it was up betimes in darkness. The richer classes might have had more scope for amusement, but the lighting problem still had to be tackled. So my answer remains, sleep!! Phil

Michael Wood, by and large, produces his own series under contract. More recent series, such as his Shakespeare have the same format and style. Thank heaven. I rate him highly. On a separate point, is this BBC series really a "documentary" in any sense - notwithstanding its claims, it seems to me bereft of scholarship or any real investigation of either the facts or current thinking. The Nero was scandalous in every sense. The Vespasian/Titus, banal. Either could have been filmed at any time since WWII without any change. Phil

I have an absolutely excellent map of Rome (italian text) including all finds up to the printing, which I bought in Rome about 15 years ago. Unfortunately, I cannot put my hand on it at this instant - I have plumbers in and my work-room is topsy-turvey. Also useful is Guida di Roma Antica by Romolo A Staccioli - also in Italian. It covers the city region by region in immense and reliable detail. The plan of ancient Rome fascinates me, and i have found many good maps of central areas in a wide variety of books and guides. Articles on the "marble map" (I assume you know about that?) are also helpful. But it is the outlying areas - as it were - like the Aventine, that are hardest to find detail on. When in Rome I usually snap up any new guides or books I see going (my Italian is non-existant but I manage to read enough, I think) and walk the streets to get as good an understanding as i can. Over the years I have built up a useful personal workbook which brings together plans, reconstructions, pictures etc from every source possible. I'll be very interested to read what sources others have. Phil

Surely, the point about Claudius is that he comes across as being human. Whether it is right is, of course, another matter, but to modern eyes he seems understandbale. Augustus was a chameleon politically and remains enigmatic in the metamorphosis from bloody, revolutionary youth to sage and aged ruler. Tiberius is patrician, unreadable, aloof, cold. Gaius was inane, his acts seemigly inexplicable in ordinary terms. Nero grows into an incestuous, matricidal monster. One could go on. Out of this bunch Claudius emerges as almost loveable - and he has charcater, even without Graves' brilliance. His physical disabilities; his studiousness and ability to survive, the fear he suffers under his nephew; his troubles with his wives; and his way of becoming empror, almost reluctantly it seems, are endearing. Above all, his personal, direct link with Britain (he actually visited the place!) made him of interest to influential British classicists. Another point in Claudius' favour, so far as writing about him is concerned, is that his relatively long life spans a fascinating period. Graves stretches it, with regard to Claudius' parentage, from the aftermath of Actium to the accession of nero. It is ALL there - half of Suetonius, almost all of Tacitus... who could ask for more. But it is, I think, to Graves that Claudius owes his C20th fascination generally. On screen, even before the BBC I Claudius, this princeps had a good run. The snippets we have of Charles Laughton's portrayal in Korda's abortive I Claudius film (c 1937?) emphasise vulnerability, compassion, patience and sympathy - all very modern vitrues. Laughton, who found the part difficult, is said to have gained inspiration from Edward VIII's abdication broadcast, which says a lot to me about his approach. He is sympathetically played by Barry Jones in Demetrius and the Gladiators (a Victor Mature epic, and sequel to The Robe) in the 50s. In the 60s, Freddie Jones was bumbling and brilliant in The Caesars - and won awards for his portrayal. Then we had Jacobi in the 70s. Was this the historical Claudius? IMHO almost certainly not. But then I take the view, with which others here disagree, I know, that the mind set of the Roman is virtually unreadable to us. We thus always interpret them as ancient replicas of ourselves. To take just two examples from Claudius' long career and life: - what did he think/know around the time of Gaius' assassination? was he a quasi-republican? Or was that a politcal guise? Did he want the throne or not? Did he see potential or danger as primary? - what was messalini up to in her strange marriage while Claudius was at Ostia? How did he react? What was his relationship with this woman? How did it affect him thereafter? All these questions can be answered with reference to modern psychology, of course. But was that the way the Romans thought and acted? Phil

Delving into old threads, as I am sometimes wont to do (exploring what was discussed on UNRV before my time essentially) I came across this. There have been several recent threads about Augustus' reputation, and this one seemed worth reviving. First of all, as an aside, wasn't Trajan regarded as the best of emperors (optimus princeps) in his day? More importantly, I think this brief discussion indicates how much of our information about ancient Rome from written sources (archaeology may tell us something different) rewflects Senatorial and sometimes equestrian views rather than those of the populace as a whole. Even if we accept (which I do not entirely) the reputations of the "mad emperors" such as Nero, Gaius, Domitian, and Commodus, their activities impacted much more on the rich and famous than on the pleb in the Subura. These men - and we have some indications in the sources - were hugely popular with the masses while hated by the political elite. So they must have been getting something right. Augustus certainly seems to have got the balance right - the city itself was beautified and made more impressive (brick to marble); peace was restored except on the frontiers; control of Egypt post-Actium gave better hold over the corn supply; there were frequent amusements, games, triumphs etc; and there was political stability. But even so we hear of food riots (interestingly, as I recall, when Augustus was absent from Rome). I wonder what the populace (as against the elite0 thought of the young Octavian when he first emerged on the political scene in 44? The name he had adopted, Caesar, certainly carried weight. In those days, with relatively poor communication and no visual media apart from the eyeball and rather crude coins - is it possible that initially your "common man" (the man on the Subura omnibus!!) thought that this was Julius Caesar himself returned? It would seem incredible to us, but we know that pretend Nero's gained some following after than princep's death. So there was potential. One assumes that the proscriptions would have made little impact, unless a man in the street saw advancement in being an informer. But would that be the case? Since Marius' day (within long living memory in 44) the rostra in the Forum had seen decapitated heads displayed there with some frequency. I wonder what the reaction in the Roman slums or suburbs would have been? Presumably there would have been some reaction given the client/patron relationships which were integral to that society - but would resentment have festered, or would things just have been forgotten? Forgive me, I am just thinking out loud here. But this is an interesting topic. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others. Phil

Did you know that Kaiser Wilhelm II, when in exile in Holland in the 20s, wrote a book bout the swastika? On the Roman salute and standards with a hand at the top - does this not relate to the unit of the Roman army known as the "maniple"? Various statues of Emperors - including the Capitoline Marcus Aurelius and the Prima Porta Augustus - show the outstretched arm, but the hand is always loosely held, the fingers open. This gesture, I always understood to be the "salutatio" when a general addressed his troops. It can also be seen on coins. No doubt both Mussolini and Hollywood drew on these images for inspiration. Gesture is an odd thing, and has to be seen in motion before it can be really understood. Take the so-called "royal wave" as practiced notably by the late Queen Mother. This was an odd, "scooping" motion of the hand, rather than a usual "wave". Actually, the gesture is similar to that used in some religious rites to draw the fumes of incense over the celebrant. the royal wave symbolically draws the plaudits of the populace over the King/queen to soak them in that love and fervour. They are drawing out the loyalty and love of their people. Popes used and still use a version of the same gesture as the extend their arms, palms upwards, while on a balcony and then let the palms come up towards the chest. Again, they encourage and bask in the adulation of the faithful. We cannot know what else was involved in the salutatio - statues don't move and Roman emperors were not filmed - but to interpret a simple static gesture too firmly could IMHO be misleading. Phil

...we begin to see that 'Ancient Rome' is head and shoulders above them. Well, if we are talking of dwarves, maybe. I think my real gripe is that I'd like to see TV series like this (and the financial investment involved) tacklingreassessment rather than simply re-statement. I think what made, and makes Mackie's The Caesars so fresh, is that it does not simply rest on Suetonius, or Tacitus, but looks intelligently at the politics of the period. (This was, after all, the era of Troubleshooters and The Power Game. which sought to dramatise the politics of the boardroom). Tiberius, Sejanus etc are seen as modern politicians rather than cardboard stereotypes in costume. I Claudius interpreted the same period through the lens of Graves, but added the idea of the (post Godfather) gangster family. It was arch and witty and camp and rejoiced in all the then fashionable opportunity to do blood and nudity on UK TV. (The Borgias, some may recall, tried to do the same thing and sank without trace!) In my view, ROME succeeds for similar reasons - it tries to say "what would the experience of living in Rome in the 50s/40s BC have been like - so it doesn't do it in a faux-authentic way, it uses analogy - the souks of the Arab world; the bazaars of India - and says, these characters must have eaten, partied, had sex and relationships, just as we do. It largely suceeds while staying relatively close to history - but it has a captivating plot and narrative device (the soldiers P&V) which also draws you in. Like the two previous series the writing is good. I hope the second series has the same control and standards and doesn't say - "hey series one sold on the sex and violence, so let's give 'em more of that, hang the plot, politics and character!!" Where the current docudrama fails in my opinion is that it is neither fish nor fowl - the dramatisation demands simplification and action; the documentary demands they claim authenticity, the budget goes on FX. That the costumes and design is the best bit doesn't surprise me at all. I have found in many keenly anticipated by ultimately disappointing TV series, that the research and those aspects are first rate. The 1988 Michael Caine "Jack the Ripper" is a case in point. (In that mini-series, at one point, the actor playing Chief Commissioner Warren actually wore the real Warren's full dress jacket!!) I think the thing is that the research is done well and EARLY, at a time when the intention is still to be as authentic as possible. It is only as the script develops, actors are cast and the director develops the series that it is broadened and cheapened to give it appeal. TV has become less elitist and more populist with the decades. To give one example well away from ancient Rome. The second episode of the 1964 BBC series "The Great War" opens with the funeral of the assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Michael Redgrave, as narrator, intones "Bury the Archduke with an empire's lamentation, Bury the Archduke to the noise of the mourning of a mighty nation..." There is no explanation that the words are Tennysons and relate to the funeral of Wellington. It is left to the audience to recognise the source and the fact that the words have been changed to refer to an Archduke rather than a Duke... Does anyone believe that that would be done today, or that an audience could be assumed to have such knowledge? Frankly, I think not. Phil

I saw bits but watched "Extras". I'll buy the dvd and do a closer analysis then. But I had always seen Vespasian as a somewhat provincial but very astute man with a sort of "down to earth" practicality. Peter firth played him pretty much as he does the Head of MI5 in "Spooks". (The chap who played Agrippa in I Claudius years ago, comes closest to how I see Vespasian. I thought the BBC programme made much to much of him not being "posh" unlike the Julii. In political terms he was not that unsuccessful even before "69". Where the so-called historical advice has been in this series, I cannot say. It is no more authentic, reflects current academic thinking and evidence, or takes a new and less sensational line than half a hundred previous series or History Channel documentaries. ROME was far superior in my opinion, as it actually tried 9even with some glaring but deliberate anachronisms and parallels, to immerse one in the "feel" of ancient Rome. This series is frankly baby food for the tasteless. Phil

Simple: "ecastor!!" means "By Castor!" and "epollux!!" means "By Pollux!!" (sometimes shortened to Edepol!!). Castor and Pollux were two gods (originally of the greek Pantheon) who were said to have appeared in the Forum Romanum to announce the victory at the battle of Lake Regillius in 499BC. (They were seen watering their horses - and the two gods were always associated with horses and were sometimes known as the "horse-tamers") in the spring of Juturna. Their temple was built beside the spring and would have been a familiar landmark to all Romans. hence no doubt the reason for the oath. Phil

My understanding was that the tria nomina were not related to NOBILITY (i.e. being a patrician or a plebian) per se. Many of the cognomen related to physical features of some long dead forebear - Naso (nose) or Capito (head). A military suffix (Creticus, Macedonicus) was usually an AGNOMEN rather than simply a cognomen, although no doubt it could be used as the latter. So Cicero was a member of a distinct "clan" of the Tullii, even though he was a "new man" and only enobled his branch of the family by his consulship. He needed patronage and was, of course, famously an outsider - but he was never a complete nobody, even before scaling the heights of the cursus honorum. Phil

I think, Andrew, that the question in my mind was - "with their own hands?" Staining one's own hands with a relative's blood is quite different, I think, to having some minion or surrogate, do the deed (Richard III was long thought to have murdered various people with his own hand - all now discredited). On exhumation, fine if the culture practices inhumation, but the Caesars were cremated!! It was their ashes that were interred in the Mausoleum of Augustus. All evidence gone. But surely, where a man dies in advanced old age (as with Tiberius), the first assumption should be natural causes. Look at Julius Caesar, lucky in some ways that the epilspsy killed him just BEFORE Casca struck - otherwise it would have almost certainly have been a case of murder!! Phil

Would medical knowledge at the time have allowed anyone to distinguish between suffocation andewth by natural causes - a face suffused with blood (I believe a hallmark of suffocation) might have been put down to a "fit"! But does one really see the princeps-to-be committing murder with his own hands? Sertorius Macro maybe - but Gaius? Personally, I think that Tiberius probably died from natural causes/old age, but that the announcement of the death was delayed for some days until all was in place to allow Gaius' succession. the same was done on the deaths of Augustus and Claudius. Rumour would have done the rest. Phil

Here is the link to my earlier thread: http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4884 Phil

I seem to recall that "ecastor!" (particularly) and "epollux!!" were common. I think Collen McCullough (I don't know on what evidence) suggests that the second was used mainly by women. For "dirtier" words you might want to look out "The Latin Sexual Vocabulary" by JN Adams - Duckworth, London 1982. The word mentula was in common use for the phallus. Also look at the work of Martial (epigrams) and Juvenal (satires) - you'll find them enlightening. Phil

Well the UNRV forums are back, and THAT is good news. I suppose we have to accept that there are many selfish, and malignant people out there. What's the alternative, make all computer crime subject to the death penalty? Phil

Those who poke fun at Augustus' millitary abilities are blinkered and fail to see his genius. I agree that Augustus was a good project manager/team leader - indeed the best. But of military abilities, I see not a hint. Some of the evidence might be interpreted (ie at Phillippi) to denote him a coward. Phil

I started a recent thread on just this point - when did Octavian decide to take the path he did - did he have a "master plan", and if so, what was it? Your post is a little difficult to follow, Caesar did not exile Cicero (Cisero?) and neither did Octavian. Indeed, Octavian "used2 Cicero for political ends. As far as i know neither cicero nor Octavian were put off politics for life (if that is what you meant by "putting the poor guy off politics for life"). Antonius certainly put Cicero off politics for life - by having him killed - but you do not mention Antonius. Otherwise, Cicero was as indecisive as ever in the last months of his life (he could have fled and saved himself) but politically active with his "Philippics" against Antonius. Phil Good post Augusta - I endorse every word. Phil

The political situation had changed by Sejanus' day. It is entirely likely that he had various people killed, as did Gaius, but IMHO that does not mean we can infer Livia did the same. Why do we need to assume that Tiberius was murdered? He was old and ailing. And if the timing was made convenient with a pillow, is that vastly different to King George V being given an overdose of morphine in 1936, so that his death hit the more prestigeous morning and not the evening press? Drusus - son of Tiberius - was almost certainly killed in pursuit of sejanus' own enigmatic plans - presumably to allow him to marry Drusilla and thus become regent for Gemellus at the right time. Nero son of Germanicus (and his brother) may legitimately have been imprisoned for treason, since their mother was certainly working against Tiberius. There is absolutely no firm evidence that Germanicus himself was assassinated. It is more likely that he died of natural causes while in the East. That Agrippina THOUGHT he had been killed is of only tangential relevance. It is possible that germanicus was removed by his rival for primacy in Syria -Piso - whom he had replaced and who acted rashly after Germanicus' death. But again that is not proof. the very fact that "magic" was so often quoted as the means, suggests that Germanicus' allies were unable to obtain any better proof of foul play. Caligula was killed openly in a political coup, so is a different case altogether, as probably is Gemellus. As to whether Germanicus would have made a good princeps is, in my view questionable. Popular and "golden" he may have been. but on my reading of his career he was often guilty of hysterical action (Rhine, Syria) and displayed poor political judgement (visit to Egypt). His wife's subsequent career suggests to me that she suffered from many of the same defects of character. Phil

I don't know of sites. Books on aspects of the Roman army by Peter Connolly (the man who recreated the Roman saddle) are always reliable and excellent. I also find "Brassey's History of Uniforms: Roman Army - Wars of the Empire" useful. The Romans borrowed from and were influenced heavily by their opponents, whether Etruscans, Gauls, or in the east. Look at the development of chain-mail; scale armour; the use of cavalry. In the British Museum is a suit of crocodile-skin armour from Egypt - now there is an interesting influence!! You might find web-sites relating to re-enactment groups such as the Ermine Street Guard useful, or even contact the group itself for assistance. Phil

This might be additional evidence, but i don't think there is a "revelation" here. Historians have long argued that it was unlikely that the indigenous british population (certainly after the Romano-British period) just disappeared. The old idea that the "celts" migrated, or were driven into Wales, has - I think - long been superceded. Logically, it would have taken far more Angles, Saxons and Jutes, Danes or Normans to completely replace (or geneticallt change the make up) of a population so quickly. What seems to have happened is that the vast majority of the ordinary people stayed in their villages throughout and simply received new masters in the villa/hall/manor house/castle. Some inter-breeding would then have gone on. In places of the densest occupation by immigrants - the Danelaw for instance - I suspect that the replacement of the population was perhaps more severe. I read recently about a theory that the new overlords would have eaten better, had better chances of surviving disease and been stronger, had better living conditions, and thus might, eventually survive better than the original conquered people. Maybe all these things were going on in parallel?? Phil

Robert Graves (I Claudius) did the Livia as mass murdress "thing" to death (pardeon the pun). There is absolutely NO evidence, other than circumstantial to support the allegation (which while fun is more for the historical novelist than the historian IMHO). There is no doubt that Livia was a passionate politician, seeking to exercise power and authority well into her son's reign. But Tiberius' emergence as the sole practical candidate for the principiate after Augustus' death in no way needs a programme of selective assassination to support it. Apart from anything else, Augustus' longevity explains why. Mortality and life expectancy in Roman times were far higher and lower (respectively) than today. In an earlier post, I discussed the various options for the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, which in no way necessitate foul play as a reason. I think Livia would have been one of the most frightening people in history to have met - formidable, puritanical, driven, clever, scheming and arrogant - but NOT, I think, homicidal. Had Augustus succumbed to oneof his early and serious illnesses, or died at (say) 45 as might have been expected, then the situation could have been very different. Maybe Agrippa would have succeeded, or been regent for his son(s). maybe we would have a succession that went something like: Augustus (died early) Agrippa as regent (died) Gaius (died young) Lucius Son of Lucius or alternatively: Augustus (died even earlier) Marcellus (killed in renewed civil war) Agrippa Gaius descendents of Gaius. I invent these, not because I think they were likely, or are even arguable, simply to show that Roman history could have been VERY different had Augustus died at a younger age than he did. With civil war such a recent memory, who can say that it would not have broken out again? If one of the potential heirs had lived longer and had issue, then we might have no Tiberius (a footnote in the record perhaps like Corbulo or Aulus Plautus), no Caligula or Nero. Maybe Graves would have written, "I Lucius"!! Livia had no need to act in a situation where Augustus simply outlived heir after potential heir - hence, in the context of this thread, the importance of Julia, whose bloodline things always returned to. Had Livia wanted murder those who stood in Tiberius' way, then surely her best bet would simply to have killed Julia around the time Marcellus died. that would considerably have narrowed her husband's options. But that did not happen. Conjecture - Livia as Lady Macbeth - is fun, but we sould not IMHO, let it get in the way of historical probability or the facts. Phil

this is actually depicted in the 60s epic film "Cleopatra". Octavian - Roddy McDowell) picks up the war-spear (so-called) in the curia and marches out onto the steps, followed by the senators. He demands of the people gathered in the Forum, where is the enemy. They shout "Egypt!". Octavian asks "Where is Egypt?". the crowd all point, but he says, "No - there is Egypt!". He then hurls the spear into Cleopatra's mentor and envoy Sosogenes (Hume Cronyn), killing him. Dramatised no doubt, but the idea was definitely there. Phil

I suppose, when probably the loudest sound anyone heard (the eruption of Vesuvius apart) was probably a blacksmith's hammer - the standard of what comprised "deafening" differed from our own. Don't I recall a letter of Seneca's where he talks about the noises wafting from a bathhouse, which gives some idea of what Romans regarded as a nuisance? Phil

Gaius "Caligula"'s (I hate the soubriquet but with the other Gaius so close in time in this context it is a useful differentiator) nervous disposition might well be inherited from his parents. Both Germanicus and Agrippina showed signs of hysteria under pressure. It is quite possible that germanicus had a near nervous breakdown during the Rhine mutinies, maybe also in Syria later. Agrippina gave signs of being unstable after his death. But see my earlier post on some of this. Phil