phil25

And don't forget, DC that another daughter, Vipsania, was Tiberius' first wife, whom Augustus made him divorce to marry Julia. So he divorced Julia's step-daughter to marry that step-daughter's step-mother!!! Complicated??

I was actually thinking of what one would see if you turned 90 degrees to the left. your pic is looking back to Housesteads (behind the copse) from Cuddy's Crag, I think. but the photo is excellent and absolutely captures the way I think about the middle section of the Wall. Thank you for such a superb reminder. Phil

A good summary of the evidence, GPM. It always seems to me to boil down to two options: either, a) Posthumus was a perfectly acceptable candidate for the succession but was unjustly treated by powerful rivals; or he was really mentally unstable and unsuitable, even dangerous, and was put away for good reason. If (a) his story is one of the most tragic in history (and nicely done in the BBC I Claudius). If ( then maybe Rome was spared a different tyrant. Option ( might also explain the outcroppings of apparent madness/ extreme eccentricity in other members of the family, notably Gaius (Caligula) and Nero, but also Agrippina Junior (not averse to murder) and perhaps even her mother the elder Agrippina, who's personality never seems to me to have been entirely stable. It also seems to me that Augustus would have been unlikely to murder a grandson so late in life (he did not murder his daughter or grand-daughter). IMHO, Augustus' ruthlessness would have had him kill Posthumus at the moment he was found unreliable for whatever reason - in hot, not cold blood. As either a defective hang-over, or a rival, the most likely perpetrator of his murder is - again MHO - Livia. I think Tiberius , at least at that stage, too noble and sincere to have been responsible. But one note of caution - I find repeated themes in these late Augustan and early principiate exiles - both Julias, Agrippina the elder and Posthumus - later Nero's wife, Octavia. Is it possible that later historians got confused, or filled in the unknowable with extrapolation from those about which there was rumour? Phil

Robert Graves (I Claudius) would have us believe that Livia killed off Gaius and Lucius caesar (Agrippa's sons by Julia adopted by Augustus) to clear the way for her own son, Tiberius. Both died when away from Rome. Given the high rates of mortality in the ancient world and the low life expectancy, it is at least as likely, and in my view more probable that one or both died of natural causes. However, given the death of both at similar young ages, the coincidence might suggest foul play. But equally, there might have been a genetic weakness that led to their deaths at such similar ages. Turning to the question of succession, in early states (ie before the emergence of the nation state in the C16th-C17th) - where the person of the ruler (however titled) essentially held the unit together, adult male succession was normally essential to prevent civil war. To use the example of Henry VIII which you cite as an example: Richard II (childless and a king who acceeded to the throne as a minor) was deposed by Henry IV. Henry (of the House of Lancaster) had four sons - Henry (later Henry V) had one son, who succeeded him aged 9 months; John of Bedford; Humphrey of gloucester; and Thomas of Clarence had no legitimate children of either sex between them. Thus, the succession of the House of lancaster depended on a sinle heir. Yet Harry VI was mentally unstable. he had no son until 1453. When he went into a nervous collapse, there was no one to act as "regent" of his own blood. His rival for the throne, Richard of York took the position. The rivalry evetually led to the episodes of civil strife collectively and popularly known as the Wars of the Roses. Eventually, Richard II was killed in battle by Henry VII - a remote scion of Lancaster, who's descent and claim came through a woman, Margaret Beaufort, whose only son he was. Henry VII had two sons, but Arthur (the elder) died young and Henry VIII succeeded him. Henry VIII had only one daughter by his first wife, Katherine of Aragon (despite several male children who died young or were stillborn). He married Anne Boleyn to seek to overcome his suspicion that his marriage was damned (Katherine has been his brother's wife previously), but Anne gave him only a second daughter. No woman had ruled in England as Queen regnant at that point and the nearest precedent, Matilda in the 1100s had been a disaster. So a son was vitally necessary to political and dynastic stability. Jane Seymour eventually gave Henry a son (the future Edward VI) but he remained the single life-link for the Tudor dynasty until Henry died in 1547. Edward died in his teens in 1553. Perceived in its context, Henry's concern is clear and understandable. Without a son, the civil wars which had only ended around 1487 (battle of Stoke) would be likely to return. It was not just libido, but political necessity that lay behind henry's complex marriage arrangements. Without them, and had Henry died earlier, or without a male heir, England might/would have changed, through war and rebellion. The modern equivalent, I suppose would be the danger that a political party does not have a credible or universally (by the party) accepted leader, which would make that party probably unelectable. this hands power to their opponents. Augustus had the same problem. In monarchies and aristocratic houses the usual aim is for a wife to bear at least two sons often popularly described as "an hair and a spare" to ensure blood descent. Hope all that makes sense, Phil

Augustus' whole career was, in some ways, shadowed by his quest to leave an heir. He and Livia had no children - I don't even recall mention of an mis-carriages or babies born only to die young. This is odd given that we know both Augustus and Livia were demonstrably capable of having children, and given the length of their married life. Thus, all Augustus' options in regard to blood succession were centred on Julia. Her first marriage, to Marcellus (son of her aunt Octavia) clearly put Marcellus in line to succeed as any children of that marriage would have been of Augustus' blood. He died young. The second marriage, to Agrippa is interesting in that Julia's link with Marcellus created rivalry between the latter and Agrippa, because it effectively cut the second man in the empire (Agrippa) out of the succession. Now, Agrippa would be in a position to be - at worst - father to Augustus' successor, and in the event of Augustus' death, regent or de facto princeps. Julia bore Agrippa three sons Gaius and Lucius (both immediately adopted as his sons by the princeps) and Agrippa (surnamed Posthumus because he was borh after his father's death). Gaius and Lucius were groomed for the succession, but both died in early adulthood. It is interesting that Posthumus Agrippa was categorised as unsuitable even to be considered as an emperor. It might even be considered odd - given the alleged propensities of Gaius (Caligula) and Nero who both eventually inherited the purple. Posthumus was said to be vicious and like gladiatorial games and savagery too much. But whether that judgement reflected a son born of an ageing father who might have suffered from some mental ailment; or was politically inspired by rival claimants, is unclear to me. The lad was exiled and then murdered either immediately before or after Augustus' death - but whether on his orders or those of Tiberius is again unclear from the sources. There were two other children of Julia by Agrippa, Julia the younger and Agrippina. Both suffered for their descent and both died in exile. But Agrippina was the one through whom Augustus blood would pass to the future generations - she married Germanicus, grandson of Livia and brother of Claudius. her children would include "Caligula" and Nero was her grandson. Agrippina may be said to have brought her own troubles on her by her persistent opposition to Tiberius, her imperiousness of manner, and her resentment (at least) at the early death of Germanicus and her loss of position as a result. Tiberius would (could?) never let her remarry because given her bloodline, Agrippina's children would have a greater claim to the throne than his own if the Julian line was seen as predominant. Fascinatingly, after Agrippa's death, Augustus' daughter Julia was made to marry Tiberius, who was thus Agrippina's uncle and step-father. This marriage proved childless and the couple disliked each other. Tiberius went into self-imposed exile at Rhodes, while Julia was eventually exiled, allegedly for sexual misconduct, but more probably (even if sexual liaisons were involved) because of seditious schemes connected with the succession. One of her alleged lovers was a son of the triumvir Marcus Antonius. It hardly needs to be emphasised what a powerful claim to rule a descendant of both Augustus and Antonius would have had... so, I assume, Augusts acted swiftly and decisively to ensure that there would be no issue from that connection. My point in this discursion, is simply this - that simply being the sole carrier of the julian bloodline made Julia the elder a key political player, or piece on the Roman chessboard. She was a pawn in power politics and paid the price. Autocracy is a cruel father. Phil

An excellently balanced summary PP. Phil

I think this is a case where we need to trust the sources. i don't think the site has been sufficiently well excavated to allow us to dismiss the idea. Phil

I have known and loved this book since it's first publication, and have owned each p/back revision. It is one of the core works on ancient rome which, along with Syme's Roman Revolution, I would never be without. I first visted the Wall when I was 14, in the mid-60s, and longed to see Housesteads which Alan Sorrell had depicted in story drama. I was not disappointed, and that, with Chesters, Corbridge and latterly Vindolanda and South Shields are among my favorite places on earth. I love the valley of the River North Tyne, the view from the north rampart of Houseteads across the rugged windswept moors; the walk from their to Vindolanda.... I wish i was there right at this moment. Going there made me love the place: this book allowed me to understand it to some extent. I was lucky enough to hear Eric Birley (father of two sons, one the excavator of Vindolana, and the other the author of imperial biographies) again when I was in my teens. He talked of the Wall and made me replace my simplistic notions with more compex ideas of not a barrier to keep people out, but perhaps to keep them IN - to think of military zones and customs barriers and control. This book allowed me to build on that, and to carry in my pocket when i visited that blessed plot, a library in a single pocket-sized volume. But it, wallow in it, devour it. It is a classic. Phil

I think it slightly depended on whether an urban area was a "colonia" or a "municipium". I have read quite a bit about Pompeii in early imperial times - a coloonia established by Sulla. There was usually a patron, and every five years or so, quinquennial duoviri - eqivalent to censors in Rome. The town council was headed by two "duoviri" supported by two aediles all elected by those with the necessary qualifications. The town council was of indefinite size but made up of freemen. there is evidence of a rich freed-slave who endowed the city in the name of his son (born free) so that he could be elected to the council. Phil

But there is a point to be made, Ursus, that HAD Agrippa been more influential than he is perceived today, how would we know? Augustus by living long (in particular) was able to ensure that the historical record conveyed his interpretation, and no one else's. Not that I disagree that Agrippa was a supremely gifted lieutenant, rather than an eminence gris. But I do think his influence, behind the scenes, was both crucial and far reaching, and that it probably suited Augustus' purposes to keep it that way. equally, Agrippa probably realised that the greatest good lay in him being self-effacing (maybe a natural quality) rather than challenging openly. But Agrippa's role could well have been vastly greater than we know. On a different tack - does anyone know anything of the story I once recall reading (source unknown) to the effect that Agrippa was either rumoured to be, or claimed to be, the natural (i.e. bastard) son of Caesar? Was this a modern fabrication or an ancient gloss? Phil

Immense, IMHO. Octavian was no soldier, and without Agrippa he would almost certainly have been defeated, or out-manoeuvred militarily by his opponents. The contribution which Maecenas (politically) and Agrippa (militarily) made to Augustus' triumph, is, in my opinion, incalculable. Maecenas later proved unreliable, but though Agrippa may have intervened politically to force a second political settlement, he was ultimately loyal and dependable. MV Agrippa served his "master" in many roles, in Rome and in the provinces, was a great "project manager"; a good leader, and a loyal friend. I have no doubt that had Agrippa lived longer, and Augustus died younder, the former would have been the second princeps (perhaps as "regent" for his son or sons. Phil

OK Caldrail. My ideas stink - are completely lacking in novelty or interest - are over complex and sophisticated - mix ideas such as design and ideology. I bow to your total superiority, knowledge, grasp of first century politics and thought, and bow out defeated, grovelling and demonstrably wrong. You have driven me into slough of my own making, I am unable to argue further against your brilliant logic, your masterful deployment of the facts or your charisma. Everything on every subject you discuss is exactly as you say. Phil

I believe the actor who died was Tom Bell.

I am told that most modern archaeologists are not historians, but scientists (chemists, botanists, engineers etc). One recently said, "If I need an historian, I'll buy one in!!" Modern archaeology appears to be all about project management, scientific technique (soil science, pottery types etc), man-management, communication, analysis etc. Times change... What would Sir Mortimer, or Heinrich have thought?? Phil

as Phil stated, it's Hinds' interpretation of the man. To be honest, frankq, that wasn't what i'd intended to convey, even if it came across that way!! We don't know whether Hinds had done a moment's research about GJC - he may have taken the whole thing from the director - not even read another line of the script except the scenes he was in!! Many actors are like that. On the other hand, Hinds may have spent months in detailed research. I simply don't know. so cannot say. Most likely, in my view, is that that performance was what the director(s actually, because separate episodes were in different hands) wanted. They may not, in the overall scheme of the series have wanted Hinds' performance to dominate. Just for him to be the backdrop against which the protagonists of the series - V&P, Atia, Octavian, servilia etc, could act out their stories. IMHO ROME is not ABOUT Caesar. It's about those around him. Phil

In fairness to Hinds (whose performance I personally admire) I think we must remember that a filmic performance involves several elements: * the actors personality, physicality andability - presumablyreasons for him being cast in the first place * the actor's own vision of the role * the director's vision (perhaps one of the more important) and instructions on how to play each scene * the editing - which can leave crucial scenes on the cutting room floor * the balance of the ensemble - ensuring that characters are clearly defined to an audience; identifiable; intelligible; dramatic; different from each other etc. In that sense, I think the director may have wanted a somewhat unsympathetic, slightly alienating, haughty Caesar and both cast the part and directed to that end. if energy and drive - even keen intelligence had been the crucial characteristics, then I can think of other actors who might have been cast. They weren't. As I observed in another thread I started on filmic Caesars, my own favorite is Rex Harrison in Cleopatra, who got the quickness, wit and intelligence just right, and also conveyed a sense that he KNEW his own superiority. Hinds though fits the conciously anti-epic style of ROME for me, and as I say I admire and enjoy his work i the series. Phil

To explain who and what we are, how we came to be where we are. to seek to understand the possible causes and potential solutions of our contemporary problems. To make sense of our past and seek to chart our future. To justify an individuals, or groups actions, after the event. For pleasure - because the past is a foreign country, exotic, different, intriguing, mysterious, enigmatic. To throw light into dark places. For political reasons - to seize and re0interpret past events in ones own favour. By victors who thus show their moral worth over the vanguished. There is no "objective history. All history is subjective - it is about perception and interpretation. cause and effect are constructs - in most cases we do not know that A caused B caused C. We have to identify possible causes and then analyse their relationships and effects. But that may involve imposition, not simply deduction. Each generation re-interprets history in its own image, according to its own concerns. Without history we are orphans, wanderers in the wild, rootless and unthinking, blind and destitute, without culture, stability, roots or vision. History is the lifeblood of the living world. Phil

Syme studied Roman familial relationships - I think the technical word is "prosopography" (spelling may be wrong, it's 6.30am as I type!!). The papers may well be his work in that field - short essays on who married who, filling in blanks in the record. Syme used the relationships to extrapolate political alliances etc. He wrote interesting stuff and added much to our knowledge, but I don't know how widely accepted ALL his conclusions are today. I haven't seen these volumes so cannot comment or be specific about their content. A good university library (or even a good public library) should be able to get them on loan for you though, surely? Does the US operate an inter-library loan service as in the UK? Phil

Does the "moveability " of the feast offer any clues? Easter is not restricted to certain defined calendrical dates , but rather within a range of possible dates. But surely Easter IS "fixed" in a sense. It is linked to the Jewish Passover which is at a certain full moon. It may not be a specific DAY each year (like Christmas) but it is certainly not "random". Phil

Did not one of the popes (Gregory) encourage Christian missionaries to use existing pagan sites for their churches, as people were used to going there, and thus would take to the new religeon more easily. I think that traditions regarding Eostre 9for example) might have been absorbed by "Easter" - including the name in the west - at a later stage. Eggs and bunnies at Easter have no specific Christian symbolism. The Christmas tree was brought in from German practice VERY recently (1850s) by Prince Albert. There have been 2006 Easters (or so) during which accretions can grow around it. Phil

As far as I know the Trojan War was a real event. But I doubt the story by Homer is just a myth or true. Only the Achilles' heel mystery was too unreal to believe. I am not sure if Tyre is related to Troy. Does anyone find source on this? Anyway somehow the two cities should be related in some ways. My knowledge is limited. I find this sort of post very difficult. Do I ignore it? Or do I say something to be helpful...? There is absolutely no PROOF that the trojan War was a real historic event, but excavation since Schliemann (1870s on) and other historical research among the Hittite archive (clay tablets) suggest that it is not impossible or unlikely that a similar event took place around the traditional date of the Trojan War (c1250BC). That "Troy" might be the right site is made more likely to the fact that Homer gives two names to the city - Troy and Illios/Illium. In early Greek Illios would have been rendered Wilios - exceedingly close to the "Wilusa" of the Hittite archive. But there is no agreement on which level of the City was involved, if such a war did indeed take place. How does the archaeological record differentiate a seige or sack from destruction caused by an earthquake? But I doubt the story by Homer is just a myth or true. I'm afraid I can't even begin to understand this sentence - it seems to cover every option? I am not sure if Tyre is related to Troy. Does anyone find source on this? I have never seen one. Why should Troy and Tyre be linked in any way? They are not located nearby each other. They have different origins (the Phoenicians had nothing to do with Troy so far as I know). What could link them - that both cities have names in English beginning with "T" and then followed by three other letters? Anyway somehow the two cities should be related in some ways. How? Anything linking two places COULD be true. A future historian might assume that Paris, Texas, was founded by Frenchmen from Paris, France. But would that be true? Many US and Uk town names are identical but have no link except of the vaguest kind, if that. I admit some have - the US and UK Plymouths mark a genuine Pilgrim Father link - but surely those are exceptions. New York was originally New Amsterdam was it not? As for Helen - a documentary series by Michael Wood in the 90s (available in the UK as an updated dvd) found evidence of "Trojan women" slaves working at Pylos on the greek mainland in the right timeframe. So perhaps Mycenaeans did raid asia Minor and troy for captives including women. And vice versa. I see nothing particularly impossible about kidnapping a Greek queen as a casus belli in the period. The traditional date of the war also seems to match the commencement of the decline and fall of Mycenaean power. The Oddessy and other related legends suggest the Trojan adventure was the last great event of the Mycenaean world and that many of the royal houses went into decline thereafter. I believe that, in the Illiad, we may have an account, albeit distotred by time and initially oral transmission, and maybe in part re-written to reflect later styles of warfare, but which is essentially true. Phil

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Read books on World War II these days and there is often some suggestion that Hitler and germany were bound to lose eventually for various reasons. That was NOT how things were perceived at the time - even if true. Greek victory against Persia was never a foregone conclusion from Marathon to Alexander. There is an excellent book on this subject - Persian Fire, by Tom Holland. Very readable and recently out in UK as a p/back. Phil

I don't think that there is now much doubt that the site we know of as Troy - at Hissarlik in north-east Turkey - is the genuine site. It fits perfectly with dates etc, was a proud and wealthy city in the right time-frame and was already ancient (the mound has multiple layers covering thousands of years of history. If there is a question it is over precisely which of those layers - or sub-layers - is the City of the Trojan war made famous by Homer. There are two main candidates. Tyre too wasalso a proud city, a Phoenician trading port as I recall, in the Levant - but I have NEVER seen any suggestion of a link with Troy - either as the site of the war, or as a settlement by Trojans. Rome itself claimed to have been founded by descendents of Aeneas, a Trojan hero. And I have seen london (UK) alleged as the site of the war in a book some years ago. I have visited Troy in Turkey and it is an amazing experience to look down from those wind-swept walls to the plains where - maybe - Achilles and Hector once fought. Phil

A very thoughtful and thought-provoking post, PP. Thank you. Thanks also to GPM. It is fascinating to see the minds of others' working on this question. Phil

My view would be that it is self-evident that there were not. I doubt any serious military historian would put any of those you mention in tjheir list of the top 10 great captains of history. But I reckon Alexander and Caesar would reckon in most lists. But it is not generalship alone, IMHO, that sets Alexander apart - it is the vision and leadership and the scope and scale of his ambition that do that (as they did Caesar). Phil