spittle

I have just finished Goldworthy's CAESAR (which was excellent!) and started Richard Hollands AUGUSTUS. I hope to continue onto TIBERIUS as soon as I have finished so I am going onto Amazon now to order one of the two books you recommend. I would not dream of lending books as I love to own the copies I have read. It ticks me off to see shelves full of unread books, usually there for ornamental reasons. I'll edit this post to tell you which I order.

Thanks, Gail. If you had to choose between the two which would you suggest?

There is much about Bakers Tiberius that doesn't fit the known facts. The only action I cannot imagine Morell's portrayal doing is following Vipsania around like a love sick teen. He does say to livia that he could love, once. But he is so removed and aloof that I cannot picture him feeling those feelings ever. It was decades before..... Can you suggest a good biog of Tiberius?

What is the relevence of NERVA ? Why does his friendship lessen the likleyhood of Tiberius being depraved? Also, pederasts may have been accepted in Ancient Greece but wasn't this also the birthplace of modern thought? My point is that the two 'attitudes' are not mutually exclusive.

Livia poisoned Augustus with his consent? Its the ending to I CLAUDIUS! Stupid idea.

Recycling materials for televisions productions is a huge business. I always get the feel of 'low budget' by the use of music from famous films being used on TV stuff. Ray Winstone's HENRY VIII had music from Gladiator and Braveheart recycled into it. As for the Capitoline Wolf in I, CLAVDIVS. It appears above the exit to the Senate in several scenes. AND, according to T J Cornell 'The Beginnings of Rome' "There are good reasons for believing the story [Romulus and Remus] was current in Rome in the archaic age. the best evidense is the magnificient bronze statue of a she-wolf, now in the Palazzo dei Conservatori, which is undoubtedly archaic and probably dates from the sixth century BC. Its figure 3, page 61....UNDOUBTEDLY....Apparently not?

There are Temples in a city of Nothern India (Khajuraho, I think?) that have sculptures of couples having sex in all manner of positions. I don't know what the Victorian 'masters' thought of this or the Muslim Mughals who preceeded them but I found some of them a bit much. Anal, manage-a-trois, oral.......Its like Husler in stone!

Well, maybe not English Monarchs, or even a Monarch at all. But what about a President taking ultimate power for himself? Refusing to stand down.......I imagine Reagan or F D R could have had a chance if they had wished. Arnold Swarzennegger. First Emperor of USA ? Hilary Clinton. Servilia the Younger? Condy Rice. Todays Cleopatra?

Agrippina the Younger or Minor. Thanks Phil. In I Claudius she is called Agrippinella.

If history has taught us anything it is that Republics always evolve into systems with Monarchs/Emperors. How long before America accepts this painful truth and re-instates English Monarchs has their head of state?

try the "ROUTLEDGE HISTORY of the ANCIENT WORLD" series. They do several concerning Greek and Roman history. The Beginnings of Rome. 1000BC to 264BC is the first Roman title but there are about five others taking you to the Fall of Rome OR, if you wish, just upto the end of the Republic.

During the American Civil War Abe Lincoln made a speach where he voiced his wish that the USA be the first republic to avoid being destroyed by factionalism. By this logic I would have to say that the Roman Republic (along with all/most (?) of them) became a victim of this and, by extension, the rise of a monarchy grew from the remains. If the question is to do with making much of the known world Roman colony's....I would attribute this to the 'death before dishonour' attitude of the country. Just look at the beating they took from Carthage. And they came back to win and anihilate them! Any other civilisation would have licked their wounds and sued for peace. It was never even an option to the Romans.

"Andre Morell IS Tiberius". I do hope so. He was marvellous. PP "Nero/Agrippina relationship". Agrippina or Agrippinella? "Bad Press stems from neglect". By allowing Sejanus to corner so much power? Is there any connection between Tiberius' first wife VIPSANIA and Marcus Agrippa (middle name - VIPSANIUS) ? Or is the name of no relevence?

I have just watched I, Claudius for the first time and was shocked by the portrayal of Tiberius compared to his character in The Caesars. In I Claudius he is a buffoon who has his mother to thank for every single achievement in his life and in old age, after Livia's death, becomes little more than a dirty old man. In The Caesars he is a very intelligent man. Coldly aristocratic and aloof but a master of strategy. Of these two views which is most like the REAL Tiberius?

Cheers Phil. It helps. I have just ordered Richard Hollands: Augustus. I decided to go with individual biographies of the Julio-Claudians. Maybe I'll read Sons of Caesar after completing these various books so as to 'wrap up' the subject before moving onto 69AD: The Year of Four Emperors and other works devoted to Vespasian onwards. (The Flavians?).

"Thus the Romans valued their city which was in effect the center of Rome. Liberty was as important as air even though liberty was not equality. According to Antony Everitt" From the post of yours (cicero d) that I replied to. So Yes, you did say it. And i repeat that politics is a balancing act between LIBERTY and EQUALITY.

Has anyone read (or had recommended/ been discouraged from reading) The Sons of Caesar: Imperial Romes First Dynasty by Philip Matyszac (sic- surname). Its only 300 pages and covers from G J C to 69AD (catchy jingle!) so I am concerned that it must surely be low on specifics and barely cover the major events. There is no customer review on Amazon and I take with a pinch of salt the Amazon synopsis.

Semantics again, Cato? I think I was clear in my post that Roman women could not hold elected office and gain power in that way but they could, through belonging to groups, use their influence to powerful effect. I believe there was a big uproar in Italy a few years ago concerning the political practice of influence pedalling. Its a back door to power.

According to the audio commentary on the 'Rome' DVD: "For a short time after Caesars death Servilia was the most powerful person in Rome..." I'd welcome any comments concerning this. I especially want clarification of the reasons for her power. Was she Pro Caesar? (and carried on his plans) or was she anti-Caesar (and took power through her relationship to Brutus and (by now a legendary martyr, Cato)? The actual dialogue was part of an explanation of the actual role of Roman Patrician women in the politic. Although they were inelligible to hold elected positions (were there any for women?) they often found/manoeuvred themselves into positions of great influence and, by extension, power. Take Servilia as the example. By being the lover of Caesar she had influence over the Caesarians. But she was also the brother of Cato (the anti-Caesar) and the mother of Brutus. In effect giving her a stance with one foot in each enemy camp. Thats the type of power that no vote can elect someone into.

Quote from The Caesars. Scene setter. Two senior Senators (Consuls?) are imploring Tiberius to accept the purple. He says: "You wish for an Emperor because you have lived under Augustus but the rule of one man with absolute power is the worst system ever invented by men. When one mans will governs the known world life and human happiness hangs by a rotten thread".

BLASPHEMER! You must never HATE this series! NEVER! Actually, Gail, I didn't know that Octavian had claimed Caesarian was not Caesars child. I was just adding the events of the series to my knowledge that he's had Caesarian killed so, with this new info you have supplied, they didn't really go too far by having Pullo sire the child. In reality though I doubt whether Augustus believed him to be another mans son. His motives, as you point out, were transparent. As for him being illegitimate....Caesars marriage to Calpurnia at the time of the childs birth makes that a fact but did that really mean that much to the Romans? I know a huge stigma was attached to 'bastards' in the middle ages but did the ancients also feel this way?

You've started something now, Viggen! As well as history Phil is into sci-fi. 4006 will be identical to the Kevin Costner films Waterworld and The Postman.

"Liberty was not equality" It never was. One of the major facts of politics is that the more equality the less personal freedom. Communist regimes revolve around equality (in theory! See Orwells Animal Farm). Whereas Capitalist regimes accept the obscenely wealthy and the starving under the same system. Communism sounds SO good on paper! I think it fails to consider human nature. When the politicians are making four hour speaches the population longs for 'Levi's and the Beatles'. But, in places such as Calcutta, millions eke out an existance on the streets while the priviledged few wear jewelled sandals!

Both Pullo and Vorenus were also Centurians. Caesar mentioned their constant rivalry (I think the source of this was the audio commentary on the DVD). To me 'Rome' is the same principle as Forest Gump. Take fictional or obscure character/s and place them at the center of histories major events. I thought they went too far by making Pullo the father of Cleopatra's child to Caesar but now I see the future will involve Vorenus fighting with Antony and Pullo with Octavian it seems more clear. When Octavian has Ceasarian killed it will surely tie into the fact that he his actually the bioliogical son of Titus Pullo?

They have a form of direct democracy in Switzerland where referendums are held on many issues but, unlike ancient Athens with its tiny franchise (very 'undemocratic' by our standards) it is simply unpracticle to have EVERYONE vote on EVERYTHING. Example. If a person wishes to become a Swiss citizen the entire population of the area the potential citizen has been living get to vote on his/her acceptance. the Sunday Times article I read some years ago said it was little more than standardised system of prejudice and the only foreigners ever accepted by majority vote were professionals from just over the border in North Italy (my recollection of the article is vague but I assume it dealt with a canton next to Italy). Romes system actually had more in common with the UK (a patchwork of precedence and tradition) than the USA (written constitution). In short the republic WAS a democracy. But one with a small franchise of actual power. One could argue that, despite the vast majority of the west having the right to vote, little has changed and the illusion of power (voting) simply allows the real power to operate under guise of popular choice. As for The Augusta's (Hi, Gail) question, and I am not sure this is what she's actually asking but I'll contribute and hope for the best, the best thing the Romans respected was a type of Samurai-like self control. Cicero was no fan of the games but he had huge respect for the fearless manner in which the gladiators accepted their deaths. He, in fact, managed to overcome his lifelong fear and bare his throat in similar fashion when caught by the agents of Mark Antony. The honourable suicides of the defeated was another form of this attitude/value system. To me it is far more Japanese than European and I respect it more than the religious certainty that suicide is wrong.