spittle

Quote from BBC docudrama Ancient Rome, Episode 2. Caesar: "Caesar reinstated the ancient custom of decimation" Old post: "Wasn't it Crassus who brought back decimation as a punishment for cowardice during the Spartacus uprising?" "Oh yes! I'd forgotten that narration. Caesar was more known for his clemency than his brutality" In actual fact Caesar did use decimation and it was as a direct result of his clemency...Confused? Read on. After his first few victories against the alliance led by Pompey Caesar released all his defeated foes. In many cases the 'generals' he released went straight back to fighting him (Ahenobarbus was one such character). He wouldn't even confiscate their property and this lead to unrest amongst the ranks of his legions. Afterall, by all the standards of the times the legionaries would have expected to keep this preperty as spoils of war. Unrest amongst troops nearly always peaks during periods of inaction and this was the case with the IX Legion when they mutinied. Caesar came down hard on them and ordered that decimation should be the punishment of the legion. He did, however, allow himself to be talked out of this as a full scale option for the entire legion and decreed that 120 would draw lots leaving just 12 individual soldiers to face this grissly fate. It was believed, by the ultimate twelve condemnations, that the lot was rigged (eleven of the twelve were ringleaders of the uprising). When Caesar found out that one of the twelve had not even been in camp during the unrest he investigated the matter, found that a Centurian had included the innocent legionary for personal reasons, and prompty swapped the doomed innocent with the centurian who had framed him. In the battles that followed these events the IX went on to distinguish themselves in battle.

Caesars Tenth is the Legion most associated with G J C. Others, including Legion X, had been with him from the beginning of his Imperator to Gaul. In the past there have been posts pondering why, of all his legions, the makers of HBO's Rome decided to use the thirteenth? When Caesar crossed the Rubicon and entered Rome (the die is cast...) he did so with a single Legion. The Thirteenth. In my opinion that is why the 13th were used from the start.

The idea of attaching Scythes to the wheels is another Hollywood invention. There is no evidence that this was ever done. Even if Chariots were no longer used for warfare (except in Britain/Ireland) were they still made and used for entertainment? Chariot races (like the famous scene from Ben Hur) or historically incorrect re-enactments of battles (Gladiator)???

Quote "If your going to add water or coke why not just buy the cheap stuff?" Quality malts are supposed to be mixed with water. Experts say that, served neat, the intensity of the alcohol smothers the complexity of the delicate flavours.

I enjoyed Terry Jones' CRUSADES series/book but thought o9nr of the Amazon customer reviews was accurate. The reviewer pointed out how many Muslim committed atrocities they had overlooked in order to push their revisionist 'Muslims were more civilised than European Christians' manifesto. The bits of Barbarians that I have seen strike me as the same very basic but very entertaining type of thing. Its a great way of making my 9 year old son involved in my interest but he quickly returns to his dinosaurs when I try introducing something a little more complex.

I find your mention of religous 'bedevilling' of historic research particularly relevant as I have just watched a documentary concerning the race to decipher the Rosetta stone. Jean Francois Champollion went to his grave with the secret that civilisations were older than the vaticans estimate of the age of the earth. Even in the early 1800s this was dangerously forbidden knowledge. A Roman equivalent of the Rosetta stone, detailing much of its early history, would be fantastic. This is a flight of fancy and I am fully aware that this portion of history is a ten million piece jig-saw with nine million pieces missing. How many will be found? Hoewever many it is sure to be slow, painstaking work with virtually every archaeologist having their own theory.

To my way of thinking all of these questions form part of the larger picture of whether Caesar set out to gain absolute personal power for himself or was he attempting to serve the republic? Did Scipio/Cato et al ignore the wishes of the masses in favour of an elite within the establishment? "Caesar couldn't accept a superior and Pompey could not accept an equal" Lucan, a century after the events in question.

So on the available evidence some will dismiss it outright, others will modify it to variuos degree's? I also enjoy optimistic accounts. The only pessimistic writing I really enjoy are the rare occasions when the writer can dismiss (or change) an event that has become accepted as truth just by the sheer amount of time and retelling it has undergone. I cannot think of an example concrerning ancient Rome as I am new to the subject but my other interest of organised crime has had several sacred cows blown to pieces recently due to serious historians starting to research an area that was previously the domain of failed fiction authors and scandal rag journalist's.

I asked for an evaluation of the character Scipio. *You mentioned Pompey's instigation of violence. *You brought up Caesars 'war crimes'. I just responded so maybe its you who should be more attentive to the forum we are in. Either that or stop manipulating every thread into 'Why Caesar was bad'. If one of the moderators would care to move these posts they have the power to do so.

The execution of Saddam is the thin end of the wedge. Of course its justified to hang Saddam. Thewn they hang people for lesser crimes. Eventually innocents become the casualty's of miscarriages of justice, You cannot release someone from death if new evidence prooves them not guilty. A line in the sand should be drawn here. NO DEATH PENALTY. No matter how much justification. Every execution desensitizes us a little more, ultimately cheapening the value of human life.

Has anyone seen this yet? The reviews are good and, imo, no one comes close to making gangster films like Scorsese. I prefer Goodfella's and Casino to Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather. My only worry is that Scorsese's last gangster film, Gangs of New York was spoiled by the casting of DiCaprio as a gang leader. He was just far too much of a pretty boy to pull off the role of a 19th century bone breaker. Maybe his role in this, undercover cop, will be less of a stretch to believe. I hope so.

If you've seen one Bond film you have seen them all. Anyone who desires any realism, or even just intelligent 'suspension of disbelief' cannot sit through a Bond film without feeling annoyed. Why is he never put in awkward situations.... "By the way, Q, the toilets broken. I can't get it to flush. Sorry ".

The death of Saddam will bring the Shi'ite and Sunni one step closer to civil war. But would keeping Saddam alive also keep a glimmer of hope burning in the minds of the Sunni who had positions of wealth and power under his Ba'ath regime? These are the leaders of the insurgents and maybe the judicial murder of Saddam will prevent hundreds of innocent lives being lost? Phil did a degree in international studies, maybe he can judge the options best.

Yes it was helpful and I thank you but to be so annoyed at my disagreement seems harsh, even fanatical. I was under the impression that Clodius, not Milo, raised the bar by encouraging his supporters to use violence and Milo (with Pompeys help) only responded to the threat when he answered in kind? (Goldworthy/T.Holland) As for the prohibition of harming Roman allys didn't virtually all of Romes allys in Gaul swap sides and support Vercingetorix? And did not Caesar show extreme mercy to the Aediu because of their long standing alliance with Rome despite their support of the 'great revolt'? Others would have been harder on them for these reasons. I'm not trying to insult you, Cato, and I genuinely value your opinions I just do not buy the image of Pompey sitting in the shadows pulling all the strings. likewise I disagree that Caesar set out to become all powerful and it was as much to do with the accidental circumstances that arrose as it was to do with intention. If the Romans had a genuine dislike of wars of aggression why did they honour their victors so highly? Why did important Romans always fight to get positions that would allow them to wage war and gain wealth and prestige? The first Roman army to march on its own capital did so after a command was taken from Sulla and awarded to Marius! Why the desire to be called war criminal and face prosecution?

As always, the depth of your knowledge is staggering, Cato, however your absolute certainty concerning these people and events borders on fanatacism. Despite my lack of comparable learning (I am new to this era) I must question some of your theories. I find it hard to accept that Pompey instigated the bribery and violence that accompanied the election. From my reading of these events Clodius and Milo took things to a higher level of criminality and Pompey was just lucky to be able to exploit the situation to his benefit. To suggest that Pompey created the situation is really just a conspiracy theory. And to call Caesar a war criminal was little more than a political stick (similar to the crys of 'criminal' aimed at Bush/Blair by their opponents due to their involvement in Iraq since 9/11). There was no real ambition to punish Caesar for the good of mankind. The only rule of war was to win. A point that had been made very clear in 137BC when the consul Caius Hostilius Mancinus was left outside the walls of Numantia. The Senate did this not to expiate a wrong but to legally disassociate themselves with Mancinus in order to riddle out of honouring the treaty he had made with the Celtiberians. A treaty that the Senate found too unfavourable to Rome.

But didn't the Norse gods play any part in this? I know that some of the names of the days are directly derived from them Thors Day, Fraya's Day....

Between July 2001 and jan 2004 I lived in South Shields, Tyne and Wear. There was a Roman fort that I visited with the kid. In jan 04 I moved to Benwell in the West end of Newcastle and on the housing estate next to mine there were 2 Roman gatehouses that had been preserved but council houses had been built around them! Ironically I did not become interested in the Romans until I left the area and moved back to West Yorkshire. A place close to my home is called Castleford and, on the signs it says "Historic Roman Settlement". Occasionally I see a small group of men dressed as legionaires/centurions in the town but I'm not really into the dressing up part so I don't bother them.

Thanks for the suggestions. There's not enough hours in my day so I have to be selective in my choice of books hence fiction has been neglected. However, I am interested in Colleen McCullough's 'Masters of Rome' series. The reason for this is that I consider the Sulla/Marius 'war' to be the true beginning of the end for the republic and the first book in her series, 'First Man in Rome', deals with these times/events. I also consider this episode in Romes history to be the most overlooked, despite being of paramount importance. How many 'average' people even know who Sulla or Marius were? Virtually everyone knows of Caesar. many know of Pompey, Mark Antony, Cicero and the other players in the civil war but the military/political giants of a generation before remain very much in the domain of the scholar or Romanophile. To my way of thinking the war between Sulla and Marius created the foundations for Caesar to take absolute power. For the first time Roman soldiers marched on their own capital, lessening, if not destroying, the absolute certainty that this was a totally unacceptable method of winning victory against fellow citizens of the republic. Quite simply the rules were thrown out of the window. And if Sulla's initial march on the city could have been written off as the exception to the rule, Marius' repeat of the act, followed by Sulla doing it for a third time demonstrated to all that the stakes had gotten higher and the rulebook slimmer. Also many of the historic titans who are immortalised through their involvement in the Caesar/Pompey/Crassus triumvirate and then its break down and subsequent civil war learned who they were, what they were capable of and developed their public images whilst fighting with/against Sulla. Its a sin that for many Sulla and Marius are totally unknown. For others thay are mere footnotes in the books they have read on Caesar. And for people like myself they seem hugely under-represented in the available literature. thats why I will break my usual 'no fiction' choice to read McCullough.

According to the notes on the DVD of Rome: "Mettellus Scipio. Conservative Senator An affable pragmatist, he acts as a smiling counterbalance to his fierce ally Cato" According to Tom Holland 'Rubicon': "Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nascia was a vicious nonentity, pre-eminent at nothing save the staging of pornographic floorshows" These two descriptions are polar opposites (especially after watching Rome and the portyrayal of Scipio as a decent, honourable person who, like Cato and even after being advised to surrender to Caesar by Cato, follows him into death by suicide). Which one is closer to reality? Did Scipio commit suicide? Any other info of relevence? Edited to add this: According to Goldworthy's 'Caesar'- 'Scipio had charges against him quietly dropped after his daughter became betrothed to pompey' I would say this was another tick under the pornographer box rather than the HBO lovable martyr one.

Primus Pilus. Who did you quote below? The sentence I have repeated, though of ancient origin, could have been spoken in a court of law yesterday with equal relevence to our own age. Profound. "...For all the greatest villains, distrusting the present and dreading change, look for private friendship to shelter them from public detestation" Some things never change. It seems that corruption and the methods of escaping justice through connections to leaders of the establishment are as old as civilisation. Phil. Quo Vadis. I have never seen this film. My interest in Tigellinus stems from the recent BBC doc's. Its the only thing where he has played a role (in my very limited experience) as I am reading late republic (Caesar) material and have not yet reached the Empire stage of Roman history. However, I am drawn to the characters of Sejanus and Tigellinus in a similar way as I was drawn to Walsingham, Dudley and the Cecil's whilst reading Tudor history. I cannot pinpoint exactly why such characters fascinate me but I suspect its because they were not born to certain greatness but took it for themselves. Legal gangsters in a fashion? Edited for spelling.

"For the skeptics point of view (some of them created a new Roman history from their educated minds)-" Is that to say they dismiss other scholars theories, due to lack of solid evidence, and then create their own theories based on the same, similarly scarce, known facts?

I would be very grateful if anyone could advise me on any book/info regarding the Praetorian Prefect of Nero's reign, Tigellinus. Despite the BBCs recent docudrama Ancient Rome being very poor it has left me with a desire to know more about this ambitious soldier. Specifically to compare him to Sejanus and to start learning a little about the Praetorian guard and the men within it who relied on merit, rather than family connection, to win considerable influence and power.

The battle between the head and the heart must surely be a built in flaw of humankind no matter what the historical age or culture. wasn't Pompey laughed at for his intense love for Julia? I would go so far as to state that lust is a necessary part of our continuation as a species and that lust and the irratiional feeling commonly known as love are inseperable, in most cases.

Back to the 'dumbing down' debate. Its a plague infecting television, books....what next? But, to slightly expand my original question, where can I read more on Nero's Praetorian Prefect, Tiggelinus? (I am unsure of the spelling so please accept my apologies for any mistakes).

The official date for the founding of the city of 753BC. I know that the Romans considered this to be fact but I thought modern scholars debated the accuracy of this date? Knowing what the Romans believed about their ealiest history actually seems to be of extremely limited use at best and a hinderance at worse. Unless of course you agree that Caesar was a decendent of the god Venus! So I'm guessing that the lost records of 390BC would have been of limited value except in the context of knowing what the Romans themselves believed. My son believes in Father Christmas and future generations would know this from reading the extortionate lists of gifts he starts writing around this time of year BUT they would only know that my son believes in Father Christmas. If they inferred from this that F.C actually existed then they would be taking a huge leap of faith.