spittle

In 1919 the Americans used to say: "We fought in Europeduring the world war and all we brought back was the flu!" That influenza epidemic (Spanish Flu?) killed more people than the actual war had done. I agree with Cato that most wars create situations that kill more people than the actual fighting.

"...but, apart from the wine, the aquaducts, the sanitation, the roads, ....What have the Romans ever done for us?" i don't know the details of Roman replacement populations in Romania/Dacia but I do know virtually every area of the planet has had similar massive ethic changes.

My logic was that Caesar even expecting to have comparable achievements under his belt at age 30 showed an attitude to youthful success. Pompey was one of Sulla's 'main men' and hugely successful, despite being just a pup. Not that it matters now that PP has blown my thinking out of the water. I'm not as articulate as I'd like I hope this helps clarify my thinking.

"Newly minted dictator"? Cato! We're talking about 58BC he'd only just become a governor. Your letting your hatred blind you. Either that or, like you namesake and hero, your a bit of a drunk.

Quote from Goldworthy's Caesar This is concerning troop positions during the huge Helvetii migration in 58BC "...He had four legions at his command, but only one of these was was in Transalpine Gaul. The other three were near the border of Cisalpine Gaul.....It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Caesar was still thinking very much in terms of a balkan campaign...." Dacia?

There is a form of biography that fails to impress not because they overhype their subject but because its not really a biography of the person it claims to concern. The recent biog of Spartacus by M J Trow (?) actually had very little to say about the person and was in fact an inferior version of Hollands 'Rubicon', yet another examination of the latter part of the Roman republic. I have to credit anyone even attempting to devote a biography to someone, such as Spartacus, with such a lack of solid facts known about them but this author just used the interest in Spartacus to sell a book that revealed absolutely nothing new about the man. As for overhype it is to be expected. If an author hero worships/ hates a subject enough to devote an entire book to them then hyperbole is assured.

Back to the 'Maturity' issue. 'No Consulship till 42'. Wasn't that started by Sulla ? Where did the story originate of G J Caesar crying with frustration at the base of Alexanders statue because he compared his own achievements to those of 'the Great Alexander' at age 30 ? Even if the tale is apocryphal, if it was begun by an ancient source it reveals an attitude towards youthfull success being accepted by the Romans.

Jonathan Stamp was the historian on set during the making of HBO's ROME. If you listen to the audio commentaries he admits where mistakes have been made (such as with the Americas parrot species) and where poetic license was allowed for the sake of the story (When Pullo gets whipped in the first episode they admit that it would have been far worse in reality. "You could see through a man after a decent flogging" was the way Stamp actually put it. Mary Beard was the expert helping with the BBC Ancient Rome docudrama's. She has an excellent reputation so I must assume her advice was one of the lesser priorities of the programme makers. Probably just below catering for the stuntmen and above arranging the portable toilets for the extra's during Caesars Triumph episode.

The accessable authors such as Tom Holland or Goldworthy are excellent introductions. They inform and, maybe more importantly, raise further questions which need more specialised reading. I often post on this forum to try and answer the questions they create (such as the Julio-Claudian family tree or Caesars unfinished business). I attempted to start at the beginning by reading 'The Beginnings of Rome' and then planned on reading 'A Critical History of Early Rome' but they were too dry (maybe too advanced?) and I quickly reverted back to the level of writing I'd become used to during my reading of Early Modern, (Holland,Goldworthy). I now find myself skimming the indexes of these unfinished, academic books and even considering buying some of the family alliance conjectures of Syme. In short I feel that the more readable authors will inevitably lead to the more academic ones for any reader with a serious desire to learn as much as possible about the periods they study. It is important, to me, for my reading and study to be first and foremost enjoyable. Occasionally I will realise that the reading of a book as become a chore and I ask myself for what reason am I forcing myself to continue with it. I often find the answer is a kind of intellectual machismo and reassess the situation. If the subject is important to me I may well return to a particular book at a later date when my understanding of the subject as increased to a level that helps me to better understand such books. For now I will continue reading the lighter books and biographies and I have no doubt that both the books concerning Romes beginnings will be read at a time when I am in a better position, knowledge wise, to enjoy them.

Theres a book called The Quest for the Lost Roman Legions by J A S Clunn subtitled, at least on the bookclub website, 'Raising the Eagle from the German marshland'. Its another book concerning Teutoberg (sp?) AD9(?) and the massive defeat of Varos 18th,19th and 20th Legions. Whether an Eagle has actually been 'raised from the German marshland' or this is poetic license to help advertise the book is unclear.

Yes. The same guy who, reputedly. dressed as a woman to gain entry to Caesars house during a women only religious ceremony (Bona Dea?) to sleep with Pompeia (Mrs Caesar number 2)

I own 'The Virgin Queen', Channel 4s 'Elizabeth I' and Blanchett's 'Elizabeth'. I was impressed with the Ch4 cast (Irons is a genius and Mirren isn't half bad!) but what impressed me most was Patrick Malahide (Chissum in Minder) as Walsingham. A three dimensional Walsingham was a wonderful change to the sinister Tudor Nazi I have come to expect. I intend to buy Glenda Jacksons 'Elizabeth R' and would appreciate it if you could tell a little more about 'Fire Over England' and 'The Sea hawk'. Just enough to help me locate themn on Amazon.com Mary Stuart was emotional and, I must agree, at times foolish which makes the idea of a coldly manipulative schemer, planning to repay all of Elizabeth's kindnesses by heading a conspiracy aiming to assassinate her totally unrealistic and grossly unfair. Mary was the victim. If she was remotely like the character she has been given on many drama's she would have distanced herself from Bothwell at the earlist opportunity and laid all the blame on his doorstep. Her emotions and the courage of her convictions far exceeded any political considerations and this resulted in her being an ineffectual leader.

The Patrician only positions had an opposite in tyhe form of Plebian only positions. Goldworthy describes a Patrician being adopted into a Pleb family so he could be the Tribune of Plebs. He says the ceremony was made even more ridiculous because the man being adopted was far older than the man adopting him. Goldworthy also states that Caesar was technically unsuitable to be Flamen Dialis due to his parentage being mixed Pleb and Patrician. To hold the Flamen Dialis a person must have total Patrician lineage.

Are there any examples of a Legions Eagle, or any of their totemic symbols, still surviving? What museum would have the greatest collection of Roman pieces? Yorkshire area preeferred.

All the info comes from Goldworthy's 'Caesar: Life of a Colossus'. I am far less knowledgable than you guys and have long since learned that authors can be wrong but he does go into some detail concerning Caesars long time wish to invade Burebista's Dacia. Maybe Parthia was another area Caesar was intent on invading. For a man of his energies maybe there were several planned military campaigns?

The Kate Blanchett film where Walsingham travels to Scotland and assassinates Marie DeGuise? Where Elizabeth is repulsed by Anjou (the transvestite)? Or Helen Mirren and Essex are with Dudley at his death bed!!! And Elizabeth actually meets Mary Queen of Scots! PHIL!!!! The BBC version was by far the most accurate, even if it did have a few mistakes. Such as portraying Mary of Scots has the baddy. She was a victim of Elizabeth and a very nice person.

Before his assassination Ceasar was planning a military campaign into Dacia (modern day Transylvania). It was to curtail the power of a local King (Burebista) who was building himself a wealthy little empire and had in fact been Caesars plan when he first became a military legate but events in Gaul kept him occupied then the unpleasantness with Pompey and, just when it looked like it might finally happen, he was murdered. My question is this: Did anyone ever get around to doing what Caesar wanted to do? Or did Burebista die an old and wealthy King unbothered by Rome?

I think that the accuracy of the costumes and weaponry are the most correct because they are the easiest parts of history to convey to the modern audience. On the other hand explaining the relationships between master and slave (which has been viewed through pre-civil war American idea's for generations) is a much harder concept to portray. Or the temporary nature of Roman marriage. We are all well aware of royal or aristocratic families cementing alliances by intermarriage but the Roman 'disposable' spouse is very alien to our Judeo-Christian value systems. Even if we have reached a post religious, secular stage to our political development as societies. After saying all that I will buy the DVD of this series if only because there are slim pickings from which to actually choose. The BBC can still make first rate historical drama when it wants to. A few years ago the four part 'Charles II' was fantastic and only last year they did an amazing four part 'The Virgin Queen'. So we can live in hope that the real talent will move from the early modern to ancient sources for the next top quality attempt.

sORRY

Parts of Durham Cathedral are thought to have been built using Saracen and Moorish experts caught/contacted during one of the crusades. Dan Cruikshank did an excellent documentary exploring the theological geometry of the architecture and actually showed some of the arabic writing on hidden parts of the interior walls. ALSO what does BCE/CE stand for? Maybe we should have all joined POL POT and reverted to Year Zero with the Cambodians?

Having read the list of reviewed books I can only see Caligula. Surely an Augustus biog must have been reviewed? Its Tiberius (thanks Augusta, I'll get round to reading both your suggestions) and Claudius that interest me most. Caligula and Nero to a lesser extent - they are essential if I am to fully understand the Julio-Claudians BUT I find them more sordid and less intelligent than the others, thus I am less enthused about reading their stories. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF MY IDEA TO READ ROMAN HISTORY A DYNASTY AT A TIME?

I am inclined to agree. The killing of Tiberius just makes a better story than his natural passing from old age. It also sets the scene for the impossibly mad character Caligula is portrayed has in most drama's or stories.

When I first started to watch it I was a little distracted by the grainy film and inexpensive sets but it didn't take long for the sheer excellence of the script to make all these minor differences fade away. You can almost see Tiberius' mind working. Like a chess player he was constantly anticipating the possible outcomes of his every decision. I would love to see it remade in colour with todays top theatre actors. I'm thinking of Ian Holme and Ian McKellen. Helen Mirren would be a great Agrippina and Jeremy Irons for Tiberius.

I have read that Cicero and Antony hated each other because Cicero could not understand how a person of breeding, such as Antony, could be so vulger and Antony couldn't abide a person of low birth, such as Cicero, being so snobby. Antony's father had been the consul for 74BC. I believe that Marcus Antonius came from an established patrician family.

Why has TV been so 'dumbed down'? This ANCIENT ROME series is really just an introduction for absolute beginners who will remain absolute beginners. If you uinderstand me. In 1968 Granada TV made THE CAESARS which was mostly dialogue and usually had a maximum of seven actors in any one scene. A few of the Senate scenes or Germanicus' Legion scenes had multiple extra's but they were the exceptions. And it was FANTASTIC! I'm yet to see I,CLAUDIUS but imagine a similar intelligent script and lack of high budget/SFX 'wizardry'. When did the average viewer become so stupid that 20 minutes of dialogue meant the death of a TV show?