The Augusta

Just a quick reply today - will post more later. Yes - count me in, AC. No problem with the dates. And I will liaise with you all shortly as I am still willing to do my share of the hotel organising or whatever.

Phew what a thought-provoking thread, Caldrail. But firstly, may I - like Neph - offer my condolences on your loss. I speak as someone who knows quite a bit about it, having lost quite a few close family members by the time I was 33 years old - and this included both parents and a young sister. But getting back to the Roman view, this has made me think. The Roman age was just another symptom of a time when human life was not valued as much as it is today in any case. Or rather, perhaps I should qualify that by saying that human life was categorised into 'best people' and others, and death of the great was seen (publicly at least) as more of a loss than the death of a fishmonger by the Tiber. These values are something we cannot dream of today when all life should carry equal weight (philosophically, at least). I think you hit on something with the suicide thing, however. This very much reminds me of the captured Germans who committed suicide rather than surrender. My Mum used to say they were cowards, but I reminded her that in our own 'glorious' days of empire men would do the same rather than fall into enemy hands, and certainly history tells us of Romans willingly falling on their swords. This is a question of honour. One thinks of that epitaph of Achilles, who stated that it was better to have a short life full of glory than to live a long but useless life without fame. It's a totally different mindset that perhaps we can't identify with today. And then there is the question of belief in some sort of afterlife, and how this informs each person's view of impending death. I, personally, do not believe there is anything after this, therefore I cannot view death with equanimity - but am rather like Lucretius and Epicurus who believed that we return to the oblivion before we were born. I wonder whether, for most Romans, this was the case too. Their lives on this earth were what was important to them. However, I am sure there were some Romans who did not look forward to death at all, and perhaps even feared it - like any other normal person throughout history, but I do believe they were a bit more pragmatic than us. They knew it was something they couldn't escape, therefore why get steamed up about it? It is an interesting topic, and we could go on and on. I'd like to hear more members' views on this. And you make a point that resonates deeply with me, when you say that dying at another person's hand can be anathema. This is my personal bete noir. The idea of execution makes me shiver - not necessarily through any moral reasons; more, it is a case of the control being taken away. Even if one has an illness, one can give in to nature to a degree and accept it. However, the thought of someone actually taking my life..... Perhaps it's a little old gene stored away somewhere that I share with a Roman ancestor or something. Great topic, even if a little gloomy.

Good spot! He really does have a look of old Stevie.

Yep - and The Borgias. How could we forget The Borgias?

It's so good to know that someone is older than me! (And I bet you still feel 23 - I know I do!) Have a great day, Pertinax.

If I were to be honest, I think the new style is more functional but the old page was more aesthetically pleasing. But that's only a small nitpick, as we spend far more time on the Forum pages in any case and the history pages are just the same when we get to them. So, if the new page has made things easier for most users, then I'm all for it.

Were you away when Doc was named 'Magistra', GO? The Triumviri and Legati named her thus in honour of her PhD - and well-deserved, I'm sure. (But like you, I keep imagining her with a whip in her hand now )

On this note, Spittle - I don't know if you have seen the suit of armour in the Tower of London that belonged to Henry? Although it is undoubtedly wide, it is not that long! Perhaps he wasn't so tall after all I remember being quite taken aback by it. They have it placed astride a horse and I was struck by how 'squat' it looks.

I have very little to add to the comments of Calders and Pertinax - but I would say ONE thing about this awful mess: Malcolm McDowell actually looks like the real Caligula! Beyond that, well....what is there to say....?

There's just something so bizarre about the whole Bollywood thing, that I actually love the stuff. The Hindu Indians seem to have such a zest for life and enthusiasm for sharing their culture with us in these little sojourns. Bring 'em on - I say! Let's have more of it. What I like even more is the fact that the Hindu Indians never seem to take themselves so seriously. Do you think it's anything to do with pantheism?

I think this goes back to what we were saying in the 'Regional accent' thread too. Blair's background, for instance is Scottish and North-eastern England - which, no matter how many elocution lessons he may have had (lol) will still have an undercurrent in his current 'accent'. So, I don't think it's all about changes in the last 75 years. As for the accents at Oxbridge changing - that may well have something to do with those esteemed establishments opening their doors to a much wider populace than 75 years ago, when the majority of Oxbridge students would have come from public schools. Another Prime Minister to hold up an an example is Harold Wilson, born in Yorkshire, who had a quite distinct accent when compared to the Anthony Edens and Harold Macmillans who had preceded him. As for the American accent (if such a generic term can be used - as there are as many regional accents over there as there are anywhere else - ) one can definitely hear the Irish influence. Listen to any Northern Irish person speak today and the link is unmistakable.

Oh dear! Even Ben Kingsley couldn't fight his way out of the layer of cheese which envelops this film. The best thing about The Last Legion -- apart from Aishwarya Rai in a wet tunic -- was identifying the actors: 'Hey! Is that Doctor Bashir from Deep Space Nine? Look! It's Keira Knightley's boyfriend... and the brother from The Mummy... and the kid from Love, Actually. And Vorenus from HBO's Rome, scowling and growling.' One thing it did NOT have was the least whiff of authenticity. Rome didn't feel or look like Rome. Capri was obviously half shot in Yugoslavia or somewhere eastern european and cloudy. The special effects were dire (reminiscent of sword'n'sandals epics from the 60's), the battle scenes were boring and silly... And Colin Firth as a Roman commander? No way. He looks like he's wearing a cardigan even when it's a leather cuirass. Verdict: v. amusing (but sadly not in the way they intended) I must admit, I haven't yet watched it - but my son enjoyed it immensely, in a Play Station game sort of way! Love your observation about Colin Firth, Flavia. I love him to death, but even I (as besotted as I may be) cannot see him as a Roman! My son probably summed it up when he said that 'Mr. Darcy was in it' and made no further comment!

If I couldn't have lived in Rome itself I would choose Syria. Don't ask me why - I just have a fascination for the place - and I must indulge in a deeper study of the province. Alexandria would have had its attractions, but I have this weird antipathy to Egypt that is totally irrational and must be linked to something in a past life But there is something about Syria for me. It speaks of luxury and indolence; of naughty boys and sumptuous girls; of gorgeous fabrics and rich decor; languid heat and constant trade. I'm almost afraid to research the province, just in case my illusions are shattered!

Can I just point out here, longshot, that 'Octavius' is actually a 'nomen' or family name. You are correct, of course, with Gaius and Sextus being praenomina (or the rough equivalent to our Christian/forenames), but Octavius was definitely not a praenomen. Actually, and I'm sure Nephele will bear me out here, there were very few praenomina to choose from in Rome - off the top of my head I can think of: Aulus, Appius (used only by the Claudii again - I think), Decimus, Gaius, Gnaeus, Lucius, Mamercus, Marcus (and there's another 'M' abbreviated to M' but I can't think what it is - help Neph!), Publius, Quintus, Sextus, Septimus, Tiberius and Titus. As I say, these are off the top of my head, but I'm sure Nephele, who is our expert in naming practises, can find a few more praenomina. Thus, in consular or other lists, the use of the initial A. - for Aulus, or T. for Titus (or Ti. for Tiberius) would always suffice to tell people what the praenomen was. There's a Sp. too - which I think is Spurius. However, the men were at least more fortunate than the ladies, who had no praenomina at all! They were simply known as the feminine forms of their father's nomen and cognomen. Typical! As Nephele points out with the name 'Nero' however, this did become more of a praenomen under the JCs, which may reflect earlier traditions. To return to the original poster's question - by the time Nero was Emperor, it had become 'fashionable' for the rulers to be known by their praenomina (rather like our British and European Royalty). Tiberius and Gaius (the official name of Caligula). Claudius, of course, was a return to the family name. His own praenomen was Tiberius, but one can understand why he did not choose this as his 'regnal' name! Thereafter, there seems to be no fixed rule. Vespasian was not known by his praenomen, but Titus was. Caracalla, for instance, was known by his cognomen. It's all quite fascinating stuff.

Ursus - could you confirm or deny whether that scattering of Osiris' little bits involved the Nile in any way? I am sure I read somewhere that it was the Nile that gave him his immortality - but that may be some crackpot myth or theory from elsewhere.

Diadumenianus He was the son of Macrinus, who was procurator rei privatae to Caracalla ... who was born in Gaul. And from Historia Augusta: "The boy himself was beautiful beyond all others, ... " Salve, GM . Of corse you're right. Congratulations . Your turn . Hehe - before G-Man puts up a pic, I would never have got this. I know Diad...Dua...Demi....Dua... whatever his name is, but I can never say it and could never remember how to put the damned thing into Google Images!

As Nephele has pointed out above in her citation of Suetonius, the cognomen 'Nero' was added to this branch of the Claudii due to its Sabine meaning of 'strong'. (The Claudians were of Sabine origin) However, I have never known an instance of this particular cognomen being used within another gens - but Nephele may know more about this. As for Gaius Claudius Nero of The Metaurus being an ancestor of the Claudii Nerones, this was indeed an accepted fact within Livia's time at least. In fact, his fellow consul Livius Salinator was also her ancestor (Suetonius, Tib.4) The Emperor Nero, although not born a Nero, as PP says above, was directly descended from the Claudii Nerones via Drusus, son of Tiberius Claudius Nero and Drusus' son Germanicus who was the father of Agrippina the younger, mother of Emperor Nero.

An excellent, thought-provoking post, Calders - but if I could just comment on one or two things: Whilst I would agree that each person's interpretation of history is bound to be in some way a reflection of their own times (we've been over this point so many times on the Forum, and I think we are all in general agreement), there are two things in the above paragraph that I would question. Firstly, I do believe it is possible to study any historical person without such preconceived notions. As an aside, I have bought a book recently about Genghis Khan. I know absolutely nothing about him beyond his name, so I intend to read the book 'cold' as it were, purely to learn about the man. I suppose my final opinion will be the culmination of many things: the author's viewpoint and persuasive argument for or against; the evidence cited by the author which I may then go off to check independently should I so desire; and perhaps the most important thing, for me at least, will be how Genghis Khan acts within his own times. I can't make this point strongly enough. It's how I've studied history for the last 35 years - I can't change now Now - I confess to knowing nothing about the said man's times or world, so maybe the book would require me to go off and research into the background a bit more. Whatever the conclusion, it will be a journey of discovery for me. The second bone of contention for me - and I have mentioned this over the months on other threads - is that I do not accept that people are the same in any given period. If we accept your thesis that we each interpret history according to the preconceptions and prejudices of our own time, then clearly this proves that each age has such preconceptions and prejudices. Yes, basic human impulses may be the same - we want to survive; we want to perpetuate the species etc. - but how we set about achieving our goals changes with each age. What was important to a Roman baker will not necessarily be as important to a 21st century IT technician. Oh, I can assure you - women can be just as anal It is not always simply convention. Each person would re-examine those 'conventional' portraits for themselves and may come up with different conclusions or concur with the convention. Understanding is implicit in such a re-examination. Hail to that! If we never questioned, the world would never move on. Yes - it's what we're all here for. And let's face it, if we were all of one mind, this would be a very boring Forum. ETA: BTW: Welcome to Gaius Julius Caesar - hope you plunge in with the rest of us.

Have a good one, Moon.

Well, apart from my one dog, Max - a somewhat boisterous border collie - I have had a succession of cats with real names. Albert was the first. He arrived as a kitten when his mother fled to our back porch to escape a neighbour's dog. Then there was Lucy, who strayed in and strayed out again. In London I had Demelza and Tess. When I returned I bought my first Persian, Hugo. After Hugo was our rescue cat, Oscar - one of my all time faves. Then came Sapphire (Persian 2), her low-life husband Leo and her serial-killer daughter Scarlet. I still have Sapphy and Scarlet, and Scarlet's brothers Orlando and Raffles live with my niece and her family. I have always promised myself twin black Persians whom I would name Drusus and Nero - but somehow I've not yet got round to them. I actually think Roman names are quite suitable to cats. I once rode a horse called Willow and I also like the name Orsino for a horse. And I must not forget the three goldfish we had when the children were little: Burgess, Philby and McClean (after the famous British spies). I would love to have two enormous German shepherds called Herod and Pilate - just to frighten off the Jehovah's Witnesses when they come to the door! So - all in all - no Tiddles and Whiskies for me!

Notwithstanding your excellent research, Asclepiades, when I read those names, I do feel sorry for poor pooches everywhere. A cat would die of shame to have a name like that! (Well - mine would, anyway....) However, I can't be too critical - as I actually named the only dog I possessed 'Max'.

Before Big A puts up his next offering, does anyone else see a slight resemblance between Galba and Crassus? I've always thought they look a bit alike. Sorry men - as you were. Your turn Big A.

I'm sorry, Caldrail, this is total tommy rot! I am not sure what books you have been reading at all! There was the little thing called The Augustan Peace; there was an enormous rebuilding programme and advances in engineering; there was the founding of colonies; there was stability. Augustus's reign was remembered for all these things. And you are not prepared to call them 'events and advances'? Words fail me, for once - they really do. The augustan peace was kept in place by a man who acted much like a modern dictator or gangster - anyone who questioned the regime too much either listened to reason or disappeared. The colonies were a roman franchise, an extension of Augustus's regime, and a means to increase his income which he could then use to further beautify Rome and buy popular support. Making a city beautiful isn't so unusual, lots of dictators have done that, including Hitler whom you rate so highly. Tommy rot? No, I feel healthy enough and read the same books as you. I'm just not fooled by the statues or public image. , Please help me. Where was the above point made? For the life of me I can't think how he's managed to get that in his head - unless its from this thread, in which I stated why Hitler had been 'influential'. Hardly the same as 'rating him highly'. Nor am I 'blinded' by Augustus' public image, as Caldrail seems to think. However, I am glad I do not possess the level of blind cynicism that has been shown in some of the above posts. There is no point in further dialogue.

To quote Ocatavian though "GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS!" (It's Varus ) Good God - I've just Google-imaged him and you are absolutely right, G-Man. Wow - I am in awe!

Returning to this thread, I am going to go (somewhat controversially) for Adolf Hitler. If you think about a leader who has had the most profound effect on the world today, then he has to be in with the biggest shout. I think it is in no small measure due to Hitler that we have become more politically correct and anti-racist in our current generation. No doubt the other candidates in the poll have left great legacies too, but I do believe that along with the great socialist thinkers of the 19th century, Hitler (against all his intentions) has had a huge effect on making us a more egalitarian and tolerant society. It's just a thought.