The Augusta

Marcellus. No, but he certainly had something to do with the younger Marcellus in a sort of negative way.

No - not quite, Ingsoc. But he may well have been a former slave of his.

No - earlier. Late Republic/early Principate.

OK - one to tax you all a little. I have to say I do not know the provenance of this bust or why it has been identified as who it is supposed to be - but it can be found easily on the web. Hopefully, this one may keep us going for a while.

Now that really is Commodus.

Pompey????!!!!! He had a very distinctive hairstyle As for the bust - I'll have a think about it. Looks like a bad Julius - but I don't think it is. Is it Metellus Scipio?

Now that is an excellent question, GO. I'll go off and do a bit of digging about here, unless anyone can come up with an answer right away.

For what it's worth at this stage, AC, I would certainly add my vote to a gathering at the Wall - if only for the wealth of Romanobilia (is that a word - or have I just done a Bush?) that abounds there. I am sure this would not be a problem for the Brigantians and Cornovians amongst us (plus our intrepid AD, of course) and Doc, who had mentioned that she would love to come to the next annual gathering in the UK. Hopefully, if our more southerly members had sufficient notice, many of them could make the trip too. It was clearly not going to be a problem for Caldrail travel-wise if the meeting in October had gone ahead, so I am sure we can count him in. With the various problems that we have encountered to date, what would everyone think about just one annual meeting, at a different location each time? It would add variety and further education, plus plenty of notice for members to set aside a date in their diaries, knowing what it would entail. I am still willing to help out in organisation regarding accommodation and other mundane things, if that is everyone's wish. If members wished to have a less educational and more social gathering per year, we could perhaps look at this too - i.e. we could have one Roman gathering and one social one - which could be held anywhere where there was good food and pubs!

John the baptist? Nope! This is definitely a Roman legendary man. OK - one last clue. He is credited with building a little temple that had a fire in in! Numa Pompilius! (Thank Vesta this was "another quick and easy one"!) Oooh - you're a naughty lad, Asclepiades! I honestly did think it would be easy. So - your turn. Give us a really hard one!

But this doesn't make any sense either. Plebeians and senators were not mutually exclusive groups. In fact, most senators WERE plebeians. What do you think a plebeian is? Senators always came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero. Plebeians were of the lower class, the mob. When the mob was angry, havoc struck. I think MPC has put forward an excellent question here. And here we are getting into the murky waters of terminology once again - as we did in the thread about Julius Caesar being an 'emperor'. I am with MPC on this one. Many consular families were plebeian. Equating plebeian with 'the mob' is erroneous in the extreme. 'The Mob' or 'The Rabble' as the Romans loved to term them, were the proletariat (and now I am guilty of borrowing a modern term myself - but it's to illustrate the point) as a whole - that vast body of people who did not aspire to the duties of magistracy which Cicero put forward in his De Officiis. The statement that 'most senators came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero' - is also erroneous. The Junii were a plebeian family, to mention just ONE! The Claudians - those great stalwarts of aristocracy - had their Marcelli branch, which was plebeian, and the Marcelli boasted consulships within the life of Cicero himself. As MPC points out, the line between Patrician and Plebeian was not so clear-cut, and perhaps your interpretation of the term 'plebs', Cassiius, is an understandable confusion of what the Romans themselves meant by 'the rabble'.

John the baptist? Nope! This is definitely a Roman legendary man. OK - one last clue. He is credited with building a little temple that had a fire in in!

May I just thank both Asclepiades and MPC for highlighting this point in the discussion. I happen to be in one of those terrible positions where I studied Augustus' rise to power in depth a very long time ago, yet retain great chunks of information. I knew that I had formed my opinion about his not knowing he was adopted as the heir until he returned to Italy purely through reading the sources - but in my middle years I have become somewhat lazy regarding going to my old shelves and searching through the books. It is not an attractive habit to have fallen into - for which I apologise, gents. I am therefore doubly grateful to Asclepiades for highlighting the relevant passages in Appian.

You're a brave man, G-manicus. I give you your full title to remind you of what happens to popular heroes who may annoy me.....

No to Severus. No to Lucullus - but a note to Gaius: You came up with Lucullus through dwelling on the lunchtime, right? Dwell on the legend instead. Now surely - guys... I have virtually given it to you on a plate.

OK - I never thought you'd struggle - so here's a tiny cryptic sort of clue. This man was a legend in his own lunchtime. Ringing any bells yet?

Nope! And NO CLUES this time, guys and gals! Oh - and No to Josephus too, GO.

OK - another quick and easy one. Even Cecil shouldn't get mixed up with this hairstyle!

Actually, that would make a great article for you to write, Augusta, with accompanying illustrations. Will you consider doing it? I need those "flash cards" too! -- Nephele It would be something of a 'girly' pursuit for me - but if I could be allowed to make it a bit light-hearted/funny, I wouldn't mind. PM me. It might make a welcome distraction along with my forthcoming review of the IX to V book. Have you any ideas on the lady in GPM's photo?

Rolled eyes from me too, I'm afraid. We are now descending into the madness of the 'Rome' producers. But to address Ingsoc's and Asclepiades' interesting discussion on the intimacy of the Caesar-Octavian relationship - I am inclined to go with Asclepiades on this one. Dio, writing at a much greater remove from events, has had time to embellish this. I am fully of the belief that Caesar and Octavian were not that close. Octavian probably did not know of his adoption until he reached Brundisium.

Manlia Scantilla? Wife of Didius Julianus? She was reported to be 'ugly'. And Gaius - I WILL NOT TELL YOU AGAIN........ coiffures!!!!!!! I am going to make you some simple flash cards regarding ladies' hairstyles of the various Roman periods.

Salve, GO. Something like Mamucium Maius, for example? You know very well that I have absolutely no idea what that means! It's where Lady A comes from; please check her profile. It is indeed where I come from Asc - 'Greater Manchester' - although I use it with some degree of irony. I am a Cheshire lass through and through, but they have now taken me out of the county of my birth and put me into an administrative expression. Unfortunately, however, I now live in a Manchester postcode. Is there no end to my troubles....? (You probably have to be from Cheshire to understand my angst about this). As for a title - I am quite happy to remain an aedile. Marcus, my hero, was one of the best, you know.... And if I was designated a goddess (the only title that is fitting) it would give you all such inferiority complexes that I would go insane with guilt But seriously - thanks for the kind thoughts and words, friends.

Hear, hear!!!! As for our dear Pertinax - I can vouch that he is a good old Northern lad (if a very suave one) with one of those lovely accents full of character that I was on about in another thread.... I'm with GPM on this, Don Tomato - how dare you accuse him of being anything other than a Brigantian?

It certainly does, Doc - and as ever, you have given me much to ponder. And while we're on the subject of colourful local and regional accents - may I just mention that the day they fall from our language (whatever our country) will be a sad day indeed. I always think an accent helps to characterise a person - and not in any negative way at all. In this present climate where we are breeding a generation of very grey, characterless people (well, in Britain at least) I hope we can strike a blow for the good old accent. As an aside - there is a footballer who plays for Aston Villa (Gabriel Agbonlahor) who is obviously of African birth but came to England at a very early age. Playing as he does for Villa he has developed the most gorgeous Birmingham accent overlaying his natural African voice, and the result is absolutely stunning. I can listen to this guy being interviewed over and over again. It's character and colour and charm and all wonderful things! I would never have noticed this guy (he's a decent enough footballer but nothing special) had it not been for his accent - his whole character springs into life when he speaks. Does anyone else feel attracted to regional accents in this way? Do we see them as part of our heritage that we must protect - or do most people on the Forum feel that they are not that important?

Some wonderful answers in the above posts - but this caught my eye, Nephele. It is certainly true that the very strong Lancashire dialect that was spoken by my maternal grandfather (the 'Ee by gum' and 'Stop pickin' tha nose, lad!' - or the glorious 'A' tha nobbut a tanner in thi pocket?') have certainly died out for several reasons - not least being better education for all and, as you point out, a central media. My grandfather died before television reached his little town - but he was a contemporary of my Manchester grandfather, of course, who never used a dialectic word in his life - he just spoke with a Gorton (area of central Manchester) accent, as did my father. I never once heard my Dad use any dialect and he couldn't understand the thick accents of more rural Lancashire. I would also agree that with today's opportunity for easier travel between localities and communication with others of different localities will all have its bearing on wearing away a local or regional accent. I am not sure, however, if regional accents are actually showing true signs of decay just yet - or at least not among the working classes (if such a term can be used today). In the North of England in particular they still thrive, and it is often possible to hear the odd Yorkshire vowel in a very 'posh' actor's voice or other traces of origin in those who think they have lost their accents. So, although I can accept that those who move about may lose their accents, I tend to go with what Doc said about the isolation thing. If families remain in their locality for life, its a pretty safe bet that they will retain their accent, I think - unless they deliberately seek to remove it by elocution or some other means. But if we can now return to the actual beginning - does anyone have anything to offer as to WHY regions evolved with different accents in the first place? Is this because certain tribes settled in certain localities, bringing their own nuances of whatever ancient tongue they spoke? What has made a Cockney sound so different to a Scouse? Does this go back to the very start of ancient Briton? I can more or less put a picture together of the Viking invasion leaving its mark on the accents of the North, but what is the provenance of southern accents? Is this Norman influence? Latin etc? Hehe - as for our Queen's very, very clipped English - one can actually hear the German of the Hanoverians in her voice. Royalty have had this influence for two hundred years, which is why the phrase 'The Queen's English' makes me giggle.

Bravo! Your turn, GPM. And - Gaius - must I say it again.... Messalina??? Hairstyles, man - hairstyles!