The Augusta

I agree with you totally Caldrail that historical movies leave a lot to be desired for. Especially the caliber of hollywood acting. But may I make an observation about what ive bolded (and I'm not trying to be annoying). All movies about the classical peoriod are produced in a British Accent. The only exception ive ever seen to this rule was the Clive Owen King Arthur movie. There the Romans finally sound Italian. This is a point Ive made before. Also note that I'm not really complaining after all sticking an American sounding character in Ancient Rome would be ... a glaring inconsistancy. You make a valid point here, CiceroD. Of course Romans didn't speak with cut-glass Noel Coward accents - but I think the tradition of Brits playing Romans stems from the age-old bias (of which our US cousins have been just as guilty in the past) of 'classical roles requiring classical actors'. Now, this no longer applies, as our latest swords and sandals epics are not written to echo Shakespeare and the like, but I honestly do believe that this is where all this started. Julius Caesar, Cicero, Crassus, Mark Antony, Henry VIII, Queen Victoria - any character from the mists of history was 'elevated' into classical status - regardless of the actual historical period. History was 'a serious business' and required all the stage-trained thesps to turn out in front of the cameras to lend it gravitas. It's all totally bogus, of course, but I am sure this belief has led to the constant use of Brits for 'classical' roles. However, not all movies about the classical world have used Brits! Spartacus? Ben Hur? The Robe? Demetrius and the Gladiators? Jason and the Argonauts? And let us not forget Troy and Alexander of recent and bitter memory! I suppose we have to find a happy medium, however. Gods forbid that we should have our Romans speaking fluent Latin to aid authenticity and have another 'Passion of the Christ' on our hands! Erm...I think we've drifted off topic..... back to blood-letting.

Attracted by the title of this thread, and not to make light of the erudite and enlightening conversation taking place between MPC and Asclepiades, this digression into the finer points of philosophy has reminded me, rather nicely, of the splendid Python song about the drunken philosophers: Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable etc. etc.

May the gods have mercy on us all!!!

Ah - It's Agrippina, isn't it? Followed by Claudius' line: 'Well, it's some justice, I suppose...' (and that is the title of the episode: 'Some Justice'). I think this was one of the best episodes of the entire series. I can watch what I call 'the Piso episode' over and over and over.... I also love the kick-back from it that happens in the next episode when Tiberius says to Agrippina: 'I will never forget what you made me do to Piso'. A lot of viewers often miss these little gems from Tiberius.

Wow--that is refreshing! It's so nice to read an author who realizes that historical accuracy doesn't stop at knowing when Romans quit serving the dormouse--historical accuracy means conveying the whole context of events, not just the details. Also, I won't say that I'm surprised that this level of care was put into a "children's book". Rather I'm disappointed that more children's books aren't held to the standard that Flavia set. BTW, I do agree with Vespasian Columbopolii that historical accuracy shouldn't be whole standard for judging historical fiction. But I do want to see the Romans depicted in a more favorable light--when they deserve it. Great post. Not only does our Flavia give us such refreshing insights as this, but I remember when reading the very first of her Mysteries, where Flavia Gemina bought Nubia to save her from a terrible fate (even though perhaps the little girl did not entirely realise just what that fate would be for Nubia) I actually teared up and had a lump in my throat. And of course, Caroline wasn't just teaching the kids of today a moral lesson, she was actually telling it like it was. There is a wealth of evidence for the kind treatment of slaves by Romans - yet you will sometimes read scathing criticisms of such 'niceties' in novels. But this is rubbish. As for depicting the Romans in a favourable light when they deserve it, this is one of the main bugbears I had with Manda Scott's Boudica series. We went back to the old stereotype of 'one good Roman' (a lovely chap called Corvus) amongst an army of absolute rats who had no morals at all. To be fair to Scott, she did try to address this by having a Briton change sides and told his tale far better (IMHO) than that of Boudica herself, but we were still left with an overall 'Braveheart' impression here. In fact, the final book closed with an epilogue about how a complete nation was lost with the defeat of Boudica. The novels, while enjoyable, seem to ignore totally the benefits brought to this little island by the Roman occupation, and to me that stood out like a sore thumb, as anyone who can bemoan the effects of Roman civilisation on Britain must be living in some sort of dream world! It's the old 'Brian' sketch, isn't it? 'What did the Romans ever do for us?' (See our Doc's wonderful signature for the evidence!)

Yes, but the standard "Rome as Villain" show depicts at least one Good Roman. This is par for the course, and it reminds me of a racist with whom I was acquainted who told me--with no hint of irony-- "All N--'s ain't bad." I'm not asking for the Romans to be depicted as all-good, but for their assault on the Masada to be placed in its proper, historical context--i.e., an assault on a group of murderous religious fanatics who had conducted terrorist operations against innocent Jews. In this context, you can have as many or as few Good Romans as you'd like, but at least it becomes clear what was at stake in purging Judaea of these zealots. Instead, the series depicts these backward, religious fanatics as heroic martyrs--which they most certainly were not--rather than as committed enemies of peaceful civilization and Hellenic enlightenment. If there is any doubt about the net beneficence of Roman rule of Judaea, just compare the progress of the region in the seven centuries of Roman rule (up to 638ish) to the seven centuries of rule by the Umayyads, Abbasids, and sundry Arab Caliphates. Just looking at Caesarea between the 7th and 9th century, one sees massive depopulation, the collapse of public buildings to the stone-robbers, and (most tellingly) the loss of the great Herodian harbor; by 1271, the previously magnificent city was a desolate wasteland of squatters. The fact is that Rome protected Judaea from Arab conquest, and the fools who camped out on the Masada were merely making enemies of their best hope for survival, prosperity, and progress. Oh, but then they wouldn't be religiously pure... idiots. On a more friendly note, it's nice to see another Romanophile from Columbus. Yet another of our MPC's posts that says everything I wanted to say - but he says it so much better! With regard to the stereotypical films of Rome as Villain - this also holds true for the 'one good German' in a war film, and 'one good Russian' in a cold war film, and let us not forget, there was often 'one decent "Injun"' in a Western! But it is very sad that today there are some people who will not allow us to criticise anything in Jewish history without branding us as anti-semitic.

Hear, hear! Nice to have my ....erm.... ever-so-sweet sister-in-law on board! We ladies of the early Principate must stick together. But seriously, as Nephele says, we didn't see that much of Cheryl Johnson as Octavia. She was present for the dinner scene where Nero upset Britannicus but little else, and she certainly didn't have many lines at all. But to help draw the picture for you, Octavia, Cheryl Johnson was a very pretty young actress in the 70's - and fitted the part well. And forgive me, Octavia, but I did not realise that you were blind. When you first wrote this in answer to one of my quiz questions, I thought you were meaning it metaphorically. My apologies.

Ah - he's looking at Manchester, so that he doesn't have to fork out for accommodation expenses, but I have told him that part of the Uni experience is living away from home. However, this is still two years away. 'College' in England means sixth form college (A-level, higher education exams) - probably equivalent to your Senior High (16-18/19 years old). Manchester has a decent enough reputation for Ancient History, and there are some nice undergraduate courses on offer, but he has time to decide all this. He may want to spread his wings at the end of his A-levels and go further afield.

Well, I think I'm going to plump for this - it will enhance my studies of a period I am becoming very much interested in. I never even knew this existed! Thanks, Vigs and Maty, for bringing it to the Forum! What a lovely way to while away the dark autumn nights. I can't wait. (And now I do get a chance to be a student with my son after all )

Can I just announce that my son got his exam results from High School last Thursday, which included several A's - not least in our favourite subject of History! This now means that he can go off happily to college to study his Ancient History, which has become a dream of his, and I feel like a schoolgirl myself all over again! My son is very excited and so am I - but I will cause envy in all we oldies by saying that the course offered by his sixth form college includes field trips to York, Chester and Hadrian's Wall in the first year of study, plus a trip to Rome in the second! I never had such luxuries when I was at school in the dark days! We had to make do with photos brought in by the Latin teacher. So - stand by, guys and gals - we may well have a new member on the Forum soon, offering his two cents! And he's already talking about going on to Uni to study Ancient History further! But seriously, it is so rewarding to think that ones little encouragements have found fertile ground at last. He's already asking me about the formation of legions. Help, Caldrail! And I am getting questions such as: 'Was Caesar really a hero or a villain, Mum?' Over to you, MPC! Ah - who said teenagers were a chore? I am actually envious of him, discovering everything that we have discovered, coming to all the primary sources for the first time and seeing how he interprets them. It really makes me wish I was 16 again - and it's been a long time since I said that!

OK - I take it this is a person who has passed on 'speaking' to a person they left behind - at least that's how it reads to me. You said it was one of your first efforts, Vibs, so you may well have spotted by now that it is quite derivative. I can hear Stevie Smith in there - and even, Gods forbid - Patience Strong! But there is some nice assonance going on, even if the metre is a little 'clunky'. The only thing that really jarred with me was your third line 'You stole my heart and held my tongue' ??? It's very 'safe' as a poem - i.e. it says everything you would expect in this situation. Why not try some bolder metaphors or darker imagery to make the reader sit up and take notice of this huge wrench of death - that has clearly been more of a trauma for the departed than the one left behind. As for that idea (the poem being narrated by the dead one) that is more innovative and interesting, but I'd like more anger, perhaps. And sometimes - the simplest lines say the most to a reader 'Because you - like me - have lost your friend' is the most poignant line of the poem IMHO. But I take it you wrote this as a 'comfort' from the departed to the one left behind, which is nice and - as I said before - safe. Do we have an answering poem from the one left behind? That would be an interesting exercise - then a reader could contrast the viewpoints. Keep 'em coming, Vibs - as a huge poetry fan myself I'll be happy to read more. (Of course - I may have totally misinterpreted this poem, so feel free to rap me over the knuckles if I have )

SEE-SAR is the accepted pronounciation and two centuries of latin teachers can't be wrong KAI-SAR is a very germanic style I would say. Then you must have had a very poor Latin master, Calders Mine always made the distinction that the name would have been pronounced 'Kaissar' in original Latin and we had to jolly well make sure we pronounced it that way in verbal exercises and readings from the dreaded 'Civis Romanus' (a course book made up of original Latin texts such as Tacitus, Cicero etc.) However, our teacher did also make the point that in modern English, the pronunciation 'Seezar' had become the accepted form.

Just to revive this one a bit. I have completed the first three of Caroline's Roman Mysteries, which were an absolute delight to read, and I shall be buying the rest of them. I did go back to give the Scarrow (Under the Eagle) a second chance, and found that I quite liked some of the characters, but the book still left a far too modern taste in the mouth. Really, this could have been set anywhere, which is not what I want in an historical novel! After constant drilling and hacking at Germans, and poor representations of the female characters, I had to totally give up - this is not for me. I guess it's a boy's own thing. So, I've reverted to my non-fiction historical shell and am at present engaged on Mussolini's Italy by R.J.B. Bosworth - a fascinating work. And an interesting fact emerges from it so far - the patron-client relationship still thriving throughout the Italy of the 19th and 20th centuries!

Great book, dumb movie. Personally, I can't stand these movies that portray Rome as some sort of degenerate society in need of Christ's salvation. Christianity didn't do much to alleviate the horror-fest that was the Dark Ages, that period immediately after the fall of Rome. This fact alone suggests that Roman culture was onto something that Christianity utterly failed to provide (viz., science, engineering, humanism, pride, and the love of beauty and pleasure--just to name a few). Unforunately, these Greco-Roman values are utterly ignored in movies like Quo Vadis, which similarly ignore wonderfully colorful Romans like Petronius and lavish slavish attention on insipid, colorless mediocrities like Lygia. IMHO. MPC - you always add wonderful, readable posts to the Forum. Sometimes, I agree with you, sometimes I don't - but you always have something worthwhile to say. And then there are posts like this one above, when I just sit back and think - 'Why didn't I write that one?' Well said!

Whereas Pertinax oozes wit and charm and has the suave aura of the relaxed gent about him. (You can pay me later, P!)

Thank you all! There's still a little way to go, as I now have to revise it - but only intend to do ONE revision, which I have begun already (as of today), and find it a hell of a lot easier than the drafting. Revision is much more rewarding when you know the story is complete and you can work within the guidelines, as it's only tickling up here and there and polishing. This shouldn't take more than a couple of weeks at most. But I want ideas from all you guys for the damned title! Remember - I fully intend to make it into a trilogy eventually, this first book stops in 35BC. I can't think of anything that doesn't sound corny! And a joke for my long-suffering buddy, GPM: What's the difference between Man United and a triangle? A triangle has three points.

Oh, bravo, Augustus! Spot on!

Although the authors have no doubt embellished this one, it sounds very like a supernova, and indeed there was an explosion in this year.

Where did the Livia-as-poisoner legend start? Tacitus? Well, insofar as our extant sources are concerned, yes, I believe it was Tacitus - but even he is not so bold as to come out and say it as such. Referring to the natural deaths of Gaius and Lucius he simply states 'unless their step-mother Livia had a secret hand in them' (Annals, I.1, Tr. Grant). Dio is the one with all the details! As for the death of Augustus, Tacitus' 'Some suspected his wife of foul play' (Annals, I.4, Tr. Grant) turns into the elaborate fig-poisoning tale Dio was to use over 200 years later, by which time, of course, hardly a member of the imperial family seemed to have escaped Livia's machinations. In Annals I.4, however, Tacitus does give us the 'rumour' (and he stresses it as such) of the visit Augustus made to Postumus on Planasia. He clearly links this rumour with the rumour of Livia's 'foul play' - and as I mentioned above, such a charge could only fall on her if the visit to Planasia had taken place.

A happy birthday to our WotWotius! Gods - I've got CDs older than you! I hope you celebrate with lots of booze by demand in true Withnail fashion!

No - when Cassius, Asprenas, Sabinus and Vinicius met in the tavern to plan the murder, Cassius gave them a little demonstration on the table of how it would work. He used various implements to illustrate his plan. I'll see if our Asclepiades can come up with the answer before I put you all out of your misery.

Suetonius makes absolutely no claims whatsoever that Livia poisoned anyone at all. As the most scurrilous of all biographers and the most likely to record any rumour whatever, I find his silence crucial. Augustus, as we know from Suetonius, suffered from a variety of conditions, not the least of which was 'rheumatism' and Raynaud's phenomenon (his remarks about Augustus' middle finger turning white in winter etc.) These conditions alone speak of some auto-immune process or mixed tissue disease, and living to be 75+ was no mean achievement for the times. I should imagine that like most elderly people who have lived with less than buoyant health, he would succumb very easily to virulent things such as dysentery - and we know that his last illness began with a bad attack of diarrhoea. This would dehydrate him very quickly and lead to renal failure. If not this, we also know from Suetonius that he was often frail during the latter years of his life and conducted some of his business while lying on his couch. There may even have been a malignant process. We can never know at such a distance, but the rumour of his poisoning only holds water if we believe that he intended to restore Postumus to favour. I find this totally ludicrous. Everitt's claim is even more ludicrous and was used simply to hook readers into buying his book, and as Ursus says, he does not go on to expound this theory. All in all, the emperor was weakening in any case. In those days even a severe cold could have led to pneumonia or worse complications that would finish him off. No one of any sense needs to consider poisoning.

Yep - our Asclepiades has got it right again. I think they gave him the name Pylades, or some such. If no one else is ready with a question - how about... What objects did Cassius Chaerea use at the tavern to illustrate his planned assassination of Caligula?

Have a great day, Spittle - and please check in with us more often than you have done lately. We northern Brits have to stick together. Hope your birthday goes with a swing. And BTW: You share your birthday with my old Granddad, and he was a real character if ever there was one!

Indeed - and this has got worse in recent years as we are all encouraged to become more 'health conscious'. That's all very well, and is to be applauded if it makes us look after ourselves a little more, but the balance has now tipped in favour of the hypochondriac. Every little twinge is now avidly researched on the Internet and people flock to the doctor's surgery. And I still remain a skeptic when it comes to fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome! Chronic fatigue syndrome? Like my old mum used to say - 'I could be ill if I had the time'.