The Augusta

A great review, Pertinax, of a fascinating subject - even though it may be more for the specialist. However, working in medicine myself, I doubt that I'd be put off by the specialist nature of the book. It may well be going onto my wishlist very soon.

OK, here goes. This is my 'must-have-soons' on my Blackwell's list - although most titles can be bought at Amazon too - and they do ship a couple days earlier than Blackwell. (I've left out the CAHs) A History of the Roman Republic - Klaus Bringmann The Beginnings of Rome 753-264 - Tim Cornell The Severans - Michael Grant The Roman Near East 31BC-AD337 - Fergus Millar The Myceneans - Rodney Castledon Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World - Matthew W. Dickie Religion in the Roman Empire - James Rives The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine - Pat Southern Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome - Beryl Rawson Children and Childhood in Roman Italy - Beryl Rawson Cultural Responses to the Persian Wars: Antiquity to the Third Millennium - Bridges, Hall & Rhodes That's just the immediate ones...!

Ah - a man after my own heart! I have wishlists on Amazon AND Blackwells and you do not want to know what the total cost is! But I can give you all a clue by saying that 6 volumes of the Cambridge Ancient History are on there too - a mere snip at

Hehe - my lips are sealed! But thank you again, Nephele, for a wonderful blanagram. Your skills never cease to amaze.

Here, as promised, is the bridesmaid photo:

Ursus, do we know of any Greek state/polis that was predominantly for Poseidon? Given the thalassocracy (?sp) of the Greek states, common sense might make us wonder if the God of the Seas was in any way given higher status than sky or earth gods - especially in the earlier days. Although I know that Poseidon was god of earthquakes as well as the sea, do we know if his cult was given greater priority anywhere during Hellenist or pre-Hellenist culture?

Indeed - but you could also be describing the British Empire ideology here, Segestan - an ideology that appeared over a thousand years later. This is quite fascinating. To get back to an earlier post of mine in this thread - is this ideology of superiority a common denominator that we can apply to all imperialist cultures? If so, why did it not change in essence over a millennium?

The Romans were beaten by other groups from time to time (e.g., Greeks), yet they did not harbor everlasting enmity. Isn't it possible that the German and Gallic victories were so galling to the Romans precisely because the Roman viewed them as especially inferior? To be defeated by an equal is no great dishonor; to be defeated by an inferior is maddening. Yet another good point! Although in the case of Pyrrhus, they had the consolation of inflicting more losses on him than he had gains! But I would agree that the Romans of the Republic would not have seen the Greeks as inferior, no matter what the official line. But what of the Carthaginians? Was there a grudging respect of Hannibal? I detect that there was. Despite Cato the Elder's famous quote, isn't there a case for saying that the Romans of the Republic viewed the Carthaginians as an honourable enemy? Now why was this? Are we agreed that they did not view Carthage as inferior? This discussion gets more and more interesting as we go along.

It's not your Exeter is it, Wot? Or failing that, Canterbury?

Decimus - do you not think that the hatred of the Germans stemmed from the defeat of the three legions by Varus and other atrocities? Now, this may sound fanciful when you think of the Romans of Stilicho's time (i.e. 4th/5th century) but such wounds not only go deep but they become part of the national consciousness for centuries. As a comparison, think of the Irish catholic hatred of Cromwell four centuries on. And as for the Scottish/English rivalry - it is still a very real thing today. I am not saying that it was the only reason for hatred of the Germans, but it may be worth a consideration.

Thank you to Augustus Caesar for reminding us that the modern concept of racism would not have been an issue with the Romans. And thank you to Tiberius Vibius for starting this thread, which promises to lead to some useful discussion. Augustus C. is quite right when he states that slavery was perhaps the big issue, but I would say two things to this. The first is that our abhorrence of slavery is another modern sensibility that would not have bothered the Romans, and also, certainly after the Social War slavery was synonymous with 'foreign blood', as Augustus (the emperor not our member) highlighted in his Lex Fufia et. al. But another thing struck me in Cato's post, when he stated that the only gateway to citizenry (for foreign peoples) was through slavery. Clearly this has to be pre-Caracalla - and even if so, what of citizenship that was bestowed on freeborn provincials for some service rendered? Although I admit this was very sparingly given, it does admit another route other than definite slavery.

Indeed, this was something that interested me in the lists, Cato. I note that the Claudii Pulchri had a similar divide, and I think you have the Cornelii Lentuli in both lists. This does seem to suggest to me (although I may be over-simplifying) that even the great families were prepared to adhere to their principles in these matters, rather than just flock together in blind loyalty to one another.

Ursus - following on from my post above: as our resident expert in this area, are you able to shed any light on a pre-Roman worship of any kind of sun-god? In fact on any ancient pre-Roman Italian religion at all? Is it that we simply have no evidence for the culture and beliefs of the peoples of the peninsular before the arrival of the Etruscans and Greeks? Any help you can give would be appreciated.

This point holds for more populist historians, Sonic, but in academic publishing, neither the author nor the publisher is out to make money in anything like the quantities a more popular imprint would. I have worked in academic publishing and our commissioning editors would present prospective new titles to the editorial board from the university attached to the publishing house, and as long as the basic costs of production were cleared with a small margin for profit, the book would probably go ahead. The board were much more interested in authors breaking new ground in scholarship than promoting best-sellers. Therefore, I think you are right when you say that Macmillan or Random House, say, would not be likely to publish a work on Sejanus; these are big houses who look for huge sales figures. But an established academic imprint like Cambridge University Press, for instance, or even a smaller one such as Edinburgh or Manchester may well take a shot on a biography of someone like Sejanus. We have to remember too, that academic authors do not often rely solely on the profits of their writing to live. There would be some pretty poor authors out there, if that were the case. They are already well-established in their academic posts and their prime objective in writing is to contribute to their own areas of scholarship, rather than become the next big pop historian. So, the bottom line is: we will probably never see a biography of Tigellinus or Plautianus published by Bantam or Random House, but we could possibly see some sort of work on these figures issuing from an academic imprint.

I have to agree - and with MPC's assessment also. I was addressing myself mainly to Caldrail's post, I suppose. Caldrail appears, in that post, to define racism as being based on colour alone (although I may be doing him an injustice, as I may have misunderstood him). But I don't think we can just limit it to that. The Greeks are a race, but a different one to the Gauls etc. - the colour of their skin is immaterial. However, Caldrail highlights a growing problem in England today. On watching the Champions League final the other night, the commentators were having a hilarious time making fun of certain Milan players and calling them 'typical Italians' and other such derogatory comments. They would not dare make such comments about, say, an Afro-Caribbean player or Asian player, as this would be constued (rightly) as racism. But aren't similar remarks about the Italians equally racist? I can't see the difference myself, yet no-one rang in to complain and no action was taken against the commentators. Of course, it had much to do with the fact that an English team were playing these terrible Italians! Other commentators have been dismissed from their posts immediately following tasteless remarks about black players, yet stereotyping the Italians or Spaniards seems to be greeted with great laughter all round. So - is there some confusion in how we term racism today? Is the modern term taken to mean prejudice against those of a different colour, or is it prejudice against any different race by another? In all good sense, I would take it to mean the latter. And judging from the splendid examples found by Cato above, the Romans would fit this latter category. Augustus certainly wanted to 'breed out' foreign blood in his Italian citizenry, as we discussed in another thread on the Forum.

Interesting. So, feasibly it may well have been 1876 when Disraeli persuaded her about the RI designation? As for Mel's film - one of the things I DIDN'T like about Manda Scott's Boudica series was her stance regarding the Roman oppressors, and her final author's note to the fourth book where she bemoaned the fact that Boudica lost her final battle. She actually mentioned something about a nation being destroyed! Presumably, then, according to Ms. Scott, we would have continued to evolve our tribal system and 'dream' our way through history like New Age hippies. So - Mel isn't the only one with fantasies. I can imagine he may well be using some of Scott's work in his film. (Thinking about it - there were parts of those books where Boudica was gathering her 'war force' in good old Braveheart fashion!) ETA: Thanks for the link to that wonderful piece in the Guardian. And it answers the question of whether or not Victoria was named after Boudica. Clearly not.

An insightful response Wot. And it has made me realise something. This idealogy of superiority was present in the ruling classes of the British Empire too, and the Persians - to go far back in time. Do you think that this mindset is a crucial prerequisite to imperialism? If so, this transcends theories of racism as such, and may fall more within the bounds of aggressive nationalism or jingoism.

...Which is a strange notion, considering who he is married to! On that very proper note, the Augusta sees that her husband is being ignored by many and used as a pet-minding service by Nephele. Although she is having an amusing time in the alcove, duty calls and she makes her way towards her long-suffering husband, holding out the peace offering of a cup of the best Falernian (with NO additives). 'Right, husband,' she tells him tersely, 'let's get this show on the road!' And with that, she leads him into the fray where Caldrail, waving his sword rather timidly now, and bereft of his helmet, greets his emperor with a beaming smile....

As do I. And may I take this opportunity on behalf of everyone to welcome you back, Ilian. We have missed your quality posts. Glad to have you back - you had gone quiet for a while.

Thanks, Ram - that's a comfort. I am becoming very motherly about all our regulars here I worry about everybody dreadfully if they go missing for a while.

Well - believe it or not, I actually follow this argument! So - are we saying that the names come chiefly from Cicero? Ah ha - you didn't mention that in your opening post. This does give a certain weight, as Cicero would be hardly likely to show that more nobiles were on Caesar's side if that wasn't the case. In fact, I can follow what you are saying here - he would have been more likely to try and prove the opposite? Am I following you correctly? All I would ask here, is what is the basis for 'the population' being against Caesar? What do we mean by 'population', and how can we hear its voice in the literary sources? Again - I am not being awkward, but as we've been accustomed to the conventional view that the populace loved Caesar (which may or may not be fallacious, of course), what evidence do we have to suggest that they were against him after the Rubicon? Phew - well I'm glad this is cleared up. I stupidly thought that the 'cf' was the conventional 'compare' and we were being directed to man in 209BC!

On this very topic - Julius Caesar and Augustus must be two of the most written about figures in Roman history (judging by modern authors, that is). I know that we must always take account of new advances in scholarship and perhaps new evidence arising from archaeology and the like, but there comes a time when we reach saturation point. Theories come into fashion and go out again, but even allowing for this, is there really - in all honesty - still room in the market for yet more biographies of the same figures, over and over again? I would much prefer to see authors researching other men who have perhaps not received the same attention, to fill gaps in our knowledge for instance. I do realise that figures like Caesar, Augustus, Constantine etc. were men that could be seen to have had a great effect on the history of the world, and therefore it is understandable that authors are drawn to them, but wouldn't it advance and deepen our study of the Roman world if 'lesser' men were highlighted? I love 'the glamour boys' as much as anyone else, but I do know I've reached the stage now where I really would not cross the road to go into Waterstones to buy 'yet another biography of Augustus'. I had promised to buy myself the Goldsworthy, but now after reading the comments on the thread from all the members of our forum whose opinions I respect, I doubt I'll be bothering. Do other members ever feel sated in this way? I am not talking about monographs now, so much as the conventional biography.

Just wondering if anyone at all has heard from Gaius Octavius - either by PM or e-mail? He hasn't been seen here since 2nd May and his spate of e-mail Round Robin jokes to me has stopped too. I hope he is OK. Does anyone have any news?

Indeed, and I think this is the crux of the matter of that statue. Rather than her role as a 'champion against oppression', her role as 'bringer of victory' would have been emphasised during Victoria's rule, when Britain had 'conquered mighty nations'. Do we know the date of the statue? Did it, for instance, coincide with Victoria's designation as Regina Imperatrix? I can remember at primary school in the 60s learning about 'the warrior queen' who beat the Romans. There was never any emphasis at that stage of her being a champion of the oppressed. I do believe that has come later with our more modern sensibilities. As to the question of whether Victoria was named in honour of Boudica - I wouldn't have thought this was a consideration at the time of her birth, when she was not actually designated as heir to the throne. But I suppose we'll never know.