The Augusta

Indeed. And as I tried to make clear in the review, it is the performances that make the production timeless. To anyone who has grown up with live theatre as I have the emphasis is always more on performance than anything else. Alas, 'Claudius' was perhaps the last of its kind on the Beeb - it had been preceded by the equally excellent 'Wives of Henry VIII' and 'Elizabeth R', but later 70s/early 80s offerings such as 'The Borgias' and 'The Cleopatras' (did you ever see that debacle?) were poor indeed. The only thing that saved 'The Borgias' for me was the scrumptious Oliver Cotton as Cesare. In the mid 80s Granada took over quality drama with their exquisite 'Brideshead Revisited' and - for me, the never to be surpassed - 'Jewel in the Crown'. I think I'd put 'Jewel' right up there with 'Claudius', but in this case, and in the case of 'Brideshead' I go back again to what I said at the start of my review - both those excellent series were based on excellent literature too. It makes a difference.

I've done some work on this. Citrus fruits all seem to come from southern China and southeast Asia originally. The first citrus fruit to reach the attention of Greeks and Romans was a not-very-well-known one, the citron -- same colour as a lemon but bigger and knobblier, not very good to eat. This one is described by Theophrastus, 310 BC (and it is still quite widely grown in Mediterranean countries). It's possible, but not certain, that by later Roman times the lemon was known. It came second, anyway. Bitter oranges -- Seville oranges -- seem to have reached the Arabian peninsula by the 10th century AD, and from there they must have been spread by Arab fruit-growers to southern Spain (hence Seville!) They do turn up in Byzantine texts in late medieval times (the medieval Greek name is nerantzion: you can see the link with the Sanskrit and Arabic terms mentioned by the Doc). Finally, sweet oranges apparently didn't get to Europe till about the 16th century. Others -- tangerines, grapefruit etc. -- are very recent arrivals, and some are definitely hybrids. Any use, Augusta? Fantastic, AD - I thank you. It is indeed useful to me, and it thankfully confirms what I suspected - that the Romans did not have oranges and other citrus fruits that we know today.

Marcus, the writer you cite is saying nothing that we who 'support' (if that's the right word) Gaius ( I WILL NOT call him Caligula) have not said before. The world knows his life has been sensationalised from the time of Suetonius onwards. The only point I would take issue with, however, is the accusation of 'some of the wildest stories of all being invented' by Robert Graves. Graves' books say nothing at all about Gaius that had not been said by Suetonius and others. The only purely invented thing in the mini-series was the eating of Drusilla's baby - and that was NOT in the books at all. Hehe - it's interesting to say that the series made you sick to the stomach. It all looks very tame these days. But I can sympathise, because I have become well and truly 'sickened' by Rome but perhaps not in the same way. It is being re-run at the moment on a satellite channel here, and the other night a few excerpts came on as an advert. It was amazing to see how 'tawdry' it began to look in a montage - but that is perhaps more a case of bad editing than anything else. But I know I'm in the minority on this Forum when it comes to Rome. I gave away my DVDs and judging by the comments in the Season 2 thread, I won't be watching it if and when it finally airs on the BBC.

I didn't know that, Drusus. But I do know that Robert Graves smoked 40 cigarettes a day and drank a bottle of vodka a day and lived to be 90 years old! It only goes to show that if you live in an idyllic setting in the hills of Majorca for donkey's years without any stress, you can do all kinds of things to your system without harm. However, I wouldn't suggest you try this at home, folks!

The Augusta, now exhausted from hours of dancing, and having just enjoyed a rub down with frond, quickly despatches one of her Nubians after Klingan. When he is hauled back into the room by said Nubian and Caldrail, the Augusta informs him that his behaving like a Pleb does not fool her for a moment. And she tells him that with his blonde hair and fine bone structure he could pass as a Julio-Claudian any day. Not only this, he loves cats too. She directs him to the litter box where Caldrail enjoyed tasty titbits hours earlier and engages him in a conversation about the virtues of clumping versus non-clumping cat litter. Meanwhile, Doc has dismissed the guards from the food tables and the Augusta searches once again for Cato, who has now shed all inhibitions and is involving himself in a dance with Nephele and Gaius not at all suitable to his dignitas. An idea strikes her - and she turns her attention to Pertinax, Lord of the Herbs. She really does want to talk to him about hallucinogens.....

Would this be an appropriate thread to ask about citrus fruits and the Romans? They did not use the word 'orange' to describe that colour, for instance - do we then take it that the fruit was not known to the Romans either? Same with lemons and limes. Have the Spanish always had their Seville oranges? Even when they were a Roman province? As Klingan seems pretty knowledgable about fruits - perhaps he could shed some light on this for me.

Am I right in thinking that Buddhism has no deity? Now, that sounds sensible to me. However, having had another little think about all this, I have to take my hat off to the ancients who worshipped various sun 'gods'. Surely they had it right? The sun gave us life on this planet; the sun will eventually take it away again (if other things don't interfere beforehand). Blessed be the name of the sun. There's no arguing with its physical force in the development of life on this planet. We owe it everything. Now, as romantic as it is to imagine a gorgeous golden-haired youth driving his chariot across the sky, healing us all and sending his little muses down to inspire us (and of all the Greco-Roman cults, Apollo's has always been the most attractive to me), I would prefer to say that 'worship' of the great burning mass of helium and hydrogen that sustains us all is not altogether misplaced. And having read through the earlier posts on this thread, I have to agree with Primus regarding early man seeking to explain the universe around him. Man created god in his own image. That, at least, is my belief. And after all, we are the ones with the power of reason, so we seek to explain things. A tiger stalking through the jungle of India never stops to ask itself 'Why I am a tiger?'. Old Prometheus opened a real can of worms when he stole that fire!

One hardly has to follow religion to explain ones own existence - but let's not even go there. Atheist here. Re. the poll itself - hehe - can one actually 'practise' atheism?

I don't want to be too fanciful here, but this has tweaked something with me. In Manda Scott's Boudica books, she has a group of Celtic warriors known as the 'warriors of the she-bear'. As she did quite extensive research into Iron Age Britain and the Britain of the early Roman occupation, I presume she found this legend somewhere in the literature. Although these warriors lived at the time of the Boudican revolt and Arthur some 400/500 years later (?), I just wonder whether there was still a lasting legendary tradition in Celtic folklore about these bear warriors? Just an idea.

Sounds OK for me at this stage, Augustus.

Thanks, Ursus - I shall get to work on something right away. Apart from PM catch-ups I will be taking a tiny break from the Forum, purely in order to contribute something on our beloved Principate. I sometimes feel that I am drowning in the Republic on here, and we seem to go round and round on 'topics by any other name....' That's not to say I don't find them enjoyable to read and debate, but I am reaching overkill at the moment. So.... be assured, I will be bashing away at the keyboard in Word tonight! I hope to have something to post in a couple of days.

Have a gret day, Antiochus.

To those who have seen it - what timescale are we on? Has it begun with Henry VII, or has it started in the reign of Henry VIII? ETA: I should add that this was the first period of history I ever fell in love with - aged 7.

Well there's certainly enough there to be going on with, Ursus. Just one last question: how scholarly do you want to articles/posts to be? Would a general bibliography added at the end be sufficient, or are you looking along the lines of strict footnotes etc?

Ah - how do you know he doesn't, GO?

Look forward to it. Agrippa's "black bedroom" looks stunning, and I can't wait until my next trip to NYC to see it in person. I just now rang up the Met and found out that photographs will be allowed for the new exhibits. I shall definitely take a mess of photos tomorrow! I imagine that Northern Neil will want to see pictures of the Black Bedroom for modeling inspiration. -- Nephele We can't wait, Nephele. I never got to see that part of the museum when I was in NYC as I'm sure it was closed for renovation or something. (This happens to me quite a lot, believe me.) Hehe - I can definitely imagine Agrippa in a black bedroom! Now he needs a Goth name. Over to you for a scramble, Nephele.

The Arab conquest of Iran is a strange one. Many of the Zoroastrians fled to India - to become the Parsees (still there today, of course) - and those who remained, I suppose, gradually became assimilated through the centuries. We need only think back to the rule of the last Shah, very much within our own lifetimes, to see a quite different Iran than that which exists today. My mother always referred to Pahlavi as the Shah of Persia - as his father had been known during her childhood. Although I don't think the name is an issue, as they were always only 'Persians' to westerners - even in ancient times the country was known as Iran to the inhabitants, of which Persia was just a part. But the point is, Pahlavi was reverent of the ancient history of his country. We have a situation here whereby the occupation of that territory since the 7th century AD by Islamic Arabs, suddenly spawned the Islamic Revolution of the 70s when the Ayatollah came to power. It is not unfair to say that all the wealth of Persian literature through mediaeval times to the 19th century flowered under the new Islamic rule. The Rubayyat was written within such a tradition. I doubt that such beautiful work could be produced now, or under the 'theocracy' of the late Ayatollah. Although I am not familiar with today's Iranian culture, so others may know more about this and disagree. There is also the point to be made here that Zoroastrianism itself was monotheistic and eschatological. Therefore was the transition for the ordinary peasant in the fields so great? They were just exchanging Ahura Mazda for Alla and Zoroaster for Mohammed, the Lie for the Infidel. Even Darius the Great had made a public declaration that he would root out the followers of the Lie - although I admit, this may have been partly propaganda to legitimise his seizure of the throne. When we come to monotheistic religions being forced upon polytheistic societies, however, there is a different situation, totally alien to what has gone before, and I can understand that less. Any thoughts? ETA: A quick point re. the Persian/Iranian thing. There is a saying amongst 'Persians' that 'All Persians are Iranian, but not all Iranians are Persian'

Yes, the gladius could. And you're right about the equestrian generals; most of them fought on horseback in the heat of battle, but Klingan's refering to individual duels which took place before the actual battles - often as ways to avoid huge loss of life at the cost of losing a good leader. Ah - got you! Thank you for that explanation, Hadrian. Yes, I've read of these pre-battle duels in Livy. Sorry if I've dragged you off track here.

An excellent post, PP. I, personally, come here to relax and exchange knowledge with people I respect. I hate it when members seem to fall out over something that happened 2,000 years ago. As for myself, I am happy to say I've had few real run-ins with people here, and if I think I may have offended anyone I always send that member a quick PM to pour oil on troubled waters, which nearly always seems to work. If there is someone with whom I feel dialogue is no longer possible, I deliberately refrain from posting an answer to their posts. Sometimes, it is better to walk away than spoil things for everyone else. We can't all have the same opinions - and frankly, what would be the point? This forum is to exchange information and knowledge and to have some much needed fun. We all come to it for different reasons. On a personal note, I enjoy reading the serious posts of our members just as much as I enjoy dropping in to Doc's 'virtual party' in the Baths. Both approaches are necessary to my enjoyment of the forum.

You make a good point, Oracus. A few years ago in Britain we had an incident where a crazed idiot ran into a primary school (your elementary school) in Scotland and killed a class of youngsters before putting an end to himself. I can't remember political capital being made out of it - although maybe my fellow Brits on the board remember it differently. However, as I think someone has already mentioned in this thread, if you have a gun in this country it has to have a licence (or at least that is the theory - there will also be the criminal element), therefore the argument of everyone's right to bear arms - which (if I remember correctly) is your second amendment - please feel free to leap on me if I have that wrong - just doesn't come into the equation. In this case, a one off - the man had some very serious mental problems. No doubt the chap who mowed down the college students in this current attack was similarly afflicted. No amount of legislation can stop a criminal getting his hands on a gun if he is determined; just as no amount of lobbying to take away the right of people to bear arms can prevent a sick person from committing an act such as this. I sometimes think the powers that be get too caught up in theories and ideals and do not look at the individual picture. This man was sick, just as our Scottish man was sick. I think that is what needs to be addressed - not the law concerning firearms.

Now, you'll all have to forgive my womanly ignorance here, guys - but wouldn't a Roman general be on horseback? And wouldn't his counterpart - no matter how barbaric, also be on horseback? This being the case, would that not alter the techniques of the fight? You can ridicule me if you wish - and please explain to me in idiot's language, as the legions are not my strongpoint, and I will not be offended by simplistic explanations suitable for a child of six. (I am NOT joking here - I am serious). Of course, even my scant knowledge tells me that the legionary himself was a foot soldier - but did the generals actually march into battle or were they sat in the saddle? Help - please explain. ETA: Also - was it not possible for the gladius to be used to smite off heads?

Indeed - and as Islam lags some 600 years behind Christianity, I suppose it is not too far-fetched to say that they are experiencing some sort of dark age now! But I am beside myself about this. I mean - Persepolis, of all places! Even Alexander's fires did not totally erase it. In fact, I have read that his burning of the capital did actually help to preserve some stone structures. However, mentioning Alexander has just lit something in my mind. He set fire to Persepolis as a symbolic act of propaganda to show that Darius' empire was gone and he was now the one and only High King. I wonder if the present Iranian government have a similar thing in mind - and, as you pointed out Neil - the Christians no doubt destroyed all reminders of 'paganism' from the same standpoint. Are the leaders of the Islamic Republic making some sort of statement here?

Can anyone hazard a guess as to what would happen at a time of torrential rain? Most of the impluvia I have seen at Pompeii and in reconstructions seem quite shallow. For instance in the reference that Cato cited above (one that I was only looking at myself a few days ago for another project!) a link to impluvia says that the water gathered there was drained off into cisterns. Northern Neil also mentioned that the pool in the peristylium was filled 'by overflow' from the impluvium. How did such cisterns work and where were they situated? And if there was a downpour, could the impluvium cope? Or did water overflow into the atrium? I guess it didn't, but how did everything work? Pardon my ignorance of such mechanical things, gents, but this really does interest me. As for roofs - I was re-reading in Appian recently the events surrounding Caesar's funeral and the riots that ensued, when Appian states that people 'went up onto their roofs', all the better to see the chaos outside - which suggests to me, as Neil says, that exterior windows in that period were either non-existent or were very high, purely to let in light through the lattice, rather than afford a view out. Any help on these questions would be gratefully received.

Any updates on this Ursus? What was your overall impression? I note that the BBC have commissioned the series for broadcast over here at some stage this year, so I'd be glad of some pointers.

Hehe - you left out No. 3, Ilian I'll leave everyone's mouths gaping by filling it in for you: I have no particular problem with autocrats in the ancient world. I was actually brave (or foolhardly, if you prefer) enough to say this at our recent meeting in York. But as you have given us five simple choices, I'll personally choose No. 6. (5).