The Augusta

Forgive me, Maladict, but I cannot believe you have said that! The excavations at Pompeii have done so much to enhance and inform our knowledge of this subject that we all love, for a start! My own first visit to Pompeii was way back in 1979 after I'd spent about 5 years reading literary texts and seeing bland two-dimensional illustrations or black and white photos in books. To actually be in the House of the Mysteries or walk down one of the wonderfully preserved streets past the bakeries and shops of Flavian times brought everything to life for me. Are we simply to shrug our shoulders about the wilful destruction of a piece of history that has formed an essential part of our education for centuries? And what a testament to man! Vesuvius couldn't quite destroy it totally, but man's having a pretty good go. I think it's a very big deal.

This is totally heartbreaking! Its on a par with the desecration of cemeteries - in fact, let us make no bones about it, Pompeii is a cemetery in itself, when one thinks of all the people who died there in 79AD. The mentality of these modern vandals is quite beyond my understanding, I'm afraid. Or if, as the article suggests, some shady dealing is at work behind the scenes, then that is even worse. I think it is a sad reflection of our modern times as a whole that people have so little respect for their heritage. ETA: As for the dogs and cats, they have always been a part of the ruins - well, at least the bands of feral cats. There are far more sinister forces at work now.

Welcome to the forum, Andrew. I hope you enjoy your time here.

LOL - same here. I can tell the difference between Ionian, Doric and Corinthian columns and I know what a caryatid is - after that, I'm sunk.

Quite, Septimus! One look at the trailers on TV over here told me that this is not a historical film. I have to say that this sort of thing is not quite my cup of tea, but my son certainly wants to see it, and I hope everyone else enjoys it. One does have to marvel at the artistic achievements, however.

For once I'm speechless!

My own guess is that it will be put back until after the new Poliakoff season - the BBC seem to be having something of a love affair with him lately. There's also the new Jane Austen season to contend with. My guess would be a summer showing - i.e. May-September.

Are you really serious about that statement!! How is blowing yourself up at a market a "tactic". Its the cowardly fanatics at the top, setting out other fanatics at the bottom to kill as many civilians as possible, because apparently when you blow yourself up and kill women and children with you, you go to some kind of afterlife paradise!!!! Its a cowardly act used by people who are blinded by religious hate. JR was not calling it a 'tactic' today, Septimus - he suggested that in a future age, it may well be interpreted as one. There is a difference. I backed him up, and implicit in my statement - seeing you have raised it - was the horrific scenario of today's Islamic terrorists somehow winning this 'war on terror', for instance, and having a huge say in the writing of today's historyof it. Imagine, too, if Hitler had won the war: how would future generations be forced to see the Holocaust? Put like that, yes it is. But the thread began in an historical context. I am trying to get us back there - slowly but surely

But if the scriptwriters had kept to the historical events instead of introducing silly subplots of Timon the Jew, Erastes Fulmen and his cronies, or even Pullo and Vorenus and their various domestic spats, there would have been plenty of time. This for me is the crux of things. HBO have taken two separate strings and tried to make a whole. I think the series would have worked better if it had either stuck purely to the history (which is entertaining, and a lively enough script from good writers would have ensured it was) and left out the subplots; or, conversely, devise a series about purely fictitious characters against the backdrop of the fall of the Republic.

Therein lies a lesson for us all, JR. I agree with you. However, I think how our descendants view such methods/tactics will depend largely on who eventually 'wins' in these situations, if indeed anyone does.

You do not say, Lucius, whether your sacrifice would be in thanksgiving or propitiation

That's why you have few problems. Windows 2k is, IMHO, the best OS ever made. I wouldn't even use crappy XP if 2k could run Age of Empires 3. I would agree, JR. I use 2K at work, and when all the other consultants had their secretaries' PCs updated to XP Pro, my boss refused to have our 2K taken off. It is an amazingly stable OS, but as you say, perhaps not that suitable for gaming.

I would agree with this definition - but I would add to it that the terrorist also acts from a political standpoint, and often sees himself as a victim or even a 'freedom fighter'. This could not be said of the Romans.

Ah - now I see what I did! I embedded it as an IMG instead of linking to the URL. Sorry, guys! Anyway - back to the game. We need to wait for confirmation that Nephele has guessed right.

Mefeels that that is a 'moot' point or it is a 'moot' point? I guess that that depends on how closed one's alleged mind is. I cannot see that this illustrates a closed mind. I actually applaud the fact that they dismantled the Republic, MPC mourns the fact. We both agree on the agents but differ in opinion. Or is there a case for saying that neither of them did any dismantling? Caesar's and Augustus' biggest contribution to history, in other words, was not what they did in private - that was the point being made.

Well, I have migrated all of 6 miles from a little town in Cheshire (Dukinfield) so thankfully I do not have a Manchester accent. (Noel and Liam Gallagher, Ricky Hatton, or the dreaded Gary Neville, for instance!). I can pronounce all the T's in my words! I have more of a Lancashire gloss. Alas I won't be speaking at the meeting this time, as I have nothing prepared, but you may well hear me chipping in with the odd question. I think we northerners are going to be well represented.

Yet another delightful thread on brutality! On reading through it and spotting the traditional punishment for parricide, I must share with you the wit of Robert Harris in his novel Imperium. As we know, Cicero defended Popillius Laenus against the charge of killing his father, the punishment for which was the flaying and being sewn into a sack with a dog, a cock and a viper. Here's a snippet, narrated by Tiro: I caught a glimpse of Popillius himself, a notoriously violent youth, whose eyebrows merged to form a continuous thick black line. He was seated next to his uncle on the bench reserved for the defence, scowling defiantly, spitting at anyone who came too close. "We really must secure an acquittal," observed Cicero, "if only to spare the dog, the cock and the viper the ordeal of being sewn up in a sack with Popillius." OK - just wanted to shed some light. Now back to discussing all the nasty things that hurt.... Ouch! Isn't this like the other thread we had a few weeks ago on torture/execution or the like?

Quite. But, then to reduce it to fact is a different thing. This is not a gossip column. A fair point. But I think those of us who have posted that 'it doesn't matter' would be equally happy with the 'facts' either way. To speak personally, if there was concrete evidence that Caesar had slept with Octavian this would not influence my view of either of them one way or another. As MPC said, it is far more important that the pair of them dismantled the Republic.

I am suitably chastened. I'll drop out and let the big boys play!

I can only speak for the BBC's involvement here, but the BBC certainly committed itself to a two season run to fall in line with the HBO requirements - so I take that to mean that HBO were always going to do two seasons. Meanwhile, reading the snippets from this episode, and taking Septimus' question of how much time has passed, I need to ask all who watched: while Antony and Cleo and Octavian and Liv were busy fornicating, was poor old Marcus off fighting Pompeius all on his own? Hehe - now that's what I call a Roman! Seriously - has the Sicilian War figured at all, folks?

What is it with other people's computers? I am knocking on wood and surrounding myself with all sorts of charms to ward off the evil eye as I post this, but apart from wearing out my hard drives with just constant work over the years, I have never had any problems! I have always used PCs rather than Macs and have always had Windows (apart from the old dark days of MS DOS 6). Heck, even the PC that had the vile Windows ME did not let me down until his hard drive died, worn out. (I have that silly girl's thing of naming my machines, and the one with ME was 'Victor' cos he was a Viglen - I got 7 years out of him) It could be that I don't use my PCs for anything too heavy though. Mine's a glorified word processor and I do create databases in Acces for my family history stuff. Other than that I have a bit of music a few photos and the Internet. I don't use the PC for games as my son tends to have every console going, and the PC has always been verboten for his gaming (I'm a tyrant). Nor do I seem to require huge graphics packacges. So, all you in the know, is this why I seem to get good service from my little machines? This latest - after the sad demise of Victor - is actually a giveaway from my son's high school. He's some unheard of make called RM - so I've named him Romulus! But he has Windows XP Pro, a 30G hard drive and a 1.4GH processor, 512 RAM. He's adequate for my small needs. I've had less success with laptops! Oh, boy! I bought a Compaq Presario 2500 (? I think it is) that had to go back to the factory no less than 3 times. It cost me

Not that I'm aware, all we seem to have is Suetonius' recollection/reporting of Antony's accusations and not the actual source material itself. Since Antony's record doesn't survive we have no idea which document, letter or verbal source that Suetonius got it from. True or not, considering it's lack of "press", the implication would be that the average Roman didn't care all that much. I'm inclined to think that most folks thought it to be a rather uneventful piece of political taunting, but I'm absolutely sure that it delighted Antony to no end. There's food for thought here too. MPC alerted us to the difference between taunting and condemnation, and there may even be a case for thinking that even in Roman times politicians and other important figures just accepted this sort of taunt and did not place that much importance on it. All we can say for sure is for Suetonius to be constantly littering his biographies with similar rumours of various men's proclivities must have meant it was a common taunt. We have no evidence of the reaction of Octavian himself to this - it might well have been a huge sort of ...'whatever'...!

You are a Geordie? Then you MUST speak at all costs. Now, I will unashamedly admit that I could listen to the Geordie accent for hours, and hours, and hours....... In fact, Augustus, should you wish to lecture us on particle physics or the historyof the vacuum cleaner, you have my vote to do so, just as long as you treat us to those sonorous syllables.

OK, I'll play - easy one: I knew yours was the Maison Carree too, Maladict, so as Mosquito hasn't posted a pic, I'm jumping in...

Grrrh. It's not often that The Augusta gets angry, but this whole topic does get to me a bit. Homosexuality and bisexuality as we know them did not exist in the ancient world as such. The only reason the Octavian/Caesar rumour, Caesar/King of Bithynia rumour and Antony/Curio affair were scandals was because in all cases these men were freeborn and their rivals considered it unnatural for freeborn men to leap into bed with each other - especially he who was passive. I know that Ursus has dealt with this on another thread and he set out the evidence and argument far more eloquently than I can - and a quick re-read of his review on the Roman Sex book should offer enough explanation - a book I also have. But whenever we discuss it, forgive me if I'm paranoid, but there seems to be an undercurrent from one or two posters that if these men were indulging in sexual relations with each other, then it somehow needs to be proved wrong and people ask for evidence as if their heroes are somehow less because of it. Tosh! Now, this thread began because Caldrail made a comment in the ex-Caesar thread about Caesar having an affair with Octavian, and I agreed that it could have been relevant only inasmuch as his rivals taunted him with it as being 'the only way he could get anywhere in life' sort of thing. It has no other relevance to these people. Octavian had his boy favourite Sarmentus, for instance (Plutarch) - what the hell does it matter? We will probably never have hard evidence (no pun intended) but why should we need to look for it, especially for those who cannot entertain the idea? I couldn't care less what these people did in bed - it's how they ruled the Republic or the Empire that concerns me. And just a friendly word regarding the title of the thread: a catamite is a young boy/youth kept entirely for a sexual purpose. I don't think we could use this term in its purest sense for Octavian, Julius or even the King of Bithynia! Sorry to rant, gents.