The Augusta

Aw, come on, Julius - it kept the Republic occupied for 500 years!

Yeah, and we all know that he died miles from Rome. I don't mind fiction at all, Paul. I'll even accept a fictional Atia. What I won't accept is a portrayal rooted in the 20th century rather than the 1st BC. Can you accuse Sian Phillips of that? Another thing I won't accept is a woman living on for years after she is supposed to be dead just to fill a fictional plot line. Livia in 'Claudius' died when she was supposed to die. There are certain rules in historical fiction, whether on screen or in literature, that are acceptable, and some are not. As for the Agrippa question again - I have now scoured the 'full casts and crews' for the 10 episodes and can find no mention of him anywhere. This is a gross miscalculation by HBO - let's even leave out the historical aspect for a moment. The man had character and was a 'rags to riches' sort of guy. Which is precisely why I think HBO are going to leave him out and let Pullo fill that role. What is the point of two of 'em? But let's face it: this show is not for the historians among us - it's there to entertain, and in that it succeeds. I just have to suspend disbelief when I watch it, that's all. I am probably way too critical, as this is what I consider to be 'my' period.

I actually rather like Atia, but probably for the wrong reasons. Has anyone besides me noticed the often hilarious similarity between Atia

Ratings were low here in Britain too, Titus. Although many tuned in for the first couple of episodes, they soon fell away thereafter. Add to this some very mixed reviews in the Press and it spells disaster. I certainly think the viewers gave it a chance over here, but it was the product itself that was its own downfall.

So - we have to put up with the ghastly Polly's portrayal of Atia for 10 whole episodes! Even though the woman died in 43BC? Well, it doesn't surprise me - it's typical. Nor does it surprise me that there is no listing for Agrippa. I think I aired my concerns earlier in this thread somewhere that HBO wouldn't introduce Marcus at all. The Pullo character is so obviously being used in that role. I doubt we'll see Lepidus. Hollywood (and HBO) film-makers would reason thus: 'This guy plays no real part as he was slung out after the Sicilian Wars and never really figured - ergo, we don't need him.' I am devastated to see that Max Pirkis is being used through Philippi. The actor is far too young to play the mature Octavian and will carry no conviction at all as to the future emperor in the making. Yes, it worked when he was 11-15 but it will NOT work now. I await Season 2 with even more trepidation than I awaited Season 1.

I love it!

Then are you saying, Moonlapse, that the US KNEW there were no WMDs when they went into Iraq?

Nah. Unlike music, I can compose my own love poems. And I have. To great effect. As much as we love you, Ursus - you'll never do better than Shelley or Keats!

Now, before we all get serious again on the Forum and start doing our promised articles on Roman ladies etc. (I haven't forgotten), I wonder if anyone is in the mood for a little fun? The post Christmas period is always a bit of a downer for me, and I thought all our spirits may be lifted by a little exercise in imagination. I put the following to you, gents and ladies: If you could bring forward to our time any of our ancient heroes (Cato, Caesar, Augustus, Trajan etc...) to offer his/her view on the current world, who would it be and why? And what do you think they'd make of it? For instance, if Cato (the Younger) were suddenly transported to modern-day America or the UK, what kind of speech would he make in the Senate, or House of Commons? Which topics would he find anathema, and which would he back? What on earth would they make of modern Italy? Who would invoke their admiration and who their condemnation? How would Caesar cope with nothing to conquer - or would he try anyway? As well as having a bit of light-hearted fun, this may show us all just how well we think we know our heroes.

Oh, dear! That may be the US's belief, Moonlapse - but it is hardly a universal truth. You see, we in the West constantly cast ourselves as 'the good guys'. It is, in my humble opinion, the epitome of arrogance. At the end of the day, this is all about perspective. A Muslim perspective will hardly be the same as ours. The pespective of a superpower will hardly be the same as an allied state. Why do we start from the premise that spreading democracy will 'always be noble in the utmost'? Do we have some god-given right to enforce our idealism on the world? Don't get me wrong here. I am not 'sticking up' for the military dictatorships of the Middle-East or wherever, or the Islamic Revolution that changed Iran - I am merely trying to put forward the view that there are many viewpoints. Perhaps its a question of who is the most powerful? And then - if that is the case - do we have any right to call it a 'moral' standpoint at all? I will freely admit - even on this board where I have many American friends - the US governmental foreign policy terrifies me as much as any military dictatorship terrifies me. Personally - I can't wait until Bush is out. I'm not 'having a go' here, Moonlapse - I would merely welcome a discussion on this.

In what context, Antiochus? Italian? 'Re' is the word for King. 'De'? Well, it's 'of' in French - in Italian it's 'di'. Or are you meaning Latin? In English? Can you clarify what you need?

With the best will in the world, Virgil, I don't think this is the same problem. I can't speak for Ceacescu as I know next to nothing about it, but after Nuremburg, we weren't left with a global ideal - merely a national one. The few staunch Nazis who remained had not infilitrated their ideals on a worldwide basis. A few disenchanted SS officers gathering for Sepp Dietrich's funeral hardly constituted a world threat. Islam, however, has spread far and wide. This is what worries me about this. I am not talking about a few malcontents of the old Ba'ath party who followed Saddam, but the Arab world who - whatever their views of Saddam - may feel that the greater evil here is the Western world fighting Islam. On our TV here last night there was an Arab leader who said that as far as he was concerned, executing a Moslem on the eve of Eid was insensitive in the extreme, and he saw it as a 'Christian Crusade'. Whatever the rights or wrongs of his arguments, this is how much of the Arab world will perceive this. This is my fear. We already know that Iran are next on the US's hit list. Where does it end? However, don't ask me for a solution - for I confess, I have none, but my fears have been growing for a long time.

Totally agree, Paul. I know this may be a bit off-topic - but perhaps not entirely....but I saw BBC News 24 today interviewing Kurdish exiles in a London restaurant. The Kurds were understandably upset that Saddam had not had to stand trial for the massacre of their people in 1988 (it was 180,000), and they therefore feel they have had no justice. I could understand this fully. If Saddam was truly being tried for all his crimes, then surely his massacre of the Kurds should have formed part of that. Forgive me for being cynical, but isn't this just a case of 'the Kurds don't count'. Bush has what he wants. He couldn't get Bin Laden so he got Saddam. The guilty verdict was for the 100 or so Shi'ites killed at Dujail. I find it all a bit ham-fisted. All I know is that I am very, very frightened about the reprisals of this. Not perhaps immediately but a few years down the road.

My sentiments entirely, Neil. And the whole media circus surrounding his death was quite the most distasteful journalism I've ever seen. But it's what this modern, media-driven world expects. I'm surprised they didn't throw in a few variety acts as a build-up.

I wonder if the Muslims would allow Christians to worship in a mosque..... No...thought not.

Thanks for clearing that up, Joe. From the frontal shot (above) it is clear now that it is not the same as the Copenhagen head. It is undoubtedly a portrait of Caligula, though - that protruding top lip is unmistakeable.

Are you sure this portrait has not been published before? It looks like the very first portrait of Caligula I saw. In fact, I saw it first in the Volume of Plates to the Cambridge Ancient History Vols IX and X. This used to be known as the 'Copenhagen' head because it was found in Asia Minor and is to be seen in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek.

Nothing new to me, guys. In my simple way (and is there any other way to see religion?) I have always equated Jesus with Dionysos. Consuming of his flesh and the wine being the blood etc. (Didn't the maenads believe they had a sort of immortality through consuming 'Dionysos'' flesh?) It seems so obvious to me.....

Boxing Day - a holiday for us in the UK. We always go to my brother-in-law's for a serious celebration, which is always good fun. However, this time, when hiding out from rampaging youngsters in his computer room, I found a shelf of new books. It seems our Gordon has expanded his horizons. He had Barrett's Caligula and Levick's Vespasian on his shelves, both of which I hijacked immediately - with his permission. Believe me, finds like this among my family are rare indeed...... Thank you Santa. Did anyone else have a welcome Roman surprise over the holidays?

What a gorgeous thread! And just what we need after all our Christmas hangovers..... Well, Number One for me is Hendrix. But then, you see, I have this thing for Richie Blackmore - especially his solo on Sweet Child in Time. As far as I'm concerned, that solo is better than sex. My real soft spot though - due to my age - is Mick Ronson. OK - he wasn't the most accomplished guitarist in the world, but there was just this raw sexual attraction when he was prowling about on stage .. it added so much to the Ziggy tours of 1972 and 1973. His solo during Width of a Circle was superb. But now, like all my heroes, he's dead.....

Fulvia would be a brilliant addition, Sulla - thank you.

Heaven by Joan Armatrading (I've found the perfect someone who can take me in their arms and love me... - gorgeous line) Show me Heaven - Maria McKee

Hmm? So, how then did Marcellus stage games in 23BC? Was it just a promise of what was to come? Sorry, Caesar, I don't think there'll be many people who will accept that the little snot was to be aedile in 22BC. But before we go on with the debate, I must ask you something else: what is your purpose in posting about these conspiracies? Is there a motive behind them? Do you wish to propose that the opposition to Augustus was stronger than some historians have thought? If so, I don't think this has ever been in doubt. Or is it that you wish to discuss each conspiracy in turn and perhaps come to some conclusion about how it changed the course of the Principate?

May I put in a word for our Gaius? Mad? No. Just a tyrant with epilepsy. It sends you funny, ya know! Come to think of it, I don't think either of them was mad in a clinical sense. Nero - very complex young thing, becoming emperor at 16 years of age! Great Gods - I look at my son and think - Jove help us all! To sum up: the pair of them were spoilt brats handed enormous power on a plate. But if someone put me in a time machine and I had to find out which Caesar I would be brought before, I'd choose Caligula. I think I could humour him and get away with it. As for Nero - I'd run a mile..... Well said, Caldrail - it's what I've always believed about this incident. Have you read Balsdon? And let's not forget those 'seashells' Ram! I would have a great problem with Nero. I could act him off the stage and he'd never forgive me!

And I would be a very wealthy courtesan with lots and lots of influence over her men! I'm shameless...but honest!