The Augusta

Thanks to everyone's wonderful responses, and as I have now finished the Keaveney book, I am now finally managing to come to some conclusions of my own. I can agree with your summing up, Caldrail. I think we should perhaps give Sulla the benefit of the doubt in believing that he did want to put Rome 'back on track', but I am now seeing a pattern emerging: I do think he had a thought for his own dignitas too. I suppose what he could not have foreseen was that his supporters in 79-78 would not stand up to protect his reforms when they were attacked. There's also something else that has emerged from all this. If everyone was so terrified of Sulla, wouldn't this terror have still prevailed even though he was in retirement? Had he been the tyrant everyone thinks, wouldn't the opposition have feared his return? You see, I'm sort of thinking on my feet here, and probably forming even more questions..... Ironically enough, Keaveney's biography, whilst being an unashamed apology for Sulla all the way through, finally sums it all up in the epilogue, when the author says that Sulla 'was one of the great failures of Roman history'. I suppose we can reach no other conclusion as his reforms were swept away within a generation, but the legacy he left behind for others to emulate his coup d'etat, was yet another blow to the ailing Republic he was trying to save. God forgive me - I almost feel sorry for the man! Why is it that the flawed men of history are always the most interesting?

Whilst I would agree with you, Kosmo, that a decline in rationalist thinking is a negative, I can only applaud the decline in theologically structured religion! And how do these two go together? I've never been able to understand how rationally thinking people can base their whole lives on a myth or myths in any case.

Yes - I had a look through that thread! I was astonished to read some posts condoning the tone of the declaration and such like. The Prosciptions will forever be the period of Augustus' life that I am most uncomfortable with. Nor do I buy in to the theory that Antony was largely responsible for them. We cannot exonerate the young Octavian, nor should we try. It's not quite as simple as that. First, when Sulla's creature Pompey ham-handedly abolished the lex Cornelia tribunis plebis in the Lex Pompeia Licinia, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, and a false alternative was perpetuated--oligarchy versus populism. Second, many of Sulla's bad reforms stayed in force for far too many years, and with permanently negative consequences. For example, Sulla packed the juries with senators, leading to the development of the situation that almost allowed Verres to go unchecked in his nasty business in Sicily. This is the sort of behavior that also turned popular sentiment against the Senate. Finally, just in case anyone wasn't already clear that Sulla was establishing the Senate as a sort of royal court, Sulla passed the lex Cornelia Pompeia, which imposed severe restrictions on the legislative and electoral activity of the Tribal Assembly. Now I am beginning to see it. Thank you for this. I now understand the force of your argument. Of course, it all depends on whether we accept that it was the eventual clash between optimates and populares (as Julius Ratus says above) that finally brought down the Republic. I think we do have to accept this, as Caesar hitched his wagon to the populist star, as did Octavian after him. However, I am also struck by what you say about Pompey overturning the Cornelian law on the tribunate. If this perpetuated the 'false alternative' of populism versus oligarchy, wasn't Pompey, perhaps, even more of a nail in the Republic's coffin than Sulla?

Cato, the government banned trans fat on everything now. I think it is good because it was very bad for you and living in a cholesterol society it can only help. I agree that these things are no doubt good for us, Rameses, but I think what Cato was saying - and certainly what I am saying - is that choices are being taken away from us on what are very personal things. We are treading a very fine line here, with the infringement of an individual's civil liberties at stake. Of course you are right: fatty foods are bad for us. Smoking is bad for us. But I want to decide that myself and reach an informed judgement on it. I don't want some politically correct trendy politician in Whitehall telling me what to do with my private time, my private life, or my own health.

In England we have had a ban in all primary (elementary) and high schools on 'unhealthy' snacks in the snack machines. OK, so I have always tried to limit my kids on fizzy drinks but I don't see the harm in them having an odd coke as a treat. All the snack machines have been removed from my kids' school now, and they even have their lunch boxes examined to see that there are no forbidden items! I am not joking. It is really happening. I have always cooked healthy meals for my two, but they did use to enjoy a bit of junk now and again at school lunch-time. They never abused this, so I didn't see the harm. Now, of course, the choice has been taken away from them altogether. Fascism is a good word.

Thanks, Cato. Now this is the sort of thing I am having trouble understanding. If we leave the proscriptions out of it - for I am sure we would all wholeheartedly condemn them, just as we condemn the Triumviral proscriptions, no matter which side of the fence we are on - I still don't know how he provided a death knell to the Republic, other than perhaps setting the precedent for future men to march on Rome and take it into their own hands to 'reorder the Republic'. You say that his constitutional reforms were reactionary expedients, but surely you would agree that some curb had to be put on - say - the tribunate? Or wouldn't you agree? And then you say that by giving unchecked power to the Senate he actually undermined its legitimacy - well, perhaps there is a case for that. But - and here is the question I want you to answer, as you have far greater knowledge than me of this period: if his reforms were swept aside so quickly after his death, and in particular the tribunate was flourishing again, why then do you think he was so injurious to the Republic? Hadn't everything just gone back to how it was before, with factions and strife and discord and civil war? To put it another way, would events have unfolded the way they did with or without Sulla? Are you saying that his only contribution to the death of the Republic was that his own actions had set a precedent for other autocrats? Or are there more layers at work here? I find it all very confusing, but I'm determined to come to some conclusion with everyone's help.

Well, you've all given me lots to think about, and I want to go through a few posts, but I'll just start here, Phil. On my further readings of Sulla's career, I have noticed quite a few parallels with Augustus myself! Even down to the little things such as Sulla's attempt at religious revivals; his attempt to introduce sumptuary laws; even his revival of the Troy Game for the youths of Rome. But I don't want to get ahead of myself just yet, as I want to go back into this thread to pick up on something Cato said. I will return.....

What a gorgeous thread! And I could be here all day..... so I'll limit myself to my favourites only. Just as you would like Pompey's signet ring, Paul, I would love to have the one Augustus used as his first (the Sphinx) when he was an up-and-coming revolutionary.... I would also love to own the blue ensign that Agrippa was awarded after Sicily in 36BC and which he flew at Actium. There is also the basalt head of Livia in the Louvre that I wish I could steal! In the Casa di Livia on the Palatine, there is a glass display case in one of the reception rooms (well, there was last time I was there) which holds several artefacts found on the site. There were a set of old ivory dice in that case, and I used to fancifully imagine that they were Augustus's. Of course, I'll bet they had nothing to do with Augustus, but it was nice to look at them and think.....

One of my lines (great grandmother) goes back to Henry VIII, and that is a thoroughly researched line with no conjectures along the way. My main paternal line (of which the above are a branch) only goes back definitely to 1700. Once you start using parish registers alone and you suddenly find that your family has 'disappeared' from a particular parish, the search to find them over even a ten miles radiius is very time-consuming. The only other family of my name living in Cheshire contemporaneously with mine are traceable back to King John in 1212. However, they are definitely NOT mine and my self-discipline as a genealogist (25 years of it!) will not allow me to conjecture that my line should be grafted on to theirs. Unfortunately, many people approach family history and genealogy in something of a slapdash way. I am usually very suspicious about pedigrees that go back beyond mediaeval times when surnames first became permanent.

I am going to be brave and announce that I have always been fascinated by Lucius Cornelius Sulla since the day I first picked up Plutarch. But the more I read about him the more my bafflement grows. I just don't know what to make of the man. Was he an unconstituional tyrant, or was he, as Keaveney states in the subtitle of his biography, 'The Last Republican'? I am reading this book at the moment as it has just been published in a second edition and whilst it is something of a favourable account with apologies all over the place, Keaveney does admit that the Proscriptions were a massive blot on an otherwise mainly consitutional career - the march on Rome notwithstanding! My reading of Sulla so far is that he definitely used harsh measures, but he was genuine in his belief that the ailing Republic needed those measures. Why did he retire from the Dictatorship? Was he genuine in this - i.e. he had restored the powers of the Senate and could now bow out as a dutiful citizen should? Or did he retire, as some have suggested, because of some silly prophecy he had when younger? There are so many questions. Would he have acted the way he did had it not been for the Marians and later the Cinnans? Was his rule a death knell for the Republic as some have suggested? The more I read the less I am sure about this. I would love to know all your views on Sulla's career and just how great an influence you think he was in the Republic's downfall. I have scoured the old threads to see if there has been a topic devoted purely to Sulla and could not find one. I know he was briefly discussed in the 'downfall of the Republic discussion' but someone there (it may have been MPC, but I can't be sure just from memory) suggested that he deserved his own thread.

OK, Eterna - ignore all these scoffers! I'll take you on.... Why would Rome's ascendant sign have been Aries? More likely to be something to do with the Great Year (Rome was founded in the Age of Aries). And Aries was a ram even in ancient times, was it not? Have you looked at the online Ephemerides to get your moon sign here? Was the moon in Aquarius on 21st April 753 BC? I would certainly buy the Aries bit as it fits with the military ethos of early Rome. But if they were inventing the founding date to fit astrology they would probably have been better with a Capricorn moon for ambition and discipline. You would also have to note which date the sun changed signs in 753BC too, to see if Rome was Aries instead of Taurus; although I agree Taurus would also fit the character. Do you realise that nobody else (well, perhaps with the exception of Lost Warrior) will know what we're talking about? Unless, of course, we have some closeted stargazers on here

I'd go for them both! But if you want to use me as a case study, I started with the Seager. He provides a good overall view and has some very interesting insights into the Agrippina v Tiberius factions which are quite enlightening. The fact that this book is still in print, shows, to my mind, that his argument is still valid. (It was originally published in 1972, with a 2nd edition commissioned in 2005.) He is very pro-Tiberian, however, whereas Levick tends to be more objective, although still comes out largely with a more favourable view of the emperor. Levick concentrates more on his political personality (obviously, from the title) than his military expertise. Levick's was first published in 1976 - again with a 2nd edition commissioned in 2004. If it's a question of budget, I think the Seager is a bit cheaper at around

This is purely my personal opinion, Caesar137, but I believe Augustus stepped in quickly with these men to avoid a growth of the factions that he had lived through himself in the civil wars of 44-31BC. Gallus, for instance, was making himself popular in Egypt as Prefect. He would do the same (and I apologise if I am pre-empting you here) with Egnatius Rufus and his fire brigade. Agrippa was the prime example of the self-deprecating servant and Augustus expected others to be the same. Augustus had not won sole power and concentrated all old magistracies into his single person for nothing. I honestly believe that his first rule was to avoid the factional conflicts that had killed the old republic, and this was his way of nipping things in the bud.

Unfortunatley there are no non-smoking bars in this country or at least non that i know of or would bother to frequent but there will be soon Erm... there are quite a few in Manchester. And there's even one in Stockport! I had to laugh when I was in New York in 2001. In my programme from the Met there was an advert for a bar in Manhattan that actually had a huge advert saying 'Smoking allowed'! I'm one of those really horrible women. I love my own kids but hate everybody else's! Yes, we're becoming a persecuted minority. Let's promote awareness of our plight! I'm phoning Bob Geldof right now! For the moment - I'm nipping out for a fag.

Ahem! Well, some of us have filthy habits.... But I applaud the ban too, actually, as we must all learn to compromise. I for one, hate smoking in public places. I won't even do it in my home - I nip out to the garden.... One of these days I will give up, and the day is getting ever nearer. What annoys me about all this though is the bloody hypocrisy of the government. If they really wanted us all to stop smoking for health reasons they just need to ban the sale of tobacco. Of course, they wouldn't ever do this as it brings in billions in revenue.

Robin Seager 'Tiberius' and Barbara Levick 'Tiberius: The Politician' (both available at Amazon UK and both worth buying, Paul. They've been on my shelves for years.

I am a little confused by this whole debate. In the case of the British monarchy, in particular, the Queen is a figurehead only. Phil may correct me if I'm wrong, but the Queen holds no executive or legislative power. All such power rests with Parliament and the Prime Minister and his cabinet. I cannot see how the US would drift into such a system. They already have the President and Senate; why would they add someone who just looks good on a stamp?

Thanks for that, Ursus. When you mentioned the book earlier in the thread, I remember thinking that here was another author advancing a crackpot theory to make a name for himself. The fact that he does not go on to prove his thesis is even worse! And didn't you say in an earlier post that Everitt had 'evidence' for this? As I said before, I haven't found a review of this yet in our serious newspapers - which I find unusual, because Everitt at one time wrote for The Guardian.

Thanks PP- I'll give it a try. And you've also inadvertently helped with something else.... I can see now how to add a link with appropriate text, rather than just 'http://' etc. (It was something I'd been meaning to ask)

My hard drive in my old PC died and I now have a new one and need to copy and paste all my ancient authors into Word documents again. This is no problem on the Lacus Curtius site, but when it comes to the enormous Natural History of Pliny on Perseus Tufts has anyone else had the problems I have had? Although the site gives you the option to read each Book of the Natural History by book and not by chapter, clicking on this hardly ever results in a Book by Book presentation. Therefore it is a tedious business to copy and paste dear old Pliny chapter by chapter within each book. Add to this the slowness of the pages to load.... it's a frustrating business. I find Pliny's Nat Hist invaluable in my researches, and wondered if anyone has any tips for getting the site to present each Book completely. At 30-odd volumes with about 60 chaps per volume it's one heck of a task to go through each web page. Has anyone else got their Pliny this way? And if so, how did you get around all the hiccups? Any help you could give would be gratefully appreciated.

Ah, Wot - I have only just been admitted to the blogs, now that the Triumvirate have awarded me a nice gold ring and a narrow stripe, but sympathy poured out of me when I read this. Yes, we all know him. He is the type of man who makes David Brent look lovable. I always get this type talking to me in pubs. When I was a young hothead I used to argue with them like mad, because they wound me up no end. Nowadays, I just let my eyes glaze over and offer nothing to the conversation. I get them at parties too. I mujst have one of those faces....

Call it feminine intuition - but indulge me. Charles will never rule England. This has nothing to do with whether we keep the monarchy or not. His mother will outlive him. He is 58 years old already, you know, and Elizabeth, even if she does not have quite the robust constitution of her mother, is still showing no signs of real frailty. Nor will she ever abdicate; nor would she accept a Regent. Even if she only goes on for another 10 years, Charles would be almost 70. Few Windsor men have lived to a great age.

As a non-American on the site, may I just say that I think your festival of Thanksgiving is a damned good one and one that we should have in England. It could replace the vile Bonfire Night! I do think it is right that we take a moment now and then to be thankful for things, and whether we thank a deity, or just our fellow human beings, I think the sentiment is wonderful and certainly NOT corny. Like Ursus and others I am thankful for this site, for after thirty-odd years in the wilderness where I was met with blank looks if I mentioned Cicero or Septimius Severus, and where the majority of my associates seemed to think that Caligula = Malcolm McDowell, I am now in heaven with like-minded souls who provide mental stimulus and a welcome chuckle or two. Thank you UNRV

Paul, I just want to comment on the I,Claudius protrayal part of your topic here. Although the character of Tiberius was treated to much the same artistic licence as others in Graves' novel, I nevertheless think that when we follow the character development of Tiberius from Episode One, right the way through to his death, Graves and the script-writer Jack Pullman (who did an excellent job) do give us some insights into the 'real' Tiberius. For instance, I recall the intimate scene between Tiberius and Drusus at the Baths/Gymnasium when Tiberius says to Drusus that he is his 'lifeline into the light', and that if he were to lose him, he would then have lost the three most beloved people in his life: his father (Tiberius Nero - good gods, save us all!); his first wife Vipsania and Drusus himself. I can remember the line spoken by Baker: 'There are times when I so hate myself, that I can no longer bear the thought of me any more'. And much later when Agrippina comes upon him sacrificing to Augustus, he has asked his Divine father to 'light the darkness in my soul and bring me peace'. Baker played both these scenes with a sympathy for his character that was touching, and echoed the real man, in my opinion. A naturally shy man, brought up with a domineering mother and a younger brother who was adored by his revolutionary stepfather, suddenly finding himself thrust into the limelight without any natural social skills; add to this an intense emotional nature kept hidden - so intense that he never got over the forced ending of his marriage to Vipsania - and a natural wish for seclusion and quiet study when not discharging his military duties; no wonder he needed a lifeline into the light. As a whimsical aside - but one which the Emperor himself would have appreciated, due to his reliance on Thrasyllus - Tiberius was quite typical of his birthsign! (I once dabbled with astrology in my 'New Age' period and now that ephemerides are available online for every year since about 1000 BC, his horoscope is very, very revealing indeed! )