The Augusta

A good point, Caldrail, but this doesn't seem to be what Kosmo was saying. I understand that in the later Republic the proteges of certain factions in the senate were given imperium and put in charge of armies (Octavian, for instance, at the behest of Cicero, was given propraetorian rank in order to help Decimus Brutus at Mutina), but Kosmo seems to be implying that putting 'inexperienced' consuls in charge of the army was a deliberate policy - for what ends I am unclear. Surely, throughout the main years of the Republic, the annual consuls were the unquestioned commanders of the legions? The example of Octavian is a case in point. Hirtius and Pansa (the consuls for 43BC) were actually the commanders in chief of the Republican forces sent to Mutina against Antony. What I was trying to get Kosmo to explain - perhaps you can do it in his absence - was why he thought this policy of entrusting the army to the elected consuls - the highest officials in the state - was a deliberate policy to foster competition within the Republic. I don't see it that way. Rome was a state that had been built on military conquest and military defence - probably no different to any state in the ancient world. Is it not then the norm to entrust the safety and defence of that state to its highest elected officials?

A good point, Cato. I will post a series as soon as I can - at the moment I am constantly fighting my daughter for use of the laptop as my own PC is minus internet until Friday! But there are some very good sites with great images, and I have a collection of images on my own PC which I will upload to my Photobucket account for discussion. As for the women of the Republic whose portraits have survived, this is part of the problem in itself, as many are unnamed. As far as I am aware, the first Roman woman who was awarded a statue was Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi. Before that time, female statuary represented deities or legendary figures. I will try to get some links up today, and will introduce more as the discussions progress. A quick edit to add and clarify: Cornelia's statue was the first to be awarded to a living Roman woman.

As you know, I have only been here a couple of months at the most, but have loved every minute of my time here. My teenagers love it even more, for it means that I no longer need to bore them about Romans and Greeks. But whilst I have thoroughly enjoyed taking part in the political threads, and have even ventured a toe into the vast waters of the military, I must admit to almost dreading 'yet another thread about Augustus'. Don't get me wrong, I love the man - he is one of my all time heroes; but I sometimes find myself at a loss for anything new to say about him. This being the case, I have spent the last couple of days trawling through old threads to see what has and has not been discussed during the history of UNRV - and particularly, what response certain topics were given. The art and architecture of the Roman Republic and Empire do not appear to have been discussed in any great depth (I'm sure PP or Viggen will point me to the appropriate thread if I have missed it). This is a vast topic, and I am sure there must be at least one other member on here who would find it interesting. The literature too, while this appears to have been an area of interest for Pompeius Magnus (the member, not the historical figure) did not seem to garner the replies in threads that debates about the fall of the Republic or Republic versus Empire attract. Having studied the culture of the ancient world in all its diverse forms, I always found it an integral part of the history, and one that informs our knowledge of the Romans. One area of particular interest to me is the 'personality cult' of the emperors, and the wealth of art and monuments that this produced. But this is just one area, and other members may have other suggestions for some new topics in the Humanitas folder. Would it be worthwhile, for instance, to explore the changes in portrait sculpture? Could we compare, say, the way Cicero or Sulla were portrayed by the sculptors, to the more idealised, semi-religious and Hellenistic influenced portraits of an Augustus or a Tiberius? Did the portraits of women (few as these were in the Republican period) really change as much with the ushering in of the Imperial period? Zanker's The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Michigan, 1990) explored the political interplay in some depth, but I am more interested in discussing the topic from a cultural point of view. I don't know if there are any art enthusiasts in our community, but if there are, could we get some discussions going? And if there are also other topics where members feel the threads are lacking, could you please post your comments.

Ah, I see where you are coming from now, Cato. Yes, I do agree that there is a double standard. It's the whole 'trendy lefty' bit (as we say over here). There has been something of a tendency for the middle-classes to romanticise communism - and not just since its overthrow in eastern Europe. What always makes me laugh about this double standard is that the extreme right and the extreme left have more in common than they would dare to admit, and IMHO, both were examples of totalitarianism. But what do I know? I'm one of those wishy-washy moderates (Come to think of it, I shouldn't really apologise for that, even in fun.)

Richard the who? Gaius, it has been my life's work to be the repository of useless information!

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Cato, but sadly you are wrong in this. There are quite a few neo-Nazi organisations in our neck of the woods, and throughout other countries in Europe. One only has to go to any football (soccer) game on the continent too - especially Spain - where hardline supporters not only chant racist rubbish at black players, but actually stand there offering fascist salutes and sporting bare arms full of SS tatoos. The only good thing one can say about these morons is that they are a handful of fanatics at a sporting event - bad enough in itself, but they are not in politics. However, over here in Britain we have the BNP - British National Party - who claim not to be racist, but a quick look at their website might convince people otherwise. Getting into conversations with these people (and they are a recognised party who have won political seats throughout the country, albeit - thankfully - in small numbers) you would be surprised how they introduce Hitler into the proceedings - almost as an apology. Some of them also jump on the Holocaust Denial bandwagon too.

I think if you did, Julius, we'd be in The Arena quicker than you could say Jack Straw!

Kosmo, I find this a fascinating viewpoint. Could you elaborate on it a little? Why, do you think, was it a 'deliberate policy'? What was the purpose of this?

November 16th - and a happy 2047th birthday to Tiberius. Poor soul - someone has to stick up for him.....

Like everyone else, I mourn the gaps in Livy and Tacitus, as well as the earliest accounts of Rome's history and other sources used by Livy and Tacitus. Didn't Asinius Pollio write a history? That would have been interesting as he was an Antonian. I also greatly regret the loss of Agrippa's biography and Agrippina's memoirs. Had Agrippina's memoirs survived (and they were never going to, were they?) it would at least provide us with a major work by an imperial Roman woman. Whatever truth or nonsense is to be found in personal memoirs, although they may not be as historically valuable as an objective history, they would at least have given us some insights into the personalities involved.

Shall I bite this old chestnut yet again....? No...no...Can't be bothered. Just mention a few names: John Terry, Joe Cole, Frank Lampard, Geremi, Carlo Cudicini, Wayne Bridge - and before last year: Eidur Gudjohnssen, Damien Duff, Scott Parker..... Can't seem to remember Abramovich having much to do with artificially building up these guys - all of whom helped to win the Premiership in 2005 - Chelsea's first title in the top division for 50 years. And you would be a braver man than me, Viggen, if you accused John Terry of having no soul. He has been with the club since he was 14 years old. Dammit! I've bitten after all I won't buy Chelsea getting by Manchester United. As far as I know there is really only one team that has been so dominant throught the years and that's Man U. Liverpool plays Chelsea well, a classic rivalry, I would not be shocked if they pull a win off. As always: Lets Go Arsenal! I have no complaint with your final comment, Ram! Arsenal (we lovingly refer to them as 'The Arse' ) are a truly superb team who play the best football in the Premiership when they are in form. Ihave nothing but respect for Arsenal. Liverpool only play Chels well in Cup games; in fact, they play everyone well in Cup games - especially those that can be decided on penalties. We have creamed them in the Premiership for three seasons now. As for Man U, we meet on 26th November. Would you like a little bet? But you are right, they have a stronger team this year, but still lack strength in depth in their entire squad - and its is depth of squad that gets you through a premiership season. We will have overtaken them by Christmas.

Thanks for your replies Caldrail and Cato. Just to lighten it up, I now have a lovely image in my mind of armies of slaves sneaking out to sell their stories to Suetonius!

Indeed And I will third it! However, I detect in the quotes of Polybius (cited by Pant) above some echoes of the fall of the Athenian democracy. That may be just me, of course, but the Romans themselves would have had the lesson of the Athenian 'experiment', which ultimately failed - for more reasons than a clamouring populace, I grant you. But when we consider the Romans' own view of themselves I'm surprised no one has brought in dear old Cicero, who wrote a treaty about duty to the state and that a good Roman citizen should strive to serve the Republic - ambition was the birthright of the good citizen, providing it was used for the common good. And don't worry, Cato - you won't need to get out your net and trident to hurl at me, this time - for I personally agree with this principle, and do feel that the majority of politicians of the Republic upheld it. As the Republic gained more territories, however, obviously things became strained - and the wonderful discussion above has threshed these out very fully. As always - thank you gentlemen.

Yep, Octavian had Caesarion killed, citing that he was illegitimate and not the true son of Caesar. But he would have said this anyway, wouldn't he? How could he have left a possible claimant to Caesar's fortune alive? Seems to me that HBO are going to be quite pro-Augustan and win the viewers' sympathy for him. The viewers already know that Caesarion is NOT Julius' child. Therefore, when Octavian kills him it will not be so hard to bear. I have a constant love-hate relationship with this series: love it one minute, loathe it the next.

Now, this is exactly what I was looking for in the original post. I have posted this question in The Republic folder precisely to ask about the successes/failures of the Republic - not the Principate; however, all replies have been enlightening. And I am one of those people who sees merit in both forms of government, and although I am a great admirer of Augustus, I nevertheless believe that he made a very fundamental mistake in creating the Principate: he made its success dependent upon the personality of the individual Princeps. This may be naive of me, but it is a belief I have held for over 30 years. Augustus was capable of ruling well, but could not legislate for his successors doing likewise. I think that many of us on here would admit to the same, Cato. I am certainly not ashamed of doing so. But that would form an entirely different discussion.... The only thing I am missing in this debate - and it is a point addressed so far only by Gaius Octavius and Spittle, is what the Romans themselves considered to be the most important principle(s) of good government. Gaius stated that in his opinion it was 'The Law'; Paul, that it was 'self-control'. I myself, IMHO, consider that 'libertas' was perhaps one of the foremost things in the Republican mind. But was there even one single principle, or many? Can we even arrive at a consensus? Were the principles different for different elements of society? Does anyone wish to elaborate on this?

"In 43 A.D., he was proscribed to be killed (people were placed on a secret list by the government for a proscription of their death), but he learned of this and escaped. He was eventually assassinated in 45 A.D" Good heavens! No wonder he's had such an influence on later ages, living as long as he did!

I tend to agree with this, Caesar, and although I can see where Cato (above) was coming from when he said that Julius as an individual is perhaps 'responsible' for the downfall of the Republic, like you I believe that the political climate had to be right to produce such an individual. I have always been of the belief that the great characters of history are instrumental, perhaps even causal, in bringing about great change, but in this case I tend to think that if it hadn't been Julius it would have been someone else.

Can I just say: 'Hear, hear' and leave it at that? Well said Ursus and Cato.

It was Dio, Phil (Book 58) Don't ask me to name the Chapter - I'd have to go to the shelves. Suffice it to say, it's Dio. Liv actually saved the lives of these men by her comment.

In the interest of English footie fans on these Fora, I am bumping this. Today Chelsea 4, Watford 0. The second hat-trick of the season for the Drogs and Sheva is starting to fire on at least one of his cylinders. Look out Man U - you have started at a fast pace, but we are only just coming into form. Paulinus - our esteemed Leeds fan - how are you feeling now you have Denis and Gus on board? Sorry, guys - I have to do it. I fell in love in the 70s with three things: Roman history, Chelsea Football Club and David Bowie. To this very day, I remain steadfastly loyal to all three.

Caldrail - this fascinates me. Could you point us in the direction of the source that states this fact? It was something I had a slight issue with in the HBO/BBC Rome series.

An interesting reply, Phil, but it doesn't answer my question. (I appreciate this is a vast topic and you may have little time) You have not said in your post what you believe the Romans felt to be the most important principles. If we can take some political catchwords - virtus, pietas etc., and there are more... This is the sort of thing I mean.

I would like to throw something into the ring here that will hopefully help to focus everyone's mind and knowledge. I love reading everyone's posts, and while not always agreeing with everyone's point of view, each post can only enrich our knowledge. I wish to start a topic that can bring forth a multitude of ideas, debates and evaluations, and will hopefully have some life in it. My question is: What do you think the Romans of the Republic saw as the most important principle(s) of good government, and how successful do you think they were in achieving these aims. For the purposes of the discussion, the focus does need to be on what the Romans themselves considered to be the most important principle(s), but when evaluating how well they achieved it, we can use both ancient and modern value systems (well, it may be impossible not to). The floor is yours, citizens.

The British Tabloid Press. Especially sports journalists! (Sorry - a private joke. I'm not explaining - I'd be here all day.)