The Augusta

May I be the first to offer our blessed Pertinax greetings on his birthday. Phew - it's nice to see that someone is older than me! Hope you have a great day, Pertinax.

May I add my respects to all those who died in the two world wars - and indeed, to all those who have died in war. On Remembrance Sunday, we should perhaps forget the politics, the rights and wrongs of this cause and that. For one day of the year, we are to remember the dead of all nations. Whether sent into battle by whoever we consider to hold the moral high ground, those young men gave their lives. They are all deserving of our thoughts at this time. 'They shall grow not old, as we who are left grow old, Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn, At the going down of the sun, and in the morning, We shall remember them.' L. Binyon (1869-1943) On a recent regional news programme here in the UK, two men came together after 88 years: the two oldest survivors of the First World War, one English soldier, one German. Both were centenerians; both hugged each other and wept. A humbling sight.

Gaius died of a 'consumption' (brought on after his treacherous wounding at Artagira) in 4AD, although since the wounding in 2AD he had lived the semi-retired life of an invalid. Lucius died of marsh fever on his way to the legions in Spain (2AD) It was Agrippina who married Germanicus, Paul. Julia the Younger was married to one of the Aemilians. It does get confusing, doesn't it? Not to mention all the 'Elders' and 'Youngers'..

At the risk of going off topic - and having PP split the thread - I have no doubts in my own mind that Posthumus was guilty of some serious crime. Suetonius relates how Augustus referred to Posthumus and the two Julias as 'his three boils', and in fact he left instructions in his will that none of the three should have their ashes interred in his mausoleum. Whatever they had done, it must have hurt him deeply to leave such an instruction; he clearly could not forgive them, even at the end of his life. I know from various posts of yours that you concur with my own view that Julia the Elder's charge of adultery covered the more serious charge of a political plot. Ovid's banishment, you may recall, occurred when he was caught up in the frolics of the younger Julia too. There has always been speculation among scholars that the younger Julia was also at the centre of a political plot. If we add Posthumus into the mix, it might well explain why there were 'three' boils! If Posthumus was a political suspect, it would explain why Augustus did not look to him for future heirs - even when in banishment, as you say. It is also worth mentioning that Posthumus' banishment was a twofold process. At first he was simply relegated (relegatio) to Campania (5AD); only later in 7AD was this relegation converted into permanent banishment. Had he been relegated for brutish behaviour, which even the senators complained of to Augustus, and then banished when he grew more politically dangerous? We can only speculate. In any case, from 7AD, all Augustus' hopes of his own bloodline rested with Germanicus.

Just a couple of things, Phil. Postumus was only 16 when he was banished, at which time he was betrothed to Domitia Lepida. So there was clearly the intent to marry him off and breed yet more little Julians. As for Augustus 'preferring' Tiberius - in 4AD they were adopted together (he and Postumus). Augustus. while perhaps planning for a regent's role for Tiberius until Postumus came of age, could not have foreseen at that stage the downfall of Postumus 3 years later. At which time, of course, he had no other boys of the Julio-Agrippan line to adopt, and had already planned a Julian succession through Germanicus (a point Agrippina made much capital of!).

Having read the discussion in the above-mentioned old thread on this very topic, I have to say I am so glad I missed it too! I don't think it ever got to us here in the UK, but if it did, it passed me by. Perhaps it's as well.

Paul - Germanicus and Claudius were Augustus' great-nephews by blood. Their mother was Antonia, daughter of his sister Octavia. As to your other question - IMHO, Augustus' only motive in having Tiberius adopt Germanicus was to ensure Julian grandchildren, as you so rightly say. I think it was definitely Augustus' intention upon adopting Gaius and Lucius during their natural father's lifetime, to leave Agrippa as regent for them had Augustus himself died. However, whether the Senate would have accepted young Gaius as their Princeps is somewhat open to debate. He may well have had the same idea in mind in 4AD when he adopted Tiberius on the proviso that he in his turn adopt Germanicus. He had also adopted Postumus at the same time to keep all his irons in the fire. However, both Germanicus and Postumus were little more than boys in 4AD, so had Augustus died, Tiberius would have served as regent. But yet again - we can only speculate to a) the innermost workings of Augustus' mind, and what the Senatorial reaction would have been had the first Princeps died at a younger age.

Seen-yora. (approx) And you're right, Antiochus - the 'g' is silent.

Well said, Germanicus. The idea of the death penalty acting as a deterent has always been spurious, in my opinion; yet it is the argument that many in England who want the death penalty brought back have used. One of our most notorious child-killers here, Ian Brady (still alive in prison after 40 years), carried out his crimes over a period of five years before hanging was abolished in England. In fact it was abolished only months before his capture. So the threat of the rope certainly didn't deter him, and of course it would not have deterred a man with the power of Saddam. Saddam would not have ever considered being in the position he is now, and as for the individual - Brady did not believe he would ever be caught. Did Bundy? I tend to agree that it is 'an eye for an eye' justice, and I would not wish to see it ever brought back to England. Having said that, I do concede that it is maybe easier to uphold this principle when our country has not been subjected to the atrocities of a tyrant like Saddam. I just want it to be an Iraqi decision.

There was already a member who had taken my name Livia Drusilla - talking of which, where is the little imposter? Therefore, I decided to use the title Augustus left to me in his will, the dear man. I have dropped the Julia, as I am a Claudian - a point I could never get across to him..... And as several of my successors used 'Augusta' as part of their official nomenclature, I thought I should really distinguish myself by the use of the definite article. I was the first Augusta, therefore 'The' Augusta. And as Augustas went, they didn't come any bigger than me! It is a sad state of affairs to watch from the heavens and see how countless thousands have maligned me through history. And now my altars are deserted. I've not seen as much as a spoonful of chicken blood in two thousand years! I am not sure who that woman is over on the left..... Some Welsh actress, I am told...

May I thank you all for your wonderful, detailed replies. And now, of course, being reminded of the passages in Livy, I could kick myself! Of course there is mention of the Carthaginian fleet. I think the mistake I have made here is in reading the history purely with Scipio as my target of interest. Now that my wider interest is kindled, I will, of course, be returning to study in more depth, and no doubt all will become clear. Nor do I actually have a copy of Polybius on my shelves - a glaring omission! Thank you to Pan for highlighting the relevant passages. Another mistake I have made, of course - and I thank all who have drawn my attention to it - is to assume that Hannibal was autonomous, when he was subject to similar constraints and strictures by his own government in Carthage as Scipio was at Rome. Of course, we do not get to hear who these leading politicans were - natural enough from a Roman author who is mainly concerned with the generals involved in the war. I have probably assumed that Hannibal and the Barcine party were the ruling clan and had made their own policy, when this was not the case. I can see I have much more reading ahead - and I am going to enjoy every little bit of it! Thanks again, everyone.

Phil - just to restore our faith..... my daughter (aged 17) went to high school with a boy called Tiberius. Yes - it's true!

As I have been salivating over this for a few weeks, is there any way we can purchase it in the UK? Or do we have to send to the US for it? I have a wall crying out for it!

It depends what you mean, Phil. Certainly, no 'ordinary' family would be able to trace themselves back so far, purely because surnames themselves only became fixed in the middle ages. In England, for instance, a family could only trace itself back with any certainty to the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth I, when a ruling by the Church of England declared that all parish registers should be kept for perpetuity. HOwever, there are ways around this with certain documents that are still in existence: hearth tax, window tax etc. which may have records of a family back to the early 1500's, or sessional papers from regional courts which can go back as far as about 1430. Beyond that, only the gentry or - as you point out - royalty, would be able to present a pedigree from personal records. One of my own lines is traceable by documentation back to the reign of Henry VIII ( a will dated 1538), but beyond this a great deal of speculation is needed, and the 'probability' factor comes into play - easier when the surname is more uncommon, but hopeless otherwise. Interesting point there about the English monarchy tracing itself back to 600 AD. I never knew that, but it does not surprise me.

Please do not apologise, Publius. I would rather admit to ignorance on a topic than pretend to knowledge I do not have. And everyone's answers have been helpful. As I am much more Principate than Punic, I was expecting fleets to be manning coastlines against possible invasion, but you have all explained how this was not the case. Also fascinating, PP - and of course, we must not forget that even Hannibal and the Senate in Carthage may not have been expecting an invasion by Scipio.

This is the sad state we all find ourselves in, Cato. We love the history of the Roman world, therefore we greedily tune into whatever is on offer. And I fully agree with you, that 'anything Rome' is better than nothing. But I also share your disappointment in how poorly some of these programmes are researched. And if only the producers would stop this spurious representation of goodies and baddies!

Ah, thank you, Publius. Now this starts to make sense. Would you say, then, that Scipio used this knowledge in his strategy? Did it perhaps colour his decision to sail to Carthage to draw Hannibal from Italy? I apologise if these questions seem simplistic to you all, but I do want to learn the finer points. One can read and read and read, but there is nothing like other people's lively opinions to deepen the knowledge gleaned from books.

A good point, and I'm sure Docoflove will leap in here at some point as she is our linguistics expert. All I would say about the above examples, Aurelianus, is that 'da Carrara' would no doubt have the meaning of a person 'of Carrara' - cf. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio - the artist. Therefore, IMHO this particular surname would have derived from a placename, as do many of our English surnames. But you are definitely right in that phonetics played a great part in changing original surnames - no doubt the world over. As an enthusiastic genealogist myself, I cannot believe that Roman bloodlines died out entirely - which, of course,is a different thing to names. But we would never be able to trace a modern family back to their Roman roots, purely because no records would exist before the middle ages, in any country I would think - but Doc may well know more on this topic. It's certainly a fascinating one. As an amusing aside to all this - has anyone seen the ludicrous genealogies on the Internet, where certain people claim to have traced their family tree back to ancient Rome? I actually found one purporting to have Livia as a 17th great-grandmother! One has to feel quite sorry for such souls......

Go easy on me boys and girls - as you know I am only a novice regarding the Second Punic War, and if I am posting in the wrong Forum, PP, please remove me to a more appropriate location. However, my interest has really been kindled in this period of Rome's history recently and I would welcome your opinions and expert knowledge. When I read Livy's account of the Second Punic War and reached the part where Scipio sailed for Africa, a question blazed out in my mind: 'How could he just sail his ships up to the Carthaginian shore? They were at war. Didn't Hannibal have a fleet?' It would appear he didn't. And then, only last night, re-reading Grant's History of Rome, he actually states that 'Hannibal had no fleet'. Obviously this was the case, although the peace terms offered by Scipio after Zama mentioned the Carthaginians being restricted to a certain number of ships. Now, my question is: How could a general of the calibre of Hannibal not have a fleet? This intrigues me, and as I am somewhat dense on the finer military points, I wonder if our experts could discuss this point and enlighten me. Do you think it was a shortcoming? Or wasn't it necessary for him to have a fleet at the start of the war?

Now, PP, you have hit on the very point, and it's the one thing that makes me very uncomfortable about the whole 'war crimes' ethos. If it is what the majority of Iraqi's want then hang him. I have to confess to not following the trial too closely - but was this tribunal made up of a majority of Iraqi's? As it was the Iraqi's whom his greatest atrocities were visited upon, then I have no qualms with his standing trial before his peers. It's the 'victors' justice' thing that makes me uncomfortable. Another poster has mentioned Bin Laden. Is Saddam standing trial for him too, just because he's out of reach? I know that this is a very emotive topic, and I may be being very naive and have an imperfect view on it, but I would like to know your views? If you feel it should go into another thread, please say so. And please, don't anyone out there think that I am defending Saddam, because I'm not - far from it.

I just worry that executing Saddam will lend him the status of martyr, which he and his supporters would love.

May I just give a quick thank you to Aurelianus for sorting out my tribes Cornovii it is, then. (I didn't want to take up a huge space by quoting and requoting the previous posts).

I agree. I think Ursus' review has finally persuaded me to take the plunge and learn about Constantine. I have to confess to never being really interested in him before, probably due to the picture painted of him - as Ursus says - in Christian folklore. To write history in the way Kousoulas has, would probably serve as a good introduction and I could make my mind up from there whether or not to study Constantine further. Thanks, Ursus - you have converted me! No doubt Constantine would be pleased.

Dont be so harsh on Tiberius, he has had a lot of bad press, espesialy from Suetonius (i think it was Suetonius, im too lazy to check right now. apologies) May all the gods bless you, Aurelianus! You are right, in that Suetonius, the Max Clifford of the ancient world gave old Tibs a bad press, but Tacitus must share some blame too.

I forgive you, Pertinax - because you are a very great man. And I have updated my avatar just to strike terror into you all!