The Augusta

Welcome, Zama (what a wonderful name!). I hope you enjoy your time on this quite brilliant Forum. I only joined myself a couple of months ago, and am hopelessly addicted. I have to admit that I am shamefully ignorant about Roman Britain, but am attempting to do something about that. Hopefully you can join the array of experts on here and help to educate me. While on this subject, could Pertinax, or one of our other erudite gentleman/ladies please enlighten me as to which 'tribe' I would have belonged to. I was born and bred in North Cheshire - hence, Cornovii, I think. But then, I was on the edge of Manchester, which comes under the Brigantes? Help - I am rootless! Any information would be gratefully received.

I'll say! I first visited 'The Pleasure House' at Pompeii in 1979! I wouldn't say distasteful, Phil - but I would say 'unimaginative'!

You are implying that Lepidus was merely prey caught in Octavian's well-laid trap; this apparently was not the case. When Lepidus decided to turn on Octavian he was in a very strong position: most of the legions in Sicily were under his control, and Octavian had seemly few troops. The only reason Lepidus did not receive his intended result was because he did not bank on his troops defecting to 'Caesar's heir'. My apologies, WW - I have only just revisited this thread and seen this post, which deserves the courtesy of a reply, for this is a good point. I did not mean to imply that Octavian laid a trap for Lepidus, and I can certainly see where you have concluded such an implication in the way I expressed myself. You are quite right to point out that Lepidus was in a strong position at this period, and I can only offer in my defence that many eminent historians have suffered from the same degree of hindsight. He is often passed over because he departed from the scene early on in the power struggle between Antony and Octavian. The point I was really trying to make was that although Lepidus had (was it 8 legions? - I write from memory, here) - even among his own forces were old veterans long overdue for their discharge. The Sicilian War had been a long protracted affair lasting some 8 years in total. I think this is why he 'played into Octavian's hands'. Had he been a better judge of his men, Lepidus would have perhaps realised that to ask them to fight on to keep hold of Sicily was folly. Plus - Octavian at this stage was advocating peace and promise of discharge to the soldiers; by Lepidus attempting to spur them to more war, he put his head in a noose. Is this any clearer - or do you still disagree? Or are we even off-topic?

Aphrodite, you are a godsend! We ladies languish here among our beloved patriarchs...... But to be fair to the men on the Forum, they would welcome 'the female slant', and we only have ourselves to blame if we don't contribute. I have several little projects in mind..... I hope you'll help. I look forward to posting and chit-chatting with you over the coming months.

Julius Ratus, how dare you suggest Cato and I are at war? I would not presume....... Seriously - I have the greatest of respect for this esteemed member of the Forum..... and I did not jest when I said that he terrifies me! :notworthy: ...

Then I'm sure you exult in the knowledge that justice was finally delivered to Caesar? Funny, you never mentioned your punching his portrait in the nose. Cato, there are times when - just like your namesake - you absolutely terrify me! But I shall be brave... There is no logic in your conclusion that because I dislike Cicero, I therefore must uphold a Verres or an Antony. Shame on you! And you have deliberately and mischeviously taken the above quote out of context. It was Cicero himself, in the De Officiis who made the argument for the killing of tyrants, when starting from a premise that 'all murder is wrong'. I, unlike Cicero, believe murder is wrong in all cases. Justice finally delivered to Caesar? His assassination was an act of cowardice and done without much foresight. I will never condone it. Nor will I ever condone Cicero's actions in 'using' Octavian to oust Antony, while secretly hoping to dispose of the boy when the job was done.

Indeed. And I could not bear the looks of sheer disdain and contempt from my two!

Citizens! Fulvia has been in the Series. I cannot remember off the top of my head just which episode it was, but there was the scene where Antony was being fed grapes or some such by a slut in a diaphanous robe. He called her Fulvia. I agree with Frankq that Octavia is not too far from her historical self - but the whole mythical Glabius storyline and her leaping into bed with Servilia is just gratuitious nonsense. If I've said it once..... she should be married to Gaius Claudius Marcellus during the action of Series 1, and by the end of it she would have had at least her elder Marcella and been pregnant with the younger. And in series 2.....I wonder where Marcellus is going to come from.... As for Atia - she is simply grotesque, and I can't wait for 43BC!

A sight that I would have given two limbs to see! This has been an interesting debate. As for me, I once entered the Vatican Museum where there is an array of senatorial busts, Cicero at its centre: I crossed the rope and punched him square in the face - in front of the Guide! I was only 18, but that was the passion he invoked in me at the time. I'm with Kingsley Amis, who wrote in his copy of Cicero's Letters at boarding school 'Antony was worth ten of you, you b******!' What is it about Cicero that gets the juices flowing? Now that I am a grand middle-aged lady of almost five decades, I obviously view him with less hatred, but I do not think I could ever truly admire him. His flawed argument in the De Officiis was enough to turn me against him forever. It is wrong to kill, but not if the victim is 'a tyrant'. Self-centred, self-glorifying and pompous: I have still yet to be convinced.....

Sejanus is the adoptive form of the name of his gens - Sejanus was a Sejus at birth (like his father of the same name who preceded him as Prefect of the Guard - Lucius Sejus Strabo). At some point in his childhood, perhaps, young Sejus was adopted by a member of the Aelian gens. This was, of course, another way for a Plebeian or Equestrian to acquire a third name or cognomen.

Welcome, GJC. Do your multi-coloured posts have a significance? I will keep it simple: I would sit on a stone garden seat with Livia and chew the fat with her while enjoying her daily recommendation of a cup of unwatered Pucine wine. And if I could do anything to change history, I would literally club Agrippa over the head to knock him out, rather than let him go to Pannonia on that fateful last campaign.

Ah - welcome back, Ursus!

Our esteemed Triumvir, Primus Pilus, asked me to pass on the questions from my little Mastermind quiz last night. I gave it a good go, and got all my JC questions right, but passed on a few general knowledges (I had no idea that Margaret Beckett took caravanning holidays! - does anyone care? ) so I came joint second from 10 contenders, and I was beaten by a lady whose specialist subject was the first three Famous Five Novels of Enid Blyton! Well, it takes all sorts.... Here are the questions - all extremely easy, I thought: I will not append the answers, in case anyone 'wants a go'. 1. What relation was Tiberius to Augustus? 2. When Augustus named Tiberius as his heir, he stipulated that his nephew Germanicus should succeed Tiberius. What happened to prevent this? 3. Why, in 29AD did Tiberius banish Agrippina and her sons, Drusus and Nero? 4. Who succeeded Sejanus as commander of Tiberius's Praetorian GUard? 5. Tiberius died in 37AD. He had not lived in Rome for ten year. Where had he been living? 6. How did Tiberius's successor, Gaius, come to be called Caligula? 7.Whom did Caligula adopt as his heir? 8. What were the names of Caligula's two [sic] sisters? [i corrected this!] 9. How and at whose hands did Caligula die? 10. How was Claudius related to Caligula? 11. Name Claudius's third and fourth wives. 12. What surname was given to Claudius's son Tiberius Claudius and why? 13. During the last years of his reign three men, Callistus, Narcissus and Pallas gained great influence over Claudius. What was remarkable about this? 14. By what name is Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus better known? 15. How old was Nero when he succeeded Claudius? 16. Name the tutor of Nero who exterted great influence over him? 17. On Nero's instructions his mother, Agrippina, was battered to death. There had been a previous attempt on her life. Describe it. 18. What was Nero doing for most of 67-68AD? 19. What was the name of the Prefect of the Praetorian Guard who is often called 'Nero's evil genius'? 20. When fire ravaged Rome in 64AD why was it widely believed that Nero had insitgated the fire? .................................................................................................................................... So, there you are - I told you they were easy.

Ah - where ignorance is bliss.... Now, you see, because I know next to nothing about the actual fall of the Empire beyond the odd name and date, I actually found myself quite enjoying this! I was actually rooting for old Alaric, and even felt sorry for Honorius, caught up in the whole inevitability of things. It did make me want to learn more about the period, so on that extremely basic level, it succeeded for me. However.... (there's always a however)...... Pertinax has summed up exactly what I was thinking. I was going to post immediately after the episode to see if any of our late empire experts would testify to the authenticity/accuracy of the events and people portrayed. I did wonder, as I watched, whether Alaric and his Goths were quite so noble a race as they seemed to be here, and whether Honorius was correctly portrayed. Judging by the comments I have read, it would seem I was wise to question the presentation. But I certainly will look into the late empire more now - so that's a small point in favour of the entire series.... a very, very small point.

I am glad that others are just as confused as I about this whole thread! What exactly is the point behind the opening post? What argument is Chimera setting before us? Why does he ask if there is 'an error'? Is this a continuation of the 'Why Marble' thread? - I was confused with that one too!

Thanks, PP - I think, in that case, I will pass on this one!

Would you recommend them, Julius? Bearing in mind, of course, that I am a terrible 'nit-picker'. I have often picked one up in a bookshop and flicked through, but the writing did not engage me. However, I would be prepared to persevere with this for a well-told story. I do keep thinking about it, but have not yet taken the plunge.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a good battle, but by dramatising Philippi, might not there be more problems than there would have been with Pharsalus? Not only were two battles fought, but the armies were separated in the engagements too. So, are we going to have the depiction of Antony's initial victory over Cassius, or Brutus' initial victory over Octavian? Or will we just have the final day? What the heck! Come on, HBO, throw more money about and give us it all in all its glory!

Having just received my copy of this book through the post I was somewhat dismayed to read such a scathing review by Divi Filius. Let me immediately say that I have not yet read enough of the work to agree or disagree with DF's review, but I have read enough to see exactly what he means by dismissing it as sheer panegyric. However, I am in the happy position of being a Scipio novice, if an enthusiastic one, so I will accept the work for what it is and hope that it furthers my knowledge of the great man. What I would say, in agreement with DF, is that I am already somewhat disappointed (having only reached Chapter 3) with the way Liddell-Hart has presented his material. Huge passages are simply quoted from Livy or Polybius - and as I have just completed Livy's account, I feel as though I am going over exactly the same ground without reaching any measured conclusion. The quotations are even worked into the narrative as though they are the author's own words, which I find annoying. As for the arguments advanced so far, I am allowing for the fact that this book was written in the 1920s when many historians, military or otherwise were questioning the morality of war following the slaughter of the First World War. In the present Chapter dealing with the siege of Cartagena, for instance, Liddell-Hart feels obliged to excuse Scipio's behaviour when taking the town - or rather his troops' behaviour - and he is at pains to stipulate the difference here. Of course, these days, historians would not feel it necessary to defend the strategies and tactics of ancient warfare from a purely moral standpoint. But Liddell-Hart goes one step further - and I think this is the kind of thing that has annoyed DF. After condemning the initial slaughter of the townsfolk and excusing it as an ancient measure, he then proceeds to praise Scipio for his forebearance and generous treatment of the prisoners. This was such an obvious device that it appeared a little ham-fisted to me. But I will persevere and perhaps report back when I have finished the work. At least the endless repetition of Livy is fixing the historical chronology firmly in my head!

Isn't it amazing how we all revere 'I, Claudius', even though many of us disagree with some of its portrayals. I find this fascinating, and perhaps worthy of its own thread at some time. We snipe at films like 'Augustus' and find faults (some of us!) with 'Rome' where the historical facts are plainly wrong - yet 'I'Claudius' was full of inaccuracies: Gaius dying before Julia's banishment; Lucius dying afterwards; Postumus' banishment coming after Varus's defeat in Germany; the revenge against Arminius coming before Augustus' death etc. I still remain a devout fan of 'Claudius' and probably could recite the script! And yet I do not agree with the protrayal by Graves of any one of the charcters, either in the novel or in the adaptation - well, perhaps with the notable exceptions of Antonia and Drusus (I). Are we seduced by the consummate acting? It would be interesting to discuss just why 'Claudius' has remained the yardstick by which all other dramas about Rome are measured.

Paul - Barrett's biography is factual history, and worth a read. And his theory on the 'poisoned figs' anecdote related by Dio as a rumour, is enlightening. He gives an extensive bibliography incorporating both modern scholarship and the old stalwarts such as Mommsen and Syme, together with evidence drawn from a wide collection of inscriptions etc. He has certainly 'done his homework'.

Ah...thereby hangs a tale! But you are too kind. And speaking of biographies, Anthony A. Barrett's Livia, The First Lady of Rome (published in 2002) is well worth a read. Barrett does a fine job in attempting to rescue Livia from the malignant tradition associated with her, and paints a picture of a woman I have known for quite some time He even adds some charming little anecdotes that I certainly did not know of before - such as her recipe for toothpaste and a cure for sore throats! The book is readily available on Amazon or from the online Blackwell's at a realistic price of around

May I state again what I said on another thread. We have the benefit of hindsight, naturally - and we must not overestimate Agrippa's influence at this time. By far the more senior soldier who was at Apollonia with Octavian was Salvidienus Rufus. It was only in 38BC when Agrippa was recalled from Gaul to take charge of the plans against Pompeius that he becomes a great military figure. Octavian's main forces at Perusia, for instance, were under the command of Rufus.

The only snippets we have are to be found in Nicolaus of Damascus, where he states that Octavius and Agrippa were friends in 46BC and educated together. Reinhold (Marcus Agrippa, 1937) speculates from various inscriptions found in Dalmatia bearing the name of the Vipsanii that Agrippa was of Illyro-Venetian origins, although there is of course no concrete proof. We do know that his elder brother Lucius was a supporter of Cato Uticensis and fought at Thapsus on the Pompeian side. When taken prisoner he was pardoned by Caesar, due to the intercession of Octavius. Agrippa himself took part in Caesar's Spanish Campaigns of 46-45BC as a very young man. Beyond this we know nothing for certain.

Spittle - such an entertaining review! I did actually read a synopsis of this film on Amazon and realised immediately that it was not for me. You have renewed my faith in myself! I can't quite convey a scream of blood-curdling horror on the Forum, so I will resort to the tried and tested comic book 'AAARRRGGH!!!' Livia being raped?! This is almost comic. I would imagine that the great lady would have attacked her attackers with a verbal barrage of caustic sarcasm, while sneering at their manhood so much that they would not dare have gone any further for fear of being laughed at. Phil - an interesting comment regarding Rampling. I always see Rampling as voluptuous, something which Livia never was. If Sian Philips was not in her early 70s now, I would still cast her as Livia regardless of how the script of a film portrayed the woman. She is definitive. And by the way - as she is O'Toole's ex-wife, I wonder how he compared the two performances and portrayals? I have no problem with Maecenas being 'camp'. He probably was, but not effeminate - two different things. Pertinax - a catchy statement. If we had a 'most memorable' section on the Forum, I would nominate that succinct summing-up of our fearless leader. Although I hasten to add it is somewhat kind.