The Augusta

To the best of my knowledge there has only ever been one English language biography written and that is Meyer Reinhold's (1937), a photocopied version of which I still have in an old blue A4 envelope folder. Even as long ago as 1985 this work was out of print and I had to obtain a lone copy from The British Library. It is high time some scholar out there put together a new appraisal of the man and his achievements. But the paucity of biographical work is a telling comment in itself. Even in his lifetime Agrippa was hated by the nobiles, and Augustus himself was keen to play down his key role in public, although the granting of the tribunicia potestas was perhaps enough to silence any detractors. In modern times he has found admirers among military historians - naturally, for his military achievements speak for themselves. Politically, however, there has still been the tendency to dismiss him as a parvenu and gloss over any political achievements he may or may not have been credited with. That he exercised certain influence over Augustus - or at least was perceived to do so by the nobiles - is borne out by the citation of Maecenas's words in Dio, 54, where Maecenas advises Augustus to marry Agrippa to Julia, as he has now become so powerful that he must be made a member of the Imperial Family or be put to death. Whether this is a fabrication by Dio or not, it was clearly the official view. Agrippa was popular with the People and hated by the aristocracy, who showed their contempt by not attending his funeral games in 12BC. Had he not been so influential a figure within the regime, I doubt he would have incurred the hatred of the nobiles. So although Phil and Ursus have mentioned that we may not know how influential Agrippa was in his own time, I do think the evidence is there in the sources, even if this is implicit rather than explicit. I also believe his role in the settlement of 18BC was crucial, and we have Augustus' own action in 23BC when handing over his signet ring, to prove to us just how highly he was regarded by the Princeps. Rather like Christopher Wren, the physical monument to his greatness was to be seen throughout Rome, and I always cringe when reading the Res Gestae to see that Augustus claims all this glory for himself. But not only did the man beautify, with buildings such as the Pantheon, but he built things to benefit the entire populace - Baths, acqueducts, parks. I think someone has already mentioned his directive regarding the placing of works of art in the public domain for everyone to enjoy. There was also that great feat of engineering - the naval base at Neapolis, and his overhaul of the sewage system. If we remember that he had already held the Consulship in 37BC, and then asked for the aedileship in 33BC in order to inaugurate his great building programme, we can see where his true heart lay: in the practical improvement of facilities. This would have not only made him popular but increased the popularity of his 'master' as well. I am honestly of the opinion that without Agrippa Octavian would not have held onto the support of the People, and perhaps, even, the army. But what all this tells us of Agrippa's own ambitions and personality, would form the basis for a totally separate discussion. It might be fun to speculate on how long his Autobiography survived after his death, and why it has not come down to us in any way. Although posterity admires him, I think this was a man with many enemies.

In my opinion, Sir Ronald Syme's Roman Revolution still remains the definitive work on the rise to power of Octavian. The work is still readily available and will give you an in depth look at the character of a complex man and the advisers around him. It must be remembered that Augustus did not exist in a vacuum, nor did he rise to power in one, and Syme's theory of oligarchial government continuing under Augustus is one with which I personally concur - although others may disagree. I am a great admirer of Augustus, but am at one with Syme in that the substance of the man did not change, only the colour. In the ancient sources, Appian gives a fuller account of the Proscriptions and the Perusian War (neither which did Octavian any credit) than any other author. I would suggest these as places to start in a study of the early career of Augustus. Hope this helps a bit.

There is the whole range of issues dealing with Octavia & Antony. Even without the direct aspect of the Cleopatra fiasco, think about his lack of motivation fighting the Parthians, his dealings with the Armenians, etc... It seems to me there is plenty of content to fill up the episodes. Ah, yes - being a worshipper at the shrine of Divus Augustus, I was forgetting Antony going off to the east pre-Philippi! Fair comment, Pantagathus. However, there were certainly no 'issues' between him and Octavia prior to 40BC when they were married. Not a sausage. Although this series, with its mythical plot lines here and there (Antony as a lover of Atia's etc) may give them some material, I suppose. Even allowing for this, Antony's main eastern involvement was still after Philippi, so I still think they'll struggle to fill five episodes with the historical events. The soap opera, however, is another story...

It's not often that I am lost for words, which is precisely why I could not post last night after this latest debacle, which is fast achieving what I never thought would be possible: it makes ROME look like 'I, Claudius'. Well, where to begin? Most posters who have gone before me have summed it up. I think the casting was truly abysmal. Sean Pertwee? I wouldn't follow him to Tesco's, let alone across the Rubicon! And if I may inject a point on theatrical aesthetics - these actors are trying to convince us that they belong in the clasical world while delivering their lines (albeit poorly-written) with all the class of a twenty-first century gangster. Their delivery is far too modern (a criticism I also level at Polly Walker in ROME - compare her to Lindsay Duncan, for instance). But this is just something that offends me personally, and may not be a valid point for others, so I'll move on. Alesia was all over in seconds, wasn't it? No signs of the siege it was. And then we had the wonderful scene of a totally deserted Rome, looking like a ghost town in an old western! Even the rabble had left. Julius would have found it very hard to address the Assembly in such an atmosphere, methinks. And when he was made Dictator the narrator seemed to believe that this made him Rome's first emperor! And, just for good measure, we also had this rather spurious presentation of Julius as some kind of champion of the common man, standing up to all those nasty, crusty old conservatives in the Senate. As if things were ever so black and white in Rome! Ah well, at least the horses had no stirrups A plea to the BBC: if you seek to educate and entertain people with this series, you are signally failing in the first objective and only marginally achieving the second. A schoolboy would learn far more about Julius if you threw a mildewed old copy of the Commentaries at him - and I think he'd be more entertained into the bargain. Rant over. I will now lie down in a dark room somewhere.

Now, you have worried me already, Decimus. How on earth have they filled the previous five episodes (i.e. 5 hours of TV) with the events between 44BC (March) and 42BC (October). OK, so we have Mutina and the Proscriptions, but it seems they may have put an awful lot of padding material in here. I dread to think....

Purely from a personal point of view, I find the Parthians fascinating and would love to learn more about them. Am I the only one?

Decimus, I would certainly be in favour of a thread about Agrippa. He is, for me, one of the great unsung heroes of history. I was interested to read that one of his daughters married Varus, for I thought I knew all there was to know about 'our Marcus' and have never come across this. Would this be one of his girls with his second wife Marcella? As for someone playing him in 'Rome' - I cannot help seeing a certain amount of foreshadowing in Pullo. I think its a great shame that Ray Stevenson hasn't been saved to play Agrippa. But let's hope we get someone suitably athletic and Herculean. I am just hoping that - given the amount of historical persons who have so far been conspicuous by their absence in this series - that HBO don't dispense with Agrippa altogether and have Pullo 'take his place'. Surely, even they would not dare!

Yes, I admit it was a tad over-simplistic, but Nero, at least in my opinion, was in fact a 'spoilt brat' towards the end of his reign. And the reason the influence of his advisors was not shown was because the show started in 64 AD; this new docudrama got to grips with a man who was beginning to realise just how much unconstrained power he had. That's a fair point, WW. I will agree that the whole programme was presented from this standpoint - Nero's unconstrained power. Whether they truly 'got to grips' with it or not is somewhat open to question.

Oh, dear! Can I be the voice of dissent? I thought this was one of the BBC's shabbier presentations. Pop history at its worst, for me. First and foremost, we had no attempt whatsoever to even try and understand the complexities of this man. We were not, for instance, told that he succeeded Claudius at the tender age of 16, a boy hardly ready for the arduous task reserved for him; nor was it apparent just how much influence his advisers had throughout the earlier part of his reign. And let me say here and now that I am not a 'Nero apologist', but I think the presentation, i.e. 'a spoiled brat who could do anything he wanted' was somewhat over simplistic. I could forgive the tiny things: for a start he was blond! (Suetonius) I could also forgive the mispronunciations of Latin names so familiar to us that they have become household. There was no sign of Epaphroditus at the suicide. I was not over-enamoured of some of the performances either. That aside, I thought we would be in for a serious treatment of our subject when Nero's behaviour at the Great Fire was true to the history and did not - gods forbid - show him 'fiddling'. So I stuck with it....... and wish I hadn't. The script, in places, was abysmal. "Let's hold it together!" was only one example. The computer generated sets - Seneca wandering against a background a la Lord of the Rings - looked dreadful. To me, the whole thing screamed low-budget. But even all this could be forgiven if they had spent 10 minutes or so on the why instead of the how. And the programme makers' contention that Nero was one of the figures fundamental in the eventual fall of the Empire made little sense when one considers that this process took another 400 years. The BBC presented Nero as an erstwhile Lord Byron (mad, bad and dangerous to know), with plenty of gratuity thrown in. The gelding of Sporus was one such scene. Here we were again, forced to watch the sensationalist horrors of naughty men doing their own thing as they ruled the world, amidst a wash of wild generalisations from the narrators. "Nero was the worst Roman Emperor in history" (debatable). "Nero was the greatest builder in Roman history" (not only debatable, completely untrue). I do realise they had to cram everything in in one hour, but, please - he only reigned 15 years, and the story here only dealt with the last 4 years of his reign in any case. Surely it could have had a deeper treatment? Programmes such as this, if they are meant to educate and entertain not only Roman history enthusiasts but the viewer who knows nothing of Nero at all, should at least present a balanced view, and not just repeat the same old stereotype. My son, who watched it with me, is a perfect illustration. He knew nothing about this particular Emperor before watching the programme. At its end, the most lasting image he had was that Nero had kicked Poppaea 13 times! So, sorry, Citizens, I was not impressed with this offering. Let's hope for better in the weeks to come.

I would echo most of the above posts in answering 'Why?' I love Roman history, but as to the 'How it all began?' I was once a terrified little twelve year old grammar school girl who was taught her Latin by an enthusiastic Welshman. (I still conjugate my verbs with a Welsh accent!) Double Latin on Tuesday mornings in the First Year would fill many with dread - I loved it. He reserved one lesson a week for 'Background' as he called it - we would call it Classical Studies today. Can't explain - it just 'got to me'. I never did any serious study of the history until 1976 when 'I Claudius' was screened - and although I thought the series was wonderful, I couldn't help thinking: 'Some of this isn't right'. It was just a very strange gut feeling that some of it wasn't ringing true - so I decided to find out for myself. And so began a journey of love, from first picking up Suetonius to taking my studies to tertiary level. I have moved house several times since then, of course, and the 'Classics' bookshelf always is the first thing to be packed lovingly in the van. My son and daughter have grown up surrounded by the old black-spined Penguin Classics and the tiny colourful hardback Loebs. We have hidden bank notes down the spines of the Cambridge Ancient History for emergency purposes, and I occasionally have to go searching through my 15 year old son's room for stolen works on classical warfare and service in the army. I know instantly when a volume is missing from the shelves - and it has grown over the years to resemble a small branch of Blackwells. I occasionally allow the odd Greek volume to rest among the greater gods too! Incidentally - if my old Latin teacher is on this forum - and it's not beyond the realms... Salve magister!

Thank you so much, gents, for your suggestions. I was certainly not aware that Scullard had written a work on Scipio, and will do my best to obtain it. I have only the Loeb volumes of Appian's Civil Wars to date, so that is another avenue I will explore - and I have been shamefully neglectful of Polybius altogether. I had heard of the Liddell Hart - and will certainly bear in mind the reservations when I read it. A note to the Spartan - I would be happy to discuss Hannibal with you when I've read the Liddell Hart. I was always much more into the political history of Rome than the military (as if it can ever be separated!) but have found that this side is interesting me more and more as I get older. Once again, thank you for your help.

Why, thank you, Nepilla - I will try to be worthy of my name!

Thank you, Ursus - you certainly have a familiar look about you!

If women are allowed, I'd love to come. Any of the three dates are fine for me. I can leave the teenagers at home and I'd even sacrifice Chelsea for Rome! ETA: I have just noticed that I have been manumitted! A thousand thanks

With advance apologies if you have had such a feeble request before..... Could anyone recommend a really good biography/monograph about Scipio Africanus? I have read Livy's account, of course, and done a bit of general skimming, but as this great man has now got his hooks into me, I would appreciate a really good, scholarly tome to get my teeth into. All recommendations greatly received.

Well, there isn't a category for Late Republic/Early Principate, but that's me. Or rather, that is where my deeper knowledge lies - I am excessively ignorant about the Dominate onwards. I don't think it is too fanciful to admit that my love of history is motivated by the people who made it happen; therefore, I tend to be attracted to periods of great change, and specifically change made by a group of strong individuals - for better or worse. This is why I lean towards the late Republic and early Principate, but I am currently attempting to broaden my knowledge of the Punic Wars. The regnal period also interests me, because I would love to unravel the myth from the history - if that can ever be done.

Me too: ligakoesst (and remember - I'm a lady, although I labour under servitude as a newby!)

Yes - even though the purist in me cringes (as Octavian was in Apollonia at the time with Agrippa, Maecenas and Salvidienus) I can allow HBO the artistic licence to give us a JR Ewing 'I'm going to get you' look. I was even saying it myself!! May I ask you all a question? I may have missed something here - I watched the DVDs on a roll, rather than the series as it aired. The character of Sextus Pompeius - was the character introduced as Quintus Valerius Pompeius, illegitimate son of Pompey, who threw himself on Servilia's mercy, meant to be our piratical friend of the second Triumviral period? If so, why in Hades did they give him another name, and why did they make him 'illegitimate'? And how on earth could a person be of the Valerii and the Pompeii? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall any such person as Quintus Valerius Pompeius, so I am thinking he has to return as Sextus. Is this man like the mythical Glabius? And on the subject of husbands and wives - where - by all the gods - is Marcius Phillipus, Atia's second husband, who by all acounts, was a pretty decent step-father to her children?

The whole debate is academic. Homosexuality and bisexuality as modern concepts did not exist in ancient Rome. Perhaps this is not the right thread to go into such a deep subject, but the 20th century outrage at such 'slanders' is based on 2000 years of the post-Christian perspective. For the Romans, to accuse someone like Octavian of 'homosexuality' was not to slander his sexuality as we know it, but his 'lack of manliness' - i.e. he was the submissive partner. An active partner would not have been worthy of a lampoon. It's a subtle difference, but it should be borne in mind. And your outcry, Clodius, defending Augustus against being 'a homo' says a lot more about your attitudes than it does about the Romans'. You will remember Suetonius' illustration (Life of Augustus, 68) of the actor in the theatre who made a witty comment that had a double meaning, which Augustus took in good part. We can never know for sure just who Augustus slept with or did not sleep with (apart from his lawful wives, of course) but I'm sure the slanders and lampoons were a lot less important to Augustus himself than they seem to be to us. Sorry - I see that Ursus covered my point in an earlier post. Please be patient with me, Citizens, I have only just arrived and am reading through and loving it all.

Sorry to jump in on what is perhaps an old thread, but I'm in Paradise on this Forum - at last I find a group who discuss the subject dearest to my heart...... I agree with your view of Augustus, Virgil - and the sentence I have highlighted is, for me, the crux. Augustus, as the creator of the Principate, had overlooked one important thing: the personality of the individual Princeps. This, I think, was the failing of the whole system. He could have set up all the stable measures he liked, but he could not legislate for the character of successive individuals.

I agree - I would love to see a depiction of Actium, but I know it would be sheer self-indulgence to a degree, as I am a huge Agrippa admirer. It would be prohibitive by the cost alone, as you mention, but also, let us be honest, just how historically significant would it be to those of us (all on here) who know the outcome? And from a historical perspective itself, the strategy leading up to the final battle was so well thought out by Agrippa and his seconds that the actual naval engagement was heavily weighted in his favour. Well - there may be those who disagree, but it is my humble opinion. The strategy forced Antony into a naval battle, when Agrippa and his seconds had already proved themselves in the Sicilian War, and the wearer of the Naval Crown and the flier of the blue ensign had gained his reputation. I suppose there was an aura of inevitability about it, once Agrippa had captured Leucas for Octavian. However, symbolically, it was certainly seen in Rome as the apocalyptical confrontation - if that is the right word - the confrontation between east and west, which Octavian won, thus preventing, as the propaganda ran, the Hellenisation of the Empire. For this reason alone they could perhaps splash out a bit and give us something approaching Actium, but I doubt we'll get it.

Ah, but, Paulinus - we have Ken Bates in common. The best of luck with him! (And it's nice to meet you)

As well as the above, which are all staples, if you have access to a good library - or plenty of money to throw around - you can do a lot worse than slog through The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol X, probably in its original edition edited by Charlesworth, Adcock and Cook. You may be able to pick this up at a second hand bookstore too. I progressed to this tome following Suetonius' Lives (The Twelve Caesars), and it covers pretty much all the areas you mention - personality of the Julio-Claudian emperors; achievements - social and military; expansion policy - everything. It will give you a good grounding from which to explore further with more detailed monographs. Don't be put off by the size of the volumes in the CAH. They are very accessible to the layman and come with a host of extras, such as maps, volumes of plates etc. I still use my Volume X for quick reference whenever I want to check a long-forgotten fact. Hope this helps.

Oh, pardon me, Publius Clodius while I have a little chortle. As I'm new I will immediately set myself up as the butt of all your hatred, but like the grand lady whose title I have so shamefully usurped to join this Forum, I don't care! I have been a Chelsea supporter for 37 years. As this makes me a loyal adherent before Roman was out of his nappies, I have no shame in admitting it. I am a season ticket holder, and as I'm a northern lass, you can imagine what money has been shelled out by me over the years...but there you have it, you have to follow your heart when it comes to football. I am expecting the Premiership race to be a little closer this year, but still not as close as the pundits are predicting. I expect a third title, by which time, there won't be a single neutral out there who'll love us. It will make us have so much in common with Leeds!

I was born in the little-known town of Dukinfield, Cheshire - famous, as far as I know, only as the birthplace of the actors John Normington and Kathy Staff. After a brief year or so in London I returned to sunny Tameside (North East Manchester) and lived in Stalybridge for a while. Nice place - edge of the Yorkshire moors. Alas, now I live in doom-laden Droylsden, about 20 minutes walk from the City of Manchester Stadium, and I'm hating it.