Primus Pilus

That's a very interesting question. In the case of Spain, Caesar departed before his appointment had even been ratified by the Senate, so it sounds more like he was running away than that he was pushed. The bankers of Rome--who weren't popular with any faction--attempted to stop Caesar, who was indebted to them to the tune of 25 million sesterces, but Crassus intervened to help him get out of Rome. So to me, it seems like a real stretch to think that Caesar was pushed out. Indeed... probably more a case of fortuitous good riddance by his adversaries than an attempt to indirectly help him avoid the debtors.

Yes, there still seem to be some hiccups.

What would be the fun in that? I agree completely with the notion that he had a habit of "getting out of Dodge", but can we truly label it as an issue of popularity vs. self preservation/protection or even just opportunism on all sides. Clearly we can understand his reasons for fleeing the Sulla controlled Rome but this is also well before the series of events in question. However, did he flee the Cataline conspiracy and Clodian scandal or was the conservative faction of the Senate just as glad to be rid of him and Hispania served as a likely place to not only keep him occupied but to open up the possibility for failure? The notion that Caesar and Cato (as well as various associates on either side) had already been developing an intense political rivalry is well established. Did Caesar flee, or was he also pushed out... similar to what Clodius did to Cicero (exile) and Cato (Cyprus). A stretch perhaps, but worth considering.

[quote name='Julia C

People certainly still remembered the games he provided so his temporary absence (escape) from Rome perhaps allowed scandal to run its course before more pleasant memories returned. The attention he gives to populares causes may also not only be an indication of his 'party politics' but his need to repair damage in the eyes of the people (though its not as if his ideology seems to noticeably change or become more "liberal"). At any rate I agree that prior to his military conquests it would be foolish to think of him as some great iconic figure, but in the end his funeral is fairly indicative of the ultimate sentiment of the Roman people. We've certainly had this conversation before so probably no need to rehash, but the pretext for the Gallic War followed Roman military logic from the start... which was a response to calls for help from allies. Clearly Caesar pushed the envelope and some components of the war are open to intepretation of the law (ie crossing the Rhine), but clearly we disagree on the legality of the entire war.

I've always felt that a bit of dramatic flair was rather indicative of the 18th - 19th century styles. Of course there is the translation issue to consider in Mommsen's case.

No biggie but thought you'd want to know. I also get the "flood control" pretty regularly these days, which I thought had been disabled. I haven't seen the server down error. Maybe it's simply a matter of US servers doing maintenance when there is the least amount of US activity (during your prime time of course). As for flood control, Moon had to do some minor upgrades and it probably got automatically set to the default which was 60 seconds. I lowered it considerably.

Rome or Bust A collection of a few more portraits

You may find some interesting discussion in these threads... Julius Caesar: Good and Bad points Gallic Wars: were they justified There are several but these should give some excellent examples of both sides of the argument.

Absolutely, we are always grateful for contributions. My personal narrative will eventually supercede any main links but who knows how long that might be. And there will always be a home for alternative views regardless of how its linked into that part of the site.

I'm most partial to the growth years of the middle Republic through the earliest part of the Principate.

Augustus alone was quite busy, according to Res Gestae Divi Augusti... Additionally Agrippa is credited with building the Pantheon and he and Augustus are credited for several aqueducts (or repair/rebuilding)... Annio Vetus, Virgo, Julia, Alsietina. Agrippa also built his baths, the theatre in Merida was responsible for many repairs, etc. [EDIT] Oops, I didn't realize initially that you were not including Augustus as part of the Julio-Claudians. I'll leave this post anyway.

I hope they don't take this route completely and at least explore some of the political motivations for Antony's actions in the east (though I don't mind a bit of sexual intrigue of course). They seemed to do a good job with that for most of the first season, but the way they portrayed Cleopatra clearly has me concerned. One thing I would look forward to is a bit more attention to some battle sequences (wouldn't a mock Actium be incredible, especially considering it was truly a relatively small scale battle.. though with major consequences). I'm afraid I doubt the budget will be there for such things especially considering the show almost didn't survive a second season.

Considering that Crassus was absent from season 1, I would be surprised to see much of a role from Lepidus. I wonder even if the sons of Pompey will get much attention. As for Antony and Cleopatra, they may have a hard time reconciling the rather obscure portrayal of her in the first season into the cunning political figure that she most assuredly was... Regardless, I'm definately along for the ride.

Thank you Divi. I've said in many places that this is the sort of thing that I hoped this site would do... simply encourage more advanced studies. I can't tell you how rewarding it is to think that this site played some small role in your choice of study/career.

From an HBO email. At least we know they are doing the full 10 episode production... HBO's epic drama series ROME has begun production on its ten-episode second season, it was announced by Carolyn Strauss, president, HBO Entertainment. Filming of the new episodes will continue at Rome's Cinecitta Studios through next October, with debut set for 2007. "This exciting series offers a spectacle unlike anything else on TV," noted Strauss. "The new episodes of ROME will go deeper into the intriguing characters and provocative storylines that made the first season a hit with critics and subscribers." Chronicling the fall of a republic and the rise of an empire, the first season of ROME wrapped last December. TV Guide hailed it as a "feast for the eyes" and a "ripping good story," as well as a "shamelessly enjoyable historical romp," while the Washington Post described the series as "ravishing and wickedly shocking," and "a feast for the senses that includes generous portions of food for thought." In addition, ROME received two Golden Globe

I don't think anyone is opposed to the broader view of the theory, but it's the details that help us define the potential of proving that theory. The more the details are challenged the more theoretical merit the overall concept should have. Conversely, if all details are taken at face value without challenge, then aren't we doing exactly what you are in part trying to counter... the universal acceptance of the ancients? At least in my opinion... and if I am understanding correctly.

You didn't push the red button did you? Never, ever push the red button.

I think the question is tricky because how does one determine the right answer? Nobody knows what it means or why he recycled predecessor's arches. Maybe he wanted to show that he was still maintained traditional values despite his flirtations with Christianity and incorporated older Pagan symbols. Perhaps he wanted to associate himself with the 'Good Emperors' of the adoptive period. It could have been a time saving effort to make sure that the monument was prepared ito corresond for the 10th anniversary of his victory. Maybe it was simply a lack of artisan skill or the expense of material and recycling either or both problems. How you argue any or all of those possibilities is up to you, but I hope you get credit for the explanation and not whether or not you chose the answer that your professor prefers.

Maybe there is a crucifixion exercise at the end?

If Kegan had to eat at a Skeksis banquet before the fight he may be too sick to fight, Podling life essence or not! And I'm with Docoflove, if Locutus was thrown in the mix Kegan would surely be in trouble! I'm with Spurius earlier. Surely, Patrick Stewart as Leondegrance in Excalibur would've kicked the proverbial ass of all the rest. [edit] I believe he may have even had a little bit left on top in those days

All I meant was that I was surprised Pertinax left Olivier out of the list of the three major actors.

But what of Olivier?

It would seem to me that the Hellenistic tendencies of Gaius and Nero were more about the era and environment they were raised in (born into an organized dynasty) than a direct connection to Antonius, though I admit anything is possible. Youth is perhaps as big a culprit explaining their behavior as any other. Agrippina has no connection to Antonius and was clearly among the most influential people in the young Nero's life. At any rate, the actions of Gaius and Nero seem to be a matter of personal conduct rather than an eastern imperial policy. Perhaps they are more Antonian than Octavian in behavior, but I'm not sure how this connects to a policy of usurping Augustan principals in favor of Antonian.

I was browsing around amazon and stumbled across this DVD. Augustus DVD Not only have I not seen it, I've never even heard of it. It's seems to be favorably compared to the I Claudius production of days gone by and stars the always respectable Peter O'Toole. Has anyone here seen it?