Primus Pilus

I think its fanstastic that even the Jordanian government seems to be supporting a rather different look into ancient history. What a wonderful immersive tool, to be able to use actual remnants of the ancient world to teach that history.

Yes, its mainly semantics. While there are differences between definitions of the word 'emperor' as it relates to the Romans and other cultures, generally speaking, we're not completely out of line in using it.

Ahh indeed, if that was the case, then it was en excellent recreation of history.. considering that Pompey's theatre was indeed the temporary Senate meeting place. I figured he meant the traditional Augustan statue with one arm raised...

No, I completely missed that... Are you sure it was an Augustan statue?

He didn't rename himself Augustus arbitrarily. It was a lengthy consolidation of political power that may or may not have occured in your alternate concept. It's truely difficult to answer historical conjecture based completely on fictional events... but I will try. If the death of Caesar is followed by peaceful continuation of the government (which I find impossible) as you describe, I don't see the reason for Octavian to completely usurp total power and to legitimize his singular rule through the use of various titles. Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn't, I simply don't know. Every event in history has a cause and effect. It may or may not happen, but if the legions are busy expanding east to India (another impossibility I believe) than they probably would not have been fighting a large second front war along the Rhine and Danube. Who's to say what the Germanics may have done on their own accord however. A massive invasion force sent east may have given them just the odds they need to turn the tables. As you already implied... the Romans were not as known for innovation as they were for improvement. If the technology existed the Romans almost always made it better, but gunpowder was still in its infancy. They may have discovered something by accident (ie. adding coal to iron to make steel) but I doubt they would've done so any quicker than the Chinese did. They tried to conquer Scotland on a few occassions. They found it untenable. Most of this is completely impractible. They didn't do it in history for many reasons, from manpower, resources, logistics, political environment, and of course enemy resistance. That's about all I can handle for the time being

Yes, there are endless possibilities. I suppose we'll have to see the published findings to determine if this is a shot in the dark crack pot theory based on little evidence, or if there really is some 'smoking gun' that gives it all merit. (I tend to think its a crack pot trying to make a name for himself)

Woops, duplicate topic, use the one in the 'Legion' category

There is certainly evidence that the Romans were requested to come to the aid of allied British tribes. While they may have been welcomed by some at first, I'm sure there was some 'consternation' when it was quite apparant that the Romans would not be leaving.

An excellent overview Legio XXIV

Fair enough, but we didn't develop into one of the most powerful and influential people in the history of the world. Its ok if they would've portrayed him as sickly.. which he was... (perhaps they used the metaphor sickly and translated it to weak?), but I just dislike their portrayal (despite the quality acting, which is top-notch throughout.) Octavius was favored by Caesar, and while there is only a little evidence of him receiving a great deal of attention from Caesar (other than the campaign in Hispania, marching in the triumph and planned invasion of Parthia), there is absolutely no evidence that he was ill treated or discouraged by the dictator (as portrayed in the show). Despite my repeated objections, LOL, again I admit the pageantry was wonderful, and as each hour passes I truly am looking forward to next Tuesday

Although the ideal utopian state is unrealistic for humanity, imo.

It was a little disappointing, but I enjoyed it despite several cringing moments Some more random thoughts... Legionary costumes seemed to be imperial age, but I don't recall ever seeing a real solid close-up. Either way they were passable. The show suggested Caesar was planning on disbanding the senate and confiscating all of their money for distribution to the masses. (a sort of Robin Hood theme) While this is entirely inaccurate, the writers actually did an excellent job, with limited time, of explaining that the conspirators hated Caesar. Both my wife and I missed part of this scene (my son woke up)... Was this supposed to be Livia? If that's the case she turns out to be Octavian's second wife, and her role in 'betraying' him will be very difficult to tie up in production. Maybe they never go that far into the story. Or am I wrong and that wasn't Livia?

That was Marcus Antonius... or Mark Antony. Historically, Antony used Caesar's funeral to incite the crowd against the assassins, and to promote his own agenda. This was actually portrayed fairly well in the show from a historical perspective.

Agreed, the environment and theming were very well done. Some minor costuming was a bit off... Octavian was wearing britches at one point, and some other points of contention, but the 'feel' was there. As for the story.. I can't understand why shows and movies can't use the real story, history is interesting enough in reality. Some discrepancies off the top of my head. As Ursus said... Octavian was far more savvy and cunning than portrayed. The use of the term successor and emperor was thrown around too much. Octavian was heir not successor. The chronology of events and details of the Senate actions were shaky. (ie sending out assassins after Caesar's family, the handling of the will, etc.) The worst was the portrayal of Cicero as a Caesar lapdog. Once Caesar was dead Cicero openly supported the 'Republicans'. The legions were not given any credit for their part in the drama and too much emphasis was placed on gladiators. Still I suppose the legionary role is yet to come. There were other things that disturbed me here and there, but I waited too long to write this Regardless I found the show entertaining and will watch next week. Still I'm pretty sure after watching tonight that HBO/BBC 'Rome' will be far more appealing.

Just a quick note here... Let it be widely known that I openly promote and welcome community members that do not speak English as a native language.

Another story at the Independent Apparantly the findings will be published later this year... look forward to reading that.

Though the theory is interesting... I've always felt that Caesar's invasions had more lasting effects despite apparant lack of success... but the existence of Roman citizens on Britannia only reinforces the concept of an overwhelming Claudian invasion force. Nothing in the article refutes that, but of course, the details of the dig and the findings aren't really mentioned. It simply mentions a theory. I'm searching for more information...

Key points

I moved Skarr's post regarding her novel into its own thread...

Congratulations on getting your book published Skarr! Now a question if I may, (based soley on your self description 'This novel is intended only for a very mature type of audience, as there are many scenes described in the novel which can only be explained as being purely erotic and sensual, but also essential to the characters and the story') ... My personal preferences regarding fiction is generally to ignore/turn off erotica. No I am not a prude, I just prefer to be in its own self-contained environment. As an example, when watching a movie... I like implied sex (ie a couple begins kissing and such while the screen fades to black) vs. 15 minute gratuitous sex scenes that take away from the real plot. (Unless the plot is sex, but then I'm not talking about those kinds of movies =P). I have a rather vivid imagination, and can fill in the blanks In McCullough's Rome series there are some detailed scenes between Caesar and Servilia, and some others with Sulla early on, as I recall. Considering the length of the books though, these were relatively short and concise 'affairs', that didn't take away, but rather enhanced what I enjoyed about the series. Based on this assessment, and someone who is generally quite the stickler when it comes to accuracy in historical fiction... do you think your novel is something I would enjoy? I will read it anyway, but I'm curious what you think, to give our community a better feel. Regardless congratulations again, and I look forward to reading it. (I'll wait until its actually published in a book form... just my personal preference) Keep us up to date and good luck! Chris

Just a reminder for those of us in the states... 'Empire' premiers tonight (June 28) on ABC. 9 pm eastern.

Indeed, they were often internally promoted, but could, more rarely, also be 'political appointments' for client families and such.

Indeed, that is the intention for this forum. Ursus' post was inspired in part by a brief conversation that the two of us had, expressing concern over the direction of the forum. We don't wish to eliminate friendly discussion, by any stretch, we only want to refocus some intention on the topics of ancient history.

Surprisingly enough after seeing the previews for both, I am more intrigued by the ABC series than the HBO one. However, I'm sure in the end, 'Rome' will end up being better than 'Empire'.

Wonderful review Virgil. May I assume you wouldn't mind if it had its own unique page in the 'review' section of the site?