georgious

I am in total agreement, The vile Augustus should have returned power back to the putrefied, pusillanimous, impotent Senate of the recent past. When in university I was taught that Octavian payed lip-service at the constitutional forms of the republic while concentrating power at himself. I still wonder what the forms of the old republic meant to the average Roman - I am inclined to think that apart from the Republican aristocracy they meant very little-of course historical sources are terribly biased in the sense that it was the republican aristocracy in the person of a new man Cicero that is the main source for the period. After all one wonders that even when Augustus reached supreme power in the Roman world-whatever supreme power and roman world may mean, was this fact all important for the daily life of the vast majority of the state's inhabitants- I doubt. It may have been significant for some powerfull and influential people in the capital but I do not think that most people in the Empire even learned about the change.As the English poem says:How few that human hearts endure can kings or laws cause or cure.This ephasis on grand personalities and the cult of them is a symtom of identification with tribal totems as Freud would have put it.Actually taking most roman politicians as role-models is the equivalent of taking Dilliger and Al-capone as role models although the fact that the latter are more recent has not created the neccesary time for myth-creation and white-washing. I can not understand how historians could draw moral examples from this bunch of warlords, time-servers and obviously robbers and extortionists on a large-scale. The fact that this truce among thieves which was dignified under the name of mos maiorum could form the object of admir5ation of latter historians justifies the belief of Christian apologists on the innate wickedness of man.Of course Augustus ended the rule of the republican oligarchy and substituted it with the rule of an imperial bureucracy but how this can be judged a positive development is open to doubt.My problem is that how could such political forms survive for so long- I mean was the average human being of the age of such bad moral and intellectual quality to deserve such leadership?

Thank you Nephele.

There is actually considerable detail in the story as related by two major sources. Tacitus, The Annals - book 14; ch. 29-37 Cassius Dio, The Histories - book 62; ch. 1 - 12 Suetonius however, in Life of Nero, barely finds it worth mentioning... It is also mentioned in Tacitus' Agricola, 14-16: A late thank you WotWotius

Glad you enjoyed the new identity! As a Suetonia with an insider's view to the imperial family and friends, your feminine touch on history's scandals will be not only refreshing, but wickedly delightful! -- Nephele rgaazossuoeiprgok male

Thank you Augusta, I looked at the essay of Wotwotius who pointed out certain prejudices inherent in the writing of Tacitus which are to be found in all Roman statesmen of his time. I think that such prejudices were inevitable to a member of the ruling class, pertaining to the official "roman" identity of the empire.If educated europeans had such ideas during the heyday of european imperialism in the 19th century -how could Romans have been better in that respect?

There is actually considerable detail in the story as related by two major sources. Tacitus, The Annals - book 14; ch. 29-37 Cassius Dio, The Histories - book 62; ch. 1 - 12 Suetonius however, in Life of Nero, barely finds it worth mentioning... Thank you, Primus Pilus Apart from the most interesting sources-I admit that Dio Cassius is more informative-although he gives the impression that the final battle was equivocal while Tacitus states that the Britons were routed despite their vastly superior numbers-which is the version that the documentary I saw followed, I would like to ask since when Boudicea has been selected to play the role of the ancestor of modern Britons and her story was incorporated as a foundation myth in British imperial mythology.

The book by Gelzer you must be reffering is Romishce Aldeienpartein-I do not know German I just reproduce haphazardly the title I remember- a book that had as a main thesis that Roman political parties were actually factions of nobles. It is a thesis. The point is that supreme offfices were opened to rich plebeians who were incorporated in the emerging nobilitas.Patrician comes from pecus-pecoris which means sheep and signifies those that had large amounts of cattle which gave them a position of economic and therefore social dominance in the archaic roman community.Another bastion of patrician privilege and power was the monopolization of the priesthood as well as the knowledge of procedural law which become known to the plebeians-the furmulae- through Maximus Coruganius. This is a theory of course, the one I was taught in law school.AS for the Equestrian they were actually an upper-middle class, including rich tax-farmers-who lobbied in Rome for Wars of conquest and were at loggerheads with reasonable governors of provinces-by Roman standards-such as luculus.They were very important for the functioning of the Empire-for example during Augustus the governor of Egypt could not be a senator but an equis- a knight.

You are reffering to the battle at the teutobourg forest and the defeat of Quinctilius Varrus by Herman. This defeat during the reign of Augustus I think, terminated the plans for Roman expansion in Germania. Nevertheless Tacitus who wrote much after the reign of Augustus, I think during the reign of Domitian, was admiring the Germans for their simple and undiluted manners as opposed to what he saw as Roman corruption. I think it has to do whith a certain admiration of primitivism that members of advanced cultures feel, much as the admiration of Enlightened Europeans for the "noble savage" after Rousseau. But it is admiration from a distance that does not solicit imitation.

I have seen in the past a book named "The Roman middle-class" whose author's name escapes me.But it is devoted to the euestrian class.The point is who were the beneficiaries of the whole Roman system:obviously the Senators and the Equites were happy with the Republic and even more with the Empire.I would say that the knights were more of an empire phoenomenon.The division of free Roman in patricians and plebeians was a more archaic distinction that lost currency with imperial even republican expansion. Also note the fusion of patricians and rich plebeians that created the new class of Roman nobilitas. The other point is that we use anylitycal categories that were created after the French Revolution such as class to analyze realities much more ancient.

There is actually considerable detail in the story as related by two major sources. Tacitus, The Annals - book 14; ch. 29-37 Cassius Dio, The Histories - book 62; ch. 1 - 12 Suetonius however, in Life of Nero, barely finds it worth mentioning... Thank you, Primus Pilus

This coin proves that the connection between Rome and Troy had a history even before Augustus commisioned Virgil to write the Aeniad, Rome's official foundation myth epic.The descent of Caesar from Venus was used in HBO's Rome where the lictors always announced Caesar(among other titles) as son of Venus.I do not remember what Livy says in his books whether he accepts this version of Rome's descent.

I suspect that many among the members of this erstwhile forum are familiar with the historico-legendary personage of Bouddica(Boaddicea) queen of the Iceni, whose legend was incorporated in 19nth century British Imperial mythology and whose chariotiered statue stands outside the modern Houses of Parliament.I had read about her in British manuals of national history and I have seen a series on woman warriors,narrated by MS. lawless-the actress who plays GINA the warrior queen, which has a vignete devoted to her. I think her story has been made to a movie and also a series of historical novels have her as a heroine.Does anybody know by which ancient sources her story has been reconstructed?

But note Violentilla's original rider to her post - that the 'priestesses' of Magna Mater/Cybele were eunuchs and not women. This had certainly always been my own understanding of the cult. Does anyone know if women were indeed allowed to become priestesses of the goddess in the late Republic? Perhaps Ursus could enlighten us on this. I know that Suetonius mentions the 'priests' of Cybele (i.e. the eunuchs) in his Life of Augustus, so they must have still been operating during his principate. I would like to point out that Atia was actually the beneficiary of this sacrifice. Usually when a priest officiates in a ceremony he/she does so to confer benefit to a third person. Atia was the recipient of the benefit-there is a saying in my mother-tongue about the priest blessing his beard, the same applies in outr case. But still the benefactor of a religious ceremony is a third person and not the priest who officiates it, that applies to weddings,blessings etc. Therefore Atia may not have acted as priestess in the sacrifice. As to sex of actual priests do we have evidence that can verify such an hypothesis? Atia may well have been the beneficiary - but the rite described in Violentilla's post concerned the soaking of the priestess in blood. There is no mention in the quotation cited of a beneficiary taking the same part. As for evidence of the sex of Cybele's priests - I should think the word eunuch is clarification enough. It is not a mere hypothesis. See Suetonius, Div.Aug, 68: One day at the Theatre, an actor came on the stage representing a eunuch priest of Cybele, the Mother of the Gods, and as he played his timbrel, another actor exclaimed: "Look, how this invert's finger beats the drum!" See also this article for further examples in the primary sources. Thank you Augusta.I am influenced by Christian practice were the priest is always acting for someone else.

But note Violentilla's original rider to her post - that the 'priestesses' of Magna Mater/Cybele were eunuchs and not women. This had certainly always been my own understanding of the cult. Does anyone know if women were indeed allowed to become priestesses of the goddess in the late Republic? Perhaps Ursus could enlighten us on this. I know that Suetonius mentions the 'priests' of Cybele (i.e. the eunuchs) in his Life of Augustus, so they must have still been operating during his principate. I would like to point out that Atia was actually the beneficiary of this sacrifice. Usually when a priest officiates in a ceremony he/she does so to confer benefit to a third person. Atia was the recipient of the benefit-there is a saying in my mother-tongue about the priest blessing his beard, the same applies in outr case. But still the benefactor of a religious ceremony is a third person and not the priest who officiates it, that applies to weddings,blessings etc. Therefore Atia may not have acted as priestess in the sacrifice. As to sex of actual priests do we have evidence that can verify such an hypothesis?

In a conference Greek professor of Law told us, the audience that the Byzantines were Romans because of the ideology of world domination that was inherent in the Empire.The last sovereign of Byzantium, Constantine Palaiologus was called Βασιλευς Ρωμαιων, King of the Romans. I do not think that it has to do with actual ethnic origin but with political and social pretensions-being Roman was fashionable, as being American or European is today.Surely the ruling dynasty of Byzantium identified itself as Roman but that does not say many things about so an extended empire.Generalizations are dangerous. I would think that most people identified with class and local identities and did not have in mind something so grandiose as an identity of imperial application-but for the rulers they certainly considered themselves Roman.

The series I Claudius of which you wrote such an apt review accepts the idea of a bad Livia as she confesses her crimes to the astounded Claudious and in her deathbed implores him to make her a goddess -so she will not go to hell.When Tacitus considers Livia a disaster to the nation what is the latin phrasing-nationalism is an invetion of the French revolution -how can Livia be a disaster a nation. Was there national feeling in Rome?It was an empire then so obviously civic loyalty had to do with the person or family of the emperor-as much latter in Austria-Hungary in the dynasty of the Habsburgs but in the nation?I find this mention very interesting-in what sense was nation a political idea in Rome. I am interested on opinions. As far as Livia is concerned I think I have looked somewhere at the bookcover of a biography of her but have not read it.My image of Livia comes mainly from I Claudius.I would like to hear about an alternative assesment of her life and times.

I have heard about Suetonius as a source and read him about a year ago in a Penguin edition. I was impressed by his style which is very different from that of Tacitus-at least the Tacitus of Germania.Those two people are galaxies apart. The point is the writings of Mr.Tacitus and Mr.Suetonius are adequate tools for the reconstruction of a whole epoch? I mean our sources are desperately few compared with the vastness of the epoch we want to ressurect.How can so few people from a very specific backround and social milieu serve as adequate guides to the history of a city that was supposedly the mistress of the world!

The Roman Revolution is about the republic being replaced by a dictator and then an empire, although our words for it are modern and lose the meaning the romans had. The roman word for emperor - Imperator - actually means military leader and is a mark of respect from the legions. The empire in a strict sense - the control over foreign states - was already in existence during the republic. Its just that by convention we refer the roman state from Augustus onward as the Empire. The republic was a reasonably stable plutocracy - rule by the wealthy - with a high degree of law and culture, at least in theory. The revolution was the rise of individual leaders instead of the temporary shared format that had worked so well. Ultimately, Octavian was the winner. Although its often thought that the 'Empire' was a monarchy, this is not so. It tended to develop toward one, as is natural for an autocratic state, but lacked the stability and traditions to allow it. I think that the Empire was also a plutocracy but one must not forget the role of military muscle played. Syme comments on the cultural aspects of legitimating the Principate through the patronage of poets for example. A major thesis of the book is on the oligarchic character of the Republic.Another point about the oligharchic aspects of Rome was that the governing class was not simply rich but also aristocratic which means that was a class which used metaphysical legitimacy to justify itself-even the populares used this device, Caesar has Venus as an ancestor for example.Both the Republic and the Empire were exploitative structures as far as the provinces were concerned.Regime change is a difficult topic to tackle.

Thank you Primus Pilus, I also read the comments of Viollentila after the transalation of the ancient text. I must see again the scene and make a comparison.

In one -the first?- of the episodes of Rome Season one, Atia of the julii,Caesar's niece participates in a certain ritual sacrifice where she baths in a bull's blood.Among the members of the Forum has any one seen this episode so that he can explain it's actual religious significance? I suspect Egyptian origin.

Do the erstwhile participants of this forum consider the German tribes described by Tacitus in his work as receiving a good or bad press?Do you think that Tacitus is prejudiced towards the Germans? Would you class his work as ethography, an essay on the national character as Orwell's The LIon and the Unicorn, or a form of journalism?Opinions.

Having read the thread and being a modern Greek I feel an urge to participate.Alexander was an ancient conqueror whith a cultural agenda of Hellenization, in the sense that Caesar was an ancient conqueror with an agenda of Romanization.He used brutal methods but there was not international law to sanction him.The concept of balance of power is very modern indeed.The idea that political actions should be judged with the same political criteria as personal conduct is even more modern and originates in the Wilsonian school of American diplomacy as the good doctor Kissinger says in his fine book "Diplomacy".Aristotle found normal that Greeks should be masters and barbarians slaves so Alexander did actually improve his master's principles.The test of a Great Power as the late A.J.P. Taylor said is the ability to wage war. The same applies to antiqiuity.Hitler according to Taylor did nothing not done before in international relations except that he was a German.I do not agree with that statement absolutely.Wars of conquest were rationalized in the early twentieth century as "White man's Burden" and "mission civilizatrice". I see nothing particularly bad in Alexander. Lord Acton said that Great Men were almost always bad.Caesar's methods were harsh but this earned him respect not approbation.The French describe their country as "vieux pays Gallo-romaine" and popular representations of Caesar from HBO's Rome to Asterix are far from negative.The obvious moral is that success justifies everything.

It is a very central question concerning antiquity which we term Graeco-roman.I happen to be a modern Greek and I have to point out that some modern Greek authors write books in Greek about the relationship between Greece and Rome. I remember Edgar Alllan Poe's "To HELEN" that includes the stanza "the glory that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome".This is a modern cliche- the ancient cliche is atributed to Horace who said that captive Greece took captive Latium-approximatelly.Those clisches appart we do not know the relationship of Greeks and Romans exactly.Anderson described the process of the conquest of the Mediterrean basin by Rome and equated the Roman ruling class with a vampire-bat. I do not think that Greece escaped such a process.Some people were assimilated in the system such as Polybius for example who made a career out of it-as Josephus did as a Romanized Jew.Bertrand Russel gave a good depiction of the relationship between Greece and Rome in "the history of Western philoshophy" where he described the flower of Roman youth whom Cato seeked to admonish and Carneades to lecture as imperialistic and stupid.I do not think that the average Roman soldier looting Greece could appreciate it's heritage in any way that modern american troops appreciate the cultures of Iraq-for that matter. Rome, as Toqueville noted was a city united to conquer the world. That was the unifying glue of Rome's governing class who viewed the rest of the world as fair game. Some warlords were cultivated true but that does not make them pro-Greek neccesarily.Caesar's cultivation made him more tolerant towards the Gauls? I do not read much in Rome's respect of other cultures-it was pragmatic accomodation,even Roman imperialism could not swallow the whole world.Greeks were a more favoured part of the conquered-as Christians and Jews were in the Ottoman Empire-but that could not humanize an empire or a Republic that was essentially a huge war machine. The Roman elite were a bunch of world-conquerors full of animus dominandi and I do not think that we should idealize this aspect of the social union of Rome. Rome looted Greece both really and metaphorically. The only literary genre that is originally Roman is satire.Roman imperialism was merciless when meeting Greek or Jewish or Hellenistic or Gaulish political entities.The intellectualism of Greeks was seen by the Romans as effeminacy and decline.Whether being a paedagogue to the children of a rich Senator, that is a slave who takes children at school, can be seen as laudable occupation depends on the eye of the beholder.After it's demise the BRitish Empire played Athens to USA's Rome. The example is instructive I think.Green's books: "From Alexander to Actium" and a recent one paint I think vividly the true character of the Empire. When I was a student our books noted that the law of the Twelve Tables was influenced by the reforms of Solon in Athens-an idea that a French historian of institutions-whose name escapes me finds "tres douteuse".The whole point is an effort to compensate MODERN Greeks for their present political weakness.Roman senators were as indifferent to Greek literature as American milionaires are to Shakeaspeare.The whole process is a sentimentalizing effort trying to transform aggressive and acquisitive warlords to a species of cultural connoiseurs. A modern example:Season one of HBO''s Rome-how are the ptolemies and their court depicted in front of Caesar?Effeminate(one is an eunuch, sceming and treacherous-even in their physique-someone thought they were reminiscent of Star WARS creatures.Caesar shouts that Pompey was a Consul of Rome(which means that his life is valued more than that of other creatures). He demands payment of a debt due according to law-and when one of the Ptolemaic Court observes that he means roman law, he shouts that there is no other kind of law) I think this popular series captures the zeitgeist, feeling of superiority,been the judge and the judged,gradation of human beings according to been Romans or not.The attitude of Romans towards Greeks was the same as the attitude of Western Imperialism towards the East, which the late Edward Said labelled "Orientalism".There is nothing to romantisize here.