Augur

Yes, PP. it is strange how in popular culture Octavian/Augustus seems always to be shown in a negative light. From Shakespear to Hollywood, if he isn't cruel and devious he's weak and manipulative or he's arrogant and ruthless and on and on. Hell, even the otherwise excellent 'I Claudius' showed him as blustering old man. I am dying to see this young squirt Octavian think and act with the superior qualities that are going to turn the squirt into Augustus. He got a good start in Episode #1. My correction: in the year depicted (52 BC), Octavian is not 12 years old, he is 11.

Rome: #1 Loved the visual impact with the gritty visual reality, not just of the violence, but also of central Rome itself. The setting and cinamatography throughout are first rate, rivaling if not surpassing those of Gladiator. I recognize the author's purpose in introducing the Atia character, and I agree that, so far at least, she is seems to be stealing the show (perhaps not too difficult for any naked beautiful woman). My concern is that her character is the one principal character yet seen who is ficticious. Yes, there was an Atia, mother of Octavian, but nothing like the conniving, prominent force she is portraying. I hope she doesn't become one of these meddeling, "king makers" who is given credit for the the rise of Octavian/Augustus -- leave those accusations for when Livia arrives. If there must be a scheming black widow character, I too would have thought it would be Servialla. As Caesar's lover and his murderer's mother, she was made for the part. Finally, I found the most striking scene to be young Octavian's brief and concise Caesar-Pompei political analysis (regarding the stolen standard incident). Yes, a little too brilliant for a 12 year old, but it was a spine tingling way to introduce what is coming. Don't want to give away the plot, but I suspect we'll be seeing more of that boy.

I cannot remember a string in which such blatant misconceptions and gross misunderstandings of Roman -- indeed, all of ancient history -- have been so misconstrued and mis-stated. Slaves = barbarians? Sparticus = Stilicho or was it Aetius? No sign of problems in 300AD? And all this time I thought we we discussing history as it occured back here on planet Earth.

Tobias' mention of that remarkable women, Zenobia, prompts me to cast a vote here for Aurelian (in whose triumph she marched), a man who achieved most of his impressive military accomplishments, not in the conquest of barbarians but in pulling so many of the major pieces of the Empire back together again. A nasty piece of work, a very tough guy. Of all of Rome's triumphal parades, I have always wished most to be present at Aurelian's.

If one loves Rome one must extend one's respect, affection and thanks to this truely remarkable fellow.

Recent: Gibbon and Arnold Toynbee, both of who seem to me to be unique in their ability to seperate facts from meaningful trends, and meaningful trends from the substantive lessons of history. Ancient: Tacitus, if for no other reasons because he is such a delightful read.

I also agree with the Tiberius G. choice, but perhaps for slightly different reasons. Some months ago we examined a somewhat similar question, something like: who was the worst emperor? My vote went to Comodus, primarlily because it was Comodus who occupied and to some extent triggered one of the pivotal turning-points in Roman hisory, symbolized by the abrupt end of the Golden Age (of his five predecessors) and the begining of the broad disintegrations that were to follow. Certainly Comodus did not cause all the problems that were to follow, he was simply the most conspicious player in this momentous redirection. Tiberius G., one of my favorite Romans, occupies a similar position in Roman history, specifically, the identifiable point in time during which the class struggle within the Roman Republic went out of control and remained out of control until the Republic was replaced by Empire. Again, Tiberius was clearly not responsible for the abuses that created or that resulted from this crisis, but he was cleary the central player (and victim) is this critical episode. Thus, the old question: is it the man (Caesar, Hitler, Christ, etc.) who makes the times? Or the times that make the man?

Yes, PP, I too was reminded of the earlier string in which you shared your respect and dislike for Cato, and now I find myself espousing admiration for Caesar while sugaring that respect with apologies for his possible opportunism. Hmm. Deciding who are the good guys and who are the bad is the age-old question, and for answers we have only a few places to look: PRINCIPALS: Perhaps the answer lies in taking a closer look at the "principals" involved. Do we admire an evil man who sacrifices his life for his evil principals? No, of course not. We call that man a suicidal fanatic -- unless, of course, we agree with the evil principals, whereupon we call him an "uncompromising hero" when alive and a martyr thereafter. Not a helpful answer. Ok... INTENTIONS: What if the man has good intentions but does bad things to realize those intentions -- the old "You have to break some eggs to make an omelet" or, more specifically: "I still love Stalin even though he killed Dad and 20 million others" arguments? Naa. No answers here either. Well then, how about... MOTIVES: What about the man who strictly adheres to principal, but does so for evil or self-serving reasons -- or conversely, the evil man who does good in spite of himself, the old "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time" gambit. Also, little help, and anyway, who knows the true intentions and motives of anyone, particulary some of the devious characters we are discussing? Ok, ok. But certainly we should be able to find some answers by looking at... HISTORICAL RESULTS: Ahh, now this is where we should be able to find some serious logic and objectivity. Regardless of all those endlessly-argued principals, intentions and motives, all we need do here is consult the historic record of see what good or bad occurred as a result of each individual. [high five] Yes! But... oh my... there is one small problem: do we, any of us, really trust those from whom we are getting our history? As evidenced by the intense arguments within these strings, I think the answer must be a qualified: no. Whether its Caesar v. Pompey, Scip v. Hanni, ups v. downs, or any other Roman Xs v. Ys, the bottom line is that we all quote the same combination of historical sources to support what seems to me the single most dominant source of all of our opinions... PERSONAL BIAS: Yes, here's an answer, not just our own political and moral biases, but also the biases of the classical authors whom we so revere, the authors who were actually there, on-site, front row, recording the dramas as they unfolded -- how dare they disagree! But alas, they do and so do we. The moral of this excessively lengthy scribble (for which I apologize) is found somewhere within the following: The Victors Write History... Nothing to Excess... What Is Good For The Goose Is Not Good For The Head Count... Beware of Greeks Bearing Detailed Speehes of Long Dead Romans... I Came, I Saw, I Wondered... Never Say Never, Always Perhaps... My Kingdom For A House Overlooking the Forum... God Made Me Do It... The Dog Ate My Homework... and most accurately, it seems: ...People Don't Change Much.

Yes, but have you heard about the remarkable letter that a team of Italian archeologists has just found that was written from Caesar to Octavian and which describes in detail Caesar's secret plans, as soon as he return from the Parthian campaign, to kill the entire Senate, rape all the Vestal Virgins, legalize LSD and same-sex marriage, and exile to Armenia all Romans who's names start with the letter "B." Just kidding, but never say never.

Tired they may be Ursus, but excellently summarized and posted.

Yes, by the standards of other victorious generals and elected Dictators Caesar was quite mild -- although there were a number of Gauls with only one hand who might disagree.

"Sir Clive

Yes, I agree, such idealism is laudable, but in my view the ideas themselves are often less so -- particulary when voiced by a principal leader of the Boni during the Pompey-Caesar showdown. We all admire idealism, which may explain why so many contemporary politicians -- particulary the most cynical -- cloak themselves in it. But I am not questioning Cato's motives here. What I do question is adherance to personal "principals" that doom others to unnecessary tragedy. Yes, America's founders were influenced by Cato but, thank God, not when they were formulating the true genious of our system: balance and compromise. Two terms not in Cato's vocubulary. P.S. Excellent last post Virgil, suspicions confirmed.

QUOTE=Virgil61: I do understand your point about the contributions of the upper classes... Good, that is the only point I was trying to make. One doesn't have to "like" the aristocratic classes to acknowledge their accomplishments and contributions, in Rome or elsewhere, but it can be a little confusing: something like how one feels abut a person who heroically saves your life but whom you later discover is a tax cheat and a wife-beater (or, more confusing, the cherished life-long priest who is later found to like young boys]. QUOTE=Virgil61: ...but at the risk of applying contemporary values I can't help but think of the lost efficiencies; how many Newtons did we not get because of that system? True, all those lost Newtons are a fundamental problem with aristocratic systems. The thing to remember is that in virtually all cases it was the upper classes who built "the systems" in which men like Newton were able to do their magic. QUOTE=Virgil61: Think about our perceptions of Rome. ...basically framed by the ancient writers like Plutarch, Polybius, et al., part of or writing for the upper classes or by the gentleman ["brandy snifter," "view from the manor"] scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries with a definite point of view. Yes, like most other intellectual pursuits, it is the upper classes from whom we are indebted for most of our history, and our often aristocratic images of aristocrats. But keep in mind that it was also aristocrates (of a more liberal vent) who have led the fights that have brought down most aristocracies (for example, in France, USA, etc.). QUOTE=Virgil61: Cato a hero of the Republic? My ass Nicely put. I agree completely. Boo Cato! The good news is that in today's world merit continues to replace birth and blood as the basis for the distribution of power and position. But be careful, there is no free lunch: aristocracies built on merit may turn out to be even more arrogant and problematic than their birth/blood-based predecessors.

Well, let's not be too eager too trash oligarchies -- Roman or otherwise -- as an entire species. Despite the bad press oligarchies (and the aristocrates who populate them) have received during recent centuries, we do well to remember how much we owe to these pampered few -- which in my view includes almost everything. Well, maybe not "everything," but everything that concerns the last three millenia of advances in the arts, literature, philosophy, medicine, physics, engineering and virtually all of the other sciences. We may not like the traditional "leisure wealthy classes" very much, but it was their leisure (and a little curiosity) that made most advances possible, or their wealth that funded/sponsored genius from more humble origins. Yes, there are exceptions, particulary in today's developed world of mass education and competitive meritocracy. But never sell the aristocratic classes short. As human beings we owe much of the best of what we are to them! As for Rome and its artistocratic classes: ditto. I love this theory. But if you look at the squalor, ignorance and beastiality that dominated the many centuries that followed Rome's fall (in the West), one cannot help but wonder how modern Western Civilization was able to recapture or salvalge any of what was Roman. Thank goodness for long memories and strange Romanophiles like ourselves.

I love this theory. But if you look at the squalor, ignorance and beastiality that dominated the many centuries that followed Rome's fall (in the West), one cannot help but wonder how modern Western Civilization was able to recapture or salvalge any of what was Roman. Thank goodness for long memories and strange Romanophiles like us.

Sorry, I think we were cross-posting again. Yes, the Senate does get some and in my view deserves most of the credit for Rome's conquests. But what the Republic created so successfully in its first four centuries had simply grown beyond the Senate's abilty to govern in the fifth -- and understandably so. The fact that the emperors "inherited" vast territories that were conquered during the Republic says little about the relative challenges involved in creating the Pax. Question: what is the greater challenge: to conquer Judaea or to govern Judaea? Or, perhaps a more pointed example: what is more difficult, to defeat the Visigoths or try to control/contain them? Or another: to conquer or to defend Armenia -- or Upper Germany? Etc. In my mind's eye I find myself imagining a scene immediately following Actium in which Octavian turns to Agrippa with a shrug and says: "Now for the hard part." Two young men who knew what lay ahead.

Like the Clinton-Bush analogy, totaly disagree that it applies to the Republic-Empire relationship. Building good governance, stability, civil infrastructure and a lasting peace is not, repeat NOT as you suggest, the "easy" part, not something built by the "fat and happy." Look around, history tells us that any idiot can be a warrier, and by definition half of those idiots are going to be short- or long-term "victorius heros." But how many can claim to have successfully done the hard part, the building, the part that the Early Republic did so well, but after the Gracchi lost the ability and the will to achieve.

Because, after a century dominated by chaos and disintegration, the Pax was achieved and sustained during the rule of the first 16 emperors. True, 4 or 5 of these fellows may have been jerks or total nut cakes, but the antics of these individuals (though unpleasantly fatal to friends and family) did little to detract from the greater Pax. Also, not sure where you get the Pax lasting such a short period. I think it is widely accepted that the term Pax Romana is ascribed to the period from Augustus (27BC) through Marcus Aurelius (180AD), 207 years. Perhaps you are thinking of the shorter, so called "Golder Age" presided over by the five "Good Emperors."

Sorry to do this again, but... The key is that the long held rule against marching on Rome had already been violated with great success by Sulla, who, ironically, was carrying the flag (and a bloody sword) of the Senate whom you so admire. As a convincing precident for future "heros" it is significant that Sulla, like his adversary Marius (who also marched), died in bed. Not so, what ever reforms Caesar had planned he was cut down before being able to do much. But even if he had not gone down, with the Partian war about to get underway who knows when he would have been able to impliment those reforms. Keep reading.

Your enthusiastic defense of the Senate is admirable, but skips much. Several items: I agree. Keep reading.

Ah, there's the rub, for who is to make the decisions that determine if something is or is not "bad [or good] for the people?" In dictatiorships it is the dictator, in theocracies the high priest, in oligarchies the inner-circle, and in democracies... well, that is a little more complicated and a lot more messy -- at least in my neck of the woods, ie. New York City, USA, Planet Earth, Sol System, Milkyway Galaxy, Universe #1. On one thing we do agree: don't march on Washington DC no matter what your general says.

No problem Dominus, but nicely posted. While I am at it, however, I do dissagree on your sole choice of Roman motivation -- ie greed -- as being behind virtually all developments. Greed along with love, hate, envy, patriotism, religion, family, etc., are a part of the dynamics and motivations of all societies. But in Rome (for me, particularly the early Repulic) one cannot help but be reminded of the centuries of honest, often quite dedicated and selfless heros at all levels who sacrificed much, including their lives, for things other than "the buck." In this regard I am reminded of one of Tacitus' lines: Never forget that good men can serve under bad emperors.

Like most of the above posters, I too have a sentimental preference for the Republic, particulary its first 400 years. In my view, however, the last hundred years clearly demonstrate that the traditional Roman structure -- under Senate leadership -- was simply no longer working or workable. Indeed, during that last century -- From Gracchi to Caesar -- the Senate became less a source of stability and solutions than it was a part of the problem. Clearly the Republic had to be replaced with something -- how many more Marius-Sulla-Pomey-Caesar civil wars could Rome have survived? Fortunately, along came Octavian/Augustus and the Imperial system he forged which, while less sentimentally appealing, did a quite remarkable job of perpetuating Rome for almost 500 more years, and in the East, 1,400! If longevity is a sign of success that is not bad by any imperial standard.