Thurinius

I think Nero is quite fascinating. My Nero is casually cruel. He's someone who can do whatever he likes, so he does. He's also surrounded by people who tell him whatever he wants to hear. But readers have told me they find themselves routing for him even though they know they shouldn't. I think the historical Nero suffers from being the last of a dynasty. Augustus probably killed way more people but he is a canny politician,,he has longevity and he has successors to sing his praises.

For those of you who think Nero is unbelievably glam (whilst recognising he had some faults) you might enjoy my Hist fic novel Palatine http://www.karnacbooks.com/product/palatine-the-four-emperors-series-book-i/36826/ It begins in 68AD and covers the fall of Nero and it's immediate effects. I've had some very nice endorsements from the likes of David Wishart, Ruth Downie and Robert Fabbri. Book two Galba's Men is out in October and I'm currently up to my eyes in editing book three Otho's Regret.

Sorry Viggen please delete, I can't seem to find the button

Is the Caligula book a new one or a reprint? I seem to recall reading Barrett on Caligula before

I'm currently reading up on the siege of placentia in 69 ad and it reads almost like a farce. Caecina the general has marched tens of thousands of hardened German soldiers to take Rome from Otho and deliver it to Vitellius. Only his superior numbers and troops seems to have gone to his head. His first attempt to take placentia is a dismal,failure after he decides to attack the fortified town without any siege equipment and post dinner, the suggestion from Tacitus is that everyone was a little bit drunk. The Germans strip to the waist and attempt to beat down the towns gate with their fists. Eventually they have to admit defeat and slope off spending the night constructing siege towers etc. They still don't take the town. Over confidence can be fatal.

In the past they didn't label people per say as homosexual but more the act. So you could be perfectly hetrosexual but commit a homosexual act. Bear in mind that Ancient Greek ladies of any reputation were fiercely protected and existed in the domestic sphere almost entirely. For the young single male that surely inhibited their chances to relieve their libido, beAring in mind they might catch something nasty from a prostititute. Course there were always slaves... I think due to the sheer amount of vase paintings showing older men fondling the genitals of younger boys shows it was sexual , though entwined with other philosophies.

Interesting choice. He wasn.t particularly happy about his role as Caesar and being such a gruff no-nonsense type, soon got tired of the petty squablling of the Senate. I've always seen him as something of a misanthrope with a considerable chip on his shoulder. In any case he preferred to let Sejabus run the Imperial Houselhold and avoid having to deal with the Senate. Which was a problem because SEjanus was plotting to replace him. Once caught, Tiberius left the state in the hands of the Senate and retired to Capri. He was not well liked, and unusually for the celebrity laden Julio-Caludians, was not well liked by the lower classes because he didn't invest in games the same way that Augustus had. Tiberius didn't like such things. Whilst his reign was otherwise stable, it included a period of brutal tyranny by Sejanus, the state was being left to the Senate to run, the Praetorians were amalgamated in one barracks (which Augustus had avoided doing for obvious reasons), and as far as I can see, SPQR simply muddled on without him. It was the first test for passing the power on. And it succeeded and the system held, that has to be down to the man in charge in some capacity. Hence why he's underrated.

Just amazing

Indianasmith I write historical fiction on Nero too, though his later years. Could we not say Nero is underrated he did successfully negotiate a peace treaty with Parthia over the Armenia situation, undertook many great building projects (what is worse than Nero, what is better than Nero's baths), was wildly popular with the people of Rome and right across the Empire, personally helped with the relief effort after the great fire....

I'm going to add Tiberius, yes it all sort of fell apart in the end. But he was the first to succeed to being emperor and it could have all gone tits up at that point but it didn't. He held it together and left the treasury very healthy. Course he'd bumped off most of his family, but hey he was good with money

He had access to the imperial archives whilst writing his lives of Augustus and Tiberius which he makes good use of when discussing the relationship between the two. His gossipy details I think are great because they show what people were gossiping about at the time, what bizarre rumours were circulating. Whether they were true or not (and in the case of Tiberius on Capri I think definitely not) is not do important when they give such an insight onto the roman mind.

There was no golden age of the republic, just like there was no golden age of the 50s in the UK. It was invented nostalgia. It was an oligarchy with the same families dominating every major position from one generation to the next. If you keep this up eventually you need new blood, new ideas. Augustus brought a load of new men into power like the talented Agrippa, partly due to necessity because of the deaths during the civil wars admittedly. Similarly under the Emperors you at least get a bit of different blood if only because proximity to the emperor meant power hence the elevation of imperial freedmen and their subsequent descendants.

In relation to slavery in Greece. The helots did frequently revolt against Sparta, hence Spartas loathing of wars too far from their own territory. But then the helots had a shared identity of being messenians.

I think why you have some comparatively few slave revolts in Rome is due to the stratisfication (I think that's the word I want?) of slaves. A secretary in the imperial household had almost nothing in common with a field slave. It seems slaves could be quite snobbish about their roles. So there was no consensus about bettering their lot, plus with roman slavery it was a transient state. You could well buy your freedom so for those in relatively comfortable positions was it worth risking crucifixion or running into the unknown when if you saved your coins and waited you could be a full citizen?

I think Galba looked the part, older, experienced, statesman like but underneath it.... There is that great Tacitus line on him that goes something like 'he had all the qualities to be a great ruler, had he never ruled' Classic T!