Virgil61

Primus Pilus: Thank you, that is exactly all I was trying to do. Clodius: Roman Revolution- quite a book. It's been years since I've read it, every serious student of Rome needs to tackle it at least once, even if you hate it. . My own opinion is that Augustus was an astute and very intelligent man who put the acquisition of power ahead of everything. He leaned towards the ruthless in his youth and towards moderation in his later years. He deserves the criticism of his excesses and the praise of his later rule. There is a good case to be made that Rome survived rather than crumbling into seprerate states because of him. My greatest criticism is that he failed to set up stable measures to hand power over to the next government, but that may have been beyond any single man's ability. I agree, he just may have been the greatest politician/statesman to have ever lived.

You might want to reread all of my posts, you 've really gotten the gist of them wrong. [AGAIN] I never denounced Ocatavian, you wondered about why some held him in a negative light, I put forth some possible rationales- not my opinions- and you didn't like it. Let me be clearer; I am just postulating, based on what I've read and on a listing of Octavian's less stellar deeds, on why some hold him in a negative light. [AGAIN] A negative view of Octavian doesn't come from out of left field, it has a long pedigree. I didn't address his postitive features because this issue was strictly about the negatives. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this. My own opinions of the man- which I haven't shared- are more complex than simply black or white.

There's a very strong argument the Republic was on life-support at least since the Gracchi, but that's not the point, the point is that he is seen by many as the man who put the Republic out of commission. Others may have killed the Republic but when the cops arrived it was Augustus standing over the cold body with a bloody knife in his hand [but...uh...let me explain...it's not what it looks like...]. I didn't really concede anything because I never made the point Augustus was evil, I simply kept my answer addressing his negatives. I personally think that among readers and historians throughout the ages, ruthless young Octavian has always had to compete with the older moderate Augustus and I think there lies the answer, at least for me.

I enjoyed it also, it's the attention to detail that is so impressive. Quite a surgical scene.

The original statement I was responding to was why Augustus is often "shown in a negative light". I pointed out why. Quite frankly I don't see how this shows a "head count" bias. It doesn't signify approval or disapproval, it was an answer to the question posed. Octavian had Cicero put to death as part of a three-way assasination deal with Antony and Lepidus. During the Second Triumvirate he put forth proscriptions that ended in the deaths of several hundred Senators and Equines, primarily it's suspected, to obtain their land for disbanded legions. I'm all for legions getting their farmland, but in most definitions I'd bet this would qualify as "murderous". Along with cold, calculating and manipulative- traits historians from Seutonius, to Gibbon until today have commented on- it does go far in explaining why he is often "shown in a negative light". He certainly redeemed himself in later years with a moderate, peaceful and constructive reign, but these early traits, and I should add, his hand in the death of the Republic answer the question. [edited]

I remember reading a very recent book that Goldsworthy contributed to that indicated that what he believes is the site of the siege of Aleisa [the site controversy is another matter] contains enough evidence to confirm Caesar's account but with significantly fewer fortifications than The Gallic Wars seems to indicate. In other words Caesar didn't lie but stretched the truth. Most of the Civil Wars seems to have been written by someone besides Caesar, his colleague Hirtius being the chief suspect. The best thing, to me, is that his works are written with a real soldier's eye. Even the later books written by others in his name seem to have been written by eyewitnesses to battle.

Who's the translator? And isn't $650 AUD like $5 US dollars? ...running and ducking...

Well truth be told he was a cold, calculating, manipulative and often murderous individual, especially when he was consolidating power.

Not too shabby. I really liked the opening battle sequence with the century in combat against the Gauls. The actor playing Cato captures what I think of him pretty well, maybe not as stubborn but close. Pompey is sufficiently weak-willed and living on past glory; great realistic quote he has on stomping his feet and making legions appear. The actor playing Caesar also comes across well, maybe a bit more reflective and less energetic but it's still early in the show. The surrender of Vercingetorix was great, although I thought he sat at Caesar's feet [which wasn't shown]. The sub-story line between the centurion and drunken legionairre, although not based on anything real, looks promising enough. I think it gives you the feel for the average soldiers pov. I also think they capture the political intrigue of Rome well enough. The legion's look like someone did their homework. On the pre-show they pointed out that 65 actors playing legionairres lived together and trained for two weeks on battle drills, marching, etc. And they were mostly played by my 'peeps' the Italians [the show was filmed in Italy]. The streets of the city are very colorful, much more reflective of what Rome looked like than the plain stone remnants today. Lots of graffiti, paintings etc. Nudity and sex? Oh yes.

I thought I understood it. Be that as it may someone can have a Phd in Russian Lit and still be bowled over by the nightlife, rudeness, drinking, high level of intellectual accomplishment and somewhat aggressive members of the opposite sex. It pretty friggin' overwhelming the first few weeks in country. Then there's the wonderful customer service...

What a great idea. Thank you, but I've got at least three, one new and two I've reread, to write reviews for and submit; "Soldiers and Ghosts", "The Gallic Wars" and "The Jewish War". I'm procrastinating as usual, and would hate to accept a free book and then take weeks or months to write a review.

I visited Moscow several times when I lived in Kiev and St. Petersburg. A lot of hustle and bustle, sort of a Las Vegas meets London feel to it. I'm partial to St. Pete's, a very beautiful city. And yes, many women of all ages interested in Western guys. I don't think it's just because they need a sugar daddy, there seems to be a shortage of single Russian men over 30. It made for an interesting year...[clears throat]...I went from feeling like George Costanza among women in the U.S. to feeling like Brad Pitt in Russia. Then I came back suprisingly single in spite of my experiences with Olga, Sveta, Varya, etc. Because of my background while in the military- Russian language- I now work almost exclusively on Russian and CIS issues. They can come off rather unfriendly, especially to Americans who tend to smile more than any other nationality. Once you get paste the rough exterior, they value their friendships and keep them for a long time.

I'd say you're incorrect. Caesar isn't overrated, he is probably rated third behind Alexander and Hannibal. He was outnumbered, operating in enemy territory during his conquest of Gaul, always moved quickly and getting to hotspots when he needed. He was certainly as good a leader of men as Hannibal and Alexander were and was possessed of enormous energy. I'll take good training and leadership over luck any day. Luck eventually runs out.

I spent a month in Cairo around ten years ago. It may have been beautiful at one time, but it's a smelly, tourist-trap cesspool now. Grenada on the other hand, seems to have aged well.

The very thing that makes me excited to watch this...a recreation of some of the most significant events in human history... and the critics would prefer it be more fictional. Yeah I caught that too. I almost emailed the critic concerning that very line, I was going to say the dumbing down of TV applies to critics as well as viewers. I thought I'd watch it first before emailing anything.

I agree he's a great writer and it does read like a novel. However I wasn't so impressed with his depiction of the end of the Republic. I thought he really harkened back to the historians of the 17th century-- in all the bad ways; The vast majority of Romans are the "mob", guilds are nothing more than gangs rather than any sort of economic protection society, and so on. Caesar comes off worse than he should-- Holland is very skeptical of his "mercy"-- and Cato comes off far better than he has a right to.

NY Times August 21, 2005 HBO's Roman Holiday By ALESSANDRA STANLEY See the full article at: http://tinyurl.com/dbn8j LIKE science fiction, the allure of ancient Rome is that it promises a society that is just like us, only more so. Ever since Robert Graves' historical novel "I, Claudius" was turned into a hugely successful BBC series, screenwriters have reveled in the possibilities of an empire with mail delivery, dental work and plumbing, but no Christian inhibitions or Senate subcommittee hearings. HBO is the latest network to fall under the imperial spell with "Rome," a 12-episode series produced jointly by the BBC and HBO at a cost of $100 million. Filmed at the Italian film studio Cinecitt�, it features if not a cast of thousands, at least the television equivalent of Cecil B. DeMille extravagance. HBO is the ideal place for such imaginative play. The Sopranos, after all, are mobsters with Prozac, flat-screen television sets and social slights. (We sulk or sue, they slaughter, but otherwise, the discontents are eerily the same.) No other network, cable or broadcast, has a stronger mandate to update the rivalry of Julius Caesar and Pompey or the filial strains between Octavian and his mother Atia. Certainly no other network has more license to depict sex, violence and family intrigue (all premium cable gall is divided into three parts.) ... From the very beginning, "Rome" follows the historic record too dutifully, making reference to famous events and real-life figures from Brutus and Mark Antony to Cato, Cicero and Calpurnia. Everybody knows something about ancient Rome, if only from Shakespeare or even just the matchbooks at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas. Few remember all the historic details exactly. They don't matter... Continued at: http://tinyurl.com/dbn8j

Good question, to add to Spurius' post I think the answer may be fairly simple. These battles could take hours and there had to be- great PT or not- pauses in the fighting on both sides as combatants stopped to take their breath, rest, get a drink, etc. Imagine thousands of soldiers hours on line, there's no way to keep up that sort of physical intensity hour after hour. My guess is that during these pauses or lulls were when the rotations took place.

Years ago I read his history of Venice and remember it being pretty good. He's got an excellent reputation so you wouldn't go wrong with him.

I've attempted to adjust a reputation score I gave someone to no avail. I wanted to balance a negative I gave with a positive but the board keeps coming back with an error message stating I should wait a week. Well it's been over a week and a half now at least and I keep getting the error message. Any suggestions?

I share this same view, it hits the problem squarely on the head. I've been to the Middle East several times including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Iraq and Turkey. In spite of having many muslim friends I find it difficult, after seeing how women and Christians are treated in the countries I've visited, to have much sympathy for Islam. I've read through the Koran and quite honestly I've been taken aback by it's view of Jews and Christians; while it isn't actively hostile to them as it is towards paganism it's also not exactly friendly, Jews and Christians are to be tolerated but not befriended, trusted or lived amongst. Until Islam adjusts to the modern world rather than confronting it, it will retain a large measure of violent hostility.

Adrian Goldsworthy is probably my favorite on Roman military history. Of the ancients, Polybius and Josephus are my favorites [it's been so long since I've read Livy or Tacitus]. Both present a lot of first-hand information on the Romans from a non-Roman perspective. Polybius is especially good at a bigger picture, while Josephus does a great job on the military aspects of the Jewish War. They were both a couple of major brown-nosers though.

1000 years? Is there evidence about these Veneti being that much more advanced in naval technology?

I'm American but my family is 100% Italian and both sides come from the same part of Italy- an area where Pompey's family had great support and in pre-Roman times bordered Umbrian and Samnite territory. Of course there's been infusion of other genes in the area since, be that as it may most of us [my family] are brown-eyed with a few blue-eyed among us and hair color ranges from black to dirty blonde. Pre-Roman Italy more commonly called "Ancient Italy" is a fascinating subject. A lot of the evidence points to the original Indo-Europeans all speaking a common Italic language when first settling Italy then splitting up into Latin, Oscan, Umbrian, etc. The theory puts the Italic tribes approaching from the Central/Eastern Europe

Absolutely agree. Whenever I read a history I always ask myself from what point of view the historian is writing from. It doesn't invalidate that historian's work, but it gives the reader an idea of what bias that author holds if if it's not a conscious one. One of the best classes I ever took was a historiography course to complete a BA in History. That's one reason I enjoyed "The Assassination of Julius Caesar" by Parent. He's flawed definitely, but he makes a great point about how writers on Rome have written from the point of view of their own class bias relegating the majority of Romans to being a part of the mob. Again, it doesn't make their contributions invalide, it just gives the reader a heads up. I've always thought that marxism held some useful analytical tools for studying history.