Skarr

Clodius, I do think there is much substance to this speculation and as you point out, Vorenus is bound to Antony by a solemn oath and knowing his character, he will stand by his word, however displeasing it may be to his own personal views. Pullo, of course, is Octavian's man and therefore, we could have them fighting each other at some point as tensions escalate between Antony and Octavian. The two should be ideal mediators and perhaps, Antony and Octavian may utilize them as "go betweens" to convey their wishes to one another, as each of them cannot stand to be in the presence of the other, although they are "allied" by a common triumvirate. I wonder what Lepidus's role will be in all of this. I'm also interested in knowing if they would bring Fulvia into the picture at some point. She is a strong woman and should be an interesting character to portray. I'm also looking forward to who will play Marcus Agrippa, Octavian's right hand man.

Rings were common throughout the Roman Empire, particularly in the later periods, when everyone was allowed to wear them, except slaves. However, in ancient (Republican) times, the rings were usually worn by aristocrats and senators, in fact, wore a plain old iron ring, which was probably handed down from one paterfamilias to another over generations. If I recall, only the first eight senior most centurions were granted the privilege of wearing rings and I'm sure they were plain and not gem studded, as people would like to imagine. Of course, aristocrats also had a signet ring, which was used to seal documents and evidence their signature.

I guess with all the archaeological hoaxes that have been perpetuated over the years, any sample must be properly validated before you can conclude on anything. As someone already suggested, we need to make sure that all the evidence is in before speculating on this. No one has a crystal clear idea on how exactly the pyramids were built and what kinds of techniques were used. There is a lot of archeological evidence though and it would take literally years to wade through the hundreds of theories around this. Egyptology is a lifelong study for those who are seriously interested as there is so much to cover and it would take more than a few posts even to cover the basics. I did read the article. It is interesting but then again, it is not written from an archaeological point of view but merely restricts itself to the analysis of the samples from a materials perspective.

History, as you may rightly guess, is a matter of interpretation. It would be nearly impossible to know Sulla's true thoughts concerning the Republic and I would agree with both Cato's interpretation as well as Primus's astute observation that Sulla was probably acting to restore his own dignitas and his actions were probably spurred by his own personal ambitions than anything else. As an impoverished Cornelius and a man who had to literally work his way to the top, Sulla must have learnt some harsh lessons along the way. He was an intelligent man who saw quickly that the road to power did not lie in Rome, with the senate, but actually with the legions, out in the field. I'm sure he saw the Marian meltdown as a personal opportunity for himself to step in and once he had his men established in Rome, he saw no opposition to whatever measures he wanted to bring upon as dictator. After all, weren't these the men he truly despised when he was still struggling to get elected to even junior positions. His true success came from the military and his measures were also brutal, as he employed less than statesman like tactics to get his way with the populace of Rome. On his departure, I guess the lifelong fascination with the lower dregs of society got the better of him and he probably just got tired of ruling without opposition. It was rumored that Sulla would walk alone at night, unaccompanied even by a slave or any form of escort and although he was old, probably decrepit, people feared him like the plague and avoided him at all costs. He probably grew weary of being of all alone, with only fawning servitors surrounding him. Colleen McCullough speculates that he whiled away his remaining years in a debauched manner but who really knows why a man chooses to lay down great power ? Perhaps, as someone suggested, he was ill, maybe dying. Or, as Colleen speculates, he may have wanted to have that last fling and indulge in his depraved desires one last time before he "gave up his ghost".

The famous Mark Antony's father, same name, except for his ignoble cognomen Creticus, meaning "man of chalk", which was given to incompetent men, was given responsibility to eliminate the pirates by a decree of the senate. However, he failed miserably in his task and plundered the very provinces he was supposed to protect. According to one account, he managed to escape after being roundly defeated with the loss of many ships, only after he signed an "abject" treaty. I'm sure Mark Antony must have suffered a lot due to his father's reputation and perhaps this spurred him on to achieve something on his own, although he felt overshadowed by Caesar for most of his life. Crete was a hotbed of pirates and many of the pirate kings openly set up bases there and formed alliances with the citizens of Crete. There are even accounts of their bold incursions into Italy itself, not only along the coastal towns like Brundisium but at Ostia itself, where they seized all Roman noblemen of note. Pirates plagued Rome for many years, despite Pompey's boast some years later that he had cleared the Mediterranean ("Our Sea") of all pirates. Pompey's own son was a pirate, causing much headache to both Antony and Octavius, until the wily Agrippa found a way of defeating him.

As PP suggested, try a general overview first, Michael Grant is a great start and then, depending on which particular subject interests you, you can pursue reading other works. A number of Livy's translations are also available online and there are some good sites like University of Chicago ( I think the domain is penelope.edu) which may also provide you with some good material.

The foolishness of the technique of using chariots was demonstrated ably by Alexander's armies as the men waited for the chariots to approach and then, instead of meeting them head on, which is what Darius expected, which would have been to his advantage, the ranks simply opened, allowing them to pass through. Once they passed through the lines which parted, they closed up again and this time, the chariots were easy fodder for the men, as their backs were exposed and once the horses were killed, there was nothing to prevent their slaughter, without the loss of a single Greek or Macedonian soldier.

One reason for the decline of the Republic was that Rome had expanded too much and too fast. There was too much wealth and gone were the old ways when Cincinnatus preferred going back to the farm when the crisis was over, rather than enjoy his "power". People like Marcus Licinius Crassus were the worst sort of "aristocrats", if you could call him that, as he made money on the backs of the poor, by becoming Rome's biggest landlord. Each of the tenements he owned, with many in the Subura itself, were rickety structures and virtual fire traps. I'm not sure how many poor people, citizens of Rome and members of the capite censei or the "head count" lost their lives to fuel his greedy ambitions. Maybe it is a fitting end for him that he died most horribly as the Parthian general, hearing his fondness for gold, had him swallow the yellow molten metal.

There's a great book I use by Gilles Chaillet. It has a series of maps of the city, street by street. Unfortunately, the book is in French and is titled "Dans La Rome des Cesars". The maps are all pull out and show incredible detail.

While HBO's "Rome" is certainly focused on the historical events of the time, the basic storyline follows the adventures of Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo and I guess the writers could spend a significant amount of time on Vorenus's family woes (including the loss of his beloved wife) and Pullo's new relationship with his former "slave". Antony, of course, will play a prominent part in the second season, as well as Octavian, who will metamorphose from the precocious youth in the first season to a more mature leader of men, as we get glimpses of the future emperor and statesman who shaped the Roman Empire from the ashes of the Republic. It will certainly be interesting to see who plays Agrippa and I don't think the writers can ignore such a great historical figure, as he was instrumental in seeing Octavian to the throne, as it were and also protecting him from the vicious ambitions of the other good men in Rome. Cleopatra will play a prominent part, I would imagine, as Antony languishes in Egypt, frittering away his time, while Octavian consolidates his power base. Coming to the triumvirate, I don't think Lepidus will play a prominent role and we could certainly also see another strong woman emerge, Antony's wife, Fulvia. She was his third wife and was a martial woman, even raising legions on Antony's behalf with the help of his brother.

The 14/15 April dates are now favoured so we can show hospitality to our oversees visitor (Skarr) , who if by misadventure cannot come at that time (Skarr if you are reading this your pm box is full!) may give us leeway to alter the date if.Skarr kindly lets us know his travel plans in advance . Please note that I suggest this as a "first off" meeting. Hi Pertinax, Sorry, I didn't realize my PM was full and have since cleared it. In any case, I don't want everyone's schedules to revolve around me. If August / September is better for most folks, I wouldn't mind that either. Apr is a long way off and the reason I found this convenient is because of a project I'm working on which would allow me to combine some business with this trip. However, as you know, project deadlines change a lot and nothing is written in stone.

I'm not too much into the "costume" thing myself, unless the meeting is at the very hotel you're staying at and you can just pop back into your room, as you are kind of restricted in your movements either before or after the meeting.

While on the subject of language, there is also Tamil, an ancient language in the South of India, which is not derived from Sanskrit and which has a huge amount of literature and inscriptions that date back to 200 BCE. The Southern India kings spread their kingdom east via the sea and colonized what is today modern Cambodia. Evidence of their widespread influence is of course, most visible in the sculpture and temple complex in Angkor Vat in Cambodia, with many of the figures celebrating various stories from the ancient epic, "The Ramayana". The origin of this language is shrouded in obscurity and maybe the oldest form could be traced back to say 500 BCE. Language, especially written language, using alphabets developed slowly over the ages and the first languages were probably very symbolic and evolved out of signs that were universally recognized and often were pictorial representations of what humans saw around them. I would guess that in the early days, it must have been far easier to share a common language, being built around a few key symbols. For example, while you could invent many different symbols for a bird, the meaning is clear, irrespective of the skill of the artist drawing that symbol - whether a stick figure or an elaborate colored symbol. I guess languages evolved into today's complexity based on the exponential growth of intelligence as humans spread all over the world, inventing new ways of doing things etc. etc. all of which would have exhausted the limited span of symbolic communication. I think that once one particular group evolved their own "language" from these early symbolic methods, the growth of their own branch must have been unstoppable, culminating in the development of distinct languages like Sanskrit, Greek, Latin and so on. Very interesting topic and very closely connected to the development of humans as a whole and their spread throughout the globe.

I'm ok with NY or Vegas, as I do go there often. NY is driving distance for me.

I don't know if it was a Boy Scout badge or not. But if it once was, it may have been because the symbol was also used by North American Indians. Its meaning to them, I know not. Here is a picture of a Boy Scout Medal (well before WWII) Boy Scout medal with swastika

Excellent, Nepilla. You do have a rare talent.

PP, you raise some good points on the soldiers' fates while they were in the army. My understanding is that the only exemption from the rule of 'no marriage' was for equestrian and senatorial commanders. However, they could not take a wife from the provinces they were in charge of. With regard to the illegitimate children of the soldiers and the wives of the soldiers who bore those children, they had no legal entitlement to the estate of the father. However, if the father (a Roman citizen) made a will before his death and lodged this in the temple of the Vestas in Rome with their names clearly identified, they could claim part of his estate. This state mostly prevailed until the arrival of Emperor Claudius, who passed a law granting Roman soldiers the same privileges that Augustus had reserved only for married citizens (where both husband and wife are Roman citizens). Most of what we know about Roman marriage laws, especially around the inheritance of children arise from papyrii documenting court cases in Egypt where children of Roman soldiers tried to claim their inheritance and were denied this, on the grounds that they were illegitimate, although their fathers were Roman citizens and had served in the legions.

Hi Nepilla, Try this - SirMarshyMarkViaSwan I'm not sure how you can convert this to a Roman name, given that there is no U. In any case, I would be curious to see what you come up with. Cheers and best wishes,

Cato, Gaius - I am schooled. I guess I should have pinpointed the source of my "irritation" more clearly. You are obviously right, symbols do gain more meaning with association or rather, additional or new meanings. With regard to the "good luck" message, as I pointed out in my post, this is a "popular" meaning and the main meaning is actually more metaphysical and is centered on time / realities / existence and consciousness. The irritation I felt was the comment that it was mainly related to Buddhism, which is incorrect. I realize that there are a number of overlapping symbols between Buddhism and Hinduism (which later absorbed Buddha as one of the avatars, leading to further confusion). However, this particular symbol is Hindu in origin and has been that way for millenia until it was adopted by the Nazi party. In fact, before Hitler, even the Boy Scouts had this as one of their symbols before it was withdrawn (sometime in the 20's I think).

Onesicritus of Astypalaea, a commander in the fleet of Alexander the Great wrote about an island called Taprobane and subsequently Pliny refers to the same island, describing the visit of a freedman from Rome and subsequently, the island (modern Sri Lanka) sent a delegation to pay their respects to Emperor Claudius. Trade seems to have been limited with Sri Lanka, although there are references to exotic pearls from Taprobane, which were available in many fine shops on the Forum, even during the Republic, for the ladies to purchase. It may be that many of these were sent to India from Sri Lanka and then, via Egypt, found its way to Rome. Regarding China, I don't know much about the trade routes. However, the Indian connection is definitely getting more documentation, as you can read below. As far as trade with India is concerned, recent archaeological expeditions along the Red Sea have unearthed organic substances from India (pepper, sail cloth, baskets, etc.) dating from about AD 30 at a Roman trading post (Berenike site - sponsored by Dutch / American funding ; located near the Egypt - Sudan border). This information is all based on a recently published article in the "Sahara", a monthly journal. The speculation is that goods / cargo were regularly shipped by boat during the monsoon to this trading post and then transported by camel or Nile river boats to Alexandria and from there on, to Rome. The findings are definitive proof of a vigorous trade with India by the Roman Empire (Willeke Wendrich of the University of California, one of the lead archaeologists, says that it is proof of a "Spice Route", very much like the "Silk Route" that led to China).

If the alleged Roman and Bellamy salutes were pre-Nazi, why should they be "awful"? The same goes for the swastika, which actually meant "luck." It also is still in use today for mainly Buddism. Actually, that is a little incorrect. The "swastika" is very much an ancient Hindu symbol, which is a mystical representation of two major ideas - time and consciousness. It is very commonly found throughout India, especially in ancient temples and sculptures, where the design is etched into the stone wall or the column, going back thousands of years. The word itself is derived based on sanskrit symbols. One is the symbol 'su' which roughly translates as "well" or rather, well-being or existence in a state of health. The second symbol 'asti' is directly related to existence and roughly translates as "to be". Imagine a wheel made of a cross with its arms bent - the spirals representing the arms move either clock wise or counter-clockwise in upward or downward spirals when spinning, which, in a mystical explanation, represents the many states of "reality" that are available to a human soul - the meaning of 'asti', as existence can be perceived as a state of consciousness in different planes of reality. Hitler hijacked this symbol for his use and the meaning today is lost, as people invariably associate this ancient symbol with the "Nazis". In layman terms, this symbol (before Hitler) was associated with good luck. In many Hindu charms, there are also dots (representing a human soul) in each of the spaces formed by the spiral. This was another way of explaining the multi-faceted view of reality in that different human beings may exist on the same place of consciousness but in different places, as it were, as they possess different realities (which in this case may be seen as different points of view), because of their unique, individual experiences. Sorry for the long post but I always get irritated when someone loosely comments on symbols without understanding their true origin / meaning.

April 14 / 15 2007 seems like a good date for me ... I'll have to fly in from Boston and then take a train ? to York ? I may spend a couple of days in London around that time.

Vorenus doesn't say that he is a "Catonian". It is Atia who puts this label on him when he airs his views on the Republic and he just goes along with it, accepting this label without making a big deal about it. I don't think Vorenus really knows who he stands for and is very confused, especially in the way he first joins with Caesar, believing in some ideal notions about the "Republic". However, he doesn't see that the world around him has changed and that the original Republic is long dead. Caesar's brand of government, although harsh and unreasonable by the old standards, is the only viable alternative to chaos, which Rome is threatened with all the time, due to the very nature of the beast. Consider the senate itself at the time. Split into factions and with no unity even among the various splinters, they all yearn for someone to take control or charge. If not Caesar, it would be someone else. Most of the senators were like sheep and possessed no opinions of their own, clinging to their precious status as it guaranteed them some modicum of life with which they could at least survive in those dangerous times, especially after the way Marius and Sulla destroyed the sanctity of Rome with all the blood that was spilled on the Rostra and with the merciless proscriptions. Pompey was a feral monster and Caesar, although not as brutal as Pompey, was also a harsh man, not readily swayed by sentimental ideals that were difficult at best to understand. He was a realist, a practical man who liked to introduced broad swaths of sweeping reform, something he could not do using traditional means in the senate, due to various divisions. The only alternative, for the good of Rome, was to use his powers as dictator to introduce such reforms. Vorenus, when he realizes the elections were rigged, could have walked away from Caesar, if he was truly a "Catonian". Cato would have died rather than stay on, but Vorenus compromises and goes along with Caesar's reforms, despite knowing that he was chosen by the dictator, not elected by the people in a fair and proper manner. I guess Vorenus is more modern in his approach in that regard and is like some of the politicians today, who compromise all the time as their ideals change by the minute, depending on how circumstances are.

"I, Claudius" is engaging and dramatic and should be part of any Roman buff's collection. I do hope HBO and BBC find superb actors / writers if they expect to top the original series. I'm sure there are plenty of actors out there who can fit the various roles but the question always boils down to affordability and of course, time, since this kind of a production entails serious commitment on the part of the actors, who need to be dedicated to their roles. I agree with the comment about "battles" - we don't really need to spend a whole lot of money on battles, since this is bound to be incredibly expensive and could derail the entire production as a single battle scene of a few minutes (without CGI) involves weeks, if not months of planning, pre-production, construction of sets, scouting of locations, etc. etc. - Spend the money instead on getting the best actors you can (for your budget) and hire a team of experienced historians / writers who can bring this era to life in a way that can modern audiences can relate to. I think "Rome" did an excellent job in that regard and the overall production was very modern, with crisp dialogue and scenes that were filled with dramatic intensity, as the tension was quite palpable between the characters.