Skarr

I think it is a fanciful construct to try and explain our universe and its vastness, the various anomalies that are present. The key to me is always - "What happened before the big bang?" It seems to me that it is very convenient to have a theory where there is a beginning, a middle (we are in the middle now - a long middle) and an end. Human life spans are so infinitesimally small when compared to the astronomical phenomena, what we've observed in our entire time that humans have been here on this Earth ( a few million years at the most) is nothing but a dot or a blip in terms of space time. Theories abound and I think we have a long way to go to solving any mysteries or even coming up with a rational theory that can explain anything. Advanced physics is nothing but a crapshoot in the infinity of space and time and one theory is as good or bad as the next. In short, no one knows anything... it's all a big guess.

Kubrick's movie with Kirk Douglas is one of my all time favorites. The casting is simply great, with some brilliant performances by Peter Ustinov as Lentulus Batiatus, the greedy lanista and Charles Laughton as senator Gracchus, who opposes Marcus Licinius Crassus's policies in the senate and acts as a mentor to the young Julius Caesar, who is a military tribune under Crassus, but opposed to his politics. I think Laurence Olivier as Crassus delivers an outstanding performance, particularly in the 'snails and oysters' scene with Tony Curtis, who is a 'body slave'. This scene was censored and cut out originally but restored later. I can't see why they would cut it out. By today's standards, it is fairly harmless and you can well imagine the prudery of the establishment in the sixties, when even innuendo was subject to censorship. Douglas and Howard Fast twisted the unromantic tale of Spartacus into one about civil rights and freedom, particularly censorship and the blacklisting of people that went on in a post McCarthy era. I think Kirk had real difficulties in convincing Kubrick on his position, who wanted to do as authentic a portrayal as possible. Kubrick spent countless hours in research, even to the extent of choregraphing the fight sequences with moves exclusively practised by the gladiators as depicted in various surviving mosaics and paintings. The combat between the Thracian style of fighting (Spartacus) and the retarius with the fish net and trident is one of the very best that I have ever seen and if you want to see the original Spartacus, see it for this reason alone, as it is just astounding. The fight took several months to film, with many, many retakes and the final version on screen is a classic and if you want to really know how the ancient Roman gladiators fought, this is it and not the watered down version in "Gladiator". There, we don't see the actual fighting but merely theatrics as Russell Crowe slices his opponents without showing how he was in a position to do that.

As a fan of Shakespeare, I did like Titus, despite the gore and brutality, which is medieval in its ferocity, although I suspect that the 'barbarians' whom Romans detested were equally capable, if they were outraged in a similar fashion. The most barbarous, heinous punishment is meted out by a vengeful Titus but no one who reads the play can really fault him or even reproach him in any way, as the violence itself is transformed by Shakespeare as a form of suffering, an expression of pain that does not satisfy but ultimately destroys. In most of Shakespeare's plays, there is a strong moral message and while 'corpses do pile up' (as someone pointed out) in say, Hamlet, the overall atmosphere is vastly different in both plays, mainly due to the manner in which the deaths occur. Musings about death are very common in many Shakespearean tragedies, as he was quite the philosopher and ultimately, it is not dying itself which frightens many of his characters, but the manner in which death approaches them. Caesar himself, like Alexander before him and Achilles (the original hero who was much admired by all men) preferred a quick death, albeit a glorious one. To die in battle was the most honorable of all deaths that were sought by men from different cultures - from Greek, to Roman, to the Celts and even the Vikings, as well as other ancient cultures ( India, for example - in their great epic, The Mahabharata). Regardless of culture, language or other perceived differences, men universally admired a 'glorious' death in battle, a soldier's death and this yearning or desire persists to the present time. In Titus, Shakespeare goes to the opposite extreme, to the worst form of death, which is to be devoured by wild animals or to be eaten or going to the specific circumstances of the play, cannibalism. This is a deep rooted fear in most men and this, coupled with the idea that it could occur and be legitimized, even when it goes to the very fundamental relationships (mother and sons), must have been an idea that fascinated Shakespeare and as a play, I think this is more philosophical musing, a desire to shock people out of conventional modes of thought, a device that he used in those times to jerk people out of their ordinary, mundane ways of thinking. To most modern readers, you must remember that our minds have been shocked so many times already (from WWII or other atrocities like those in Cambodia, etc.) and a play like this would not really affect us in the way it did most people at the time. Such ideas expounded by Shakespeare must have been really radical and would have jolted people severely, especially those who live in a cocoon like sentimentality, guarded from atrocities by their power and wealth. It is extremely difficult to therefore stage a satisfying production of Titus on stage and even more difficult to portray this in a film, as the character can easily be perceived as a monster by the end of the play, without retaining an iota of sympathy. The DVD of Titus was good but only so far as Anthony Hopkins' performance is concerned. I didn't care too much for the sets or the fancy touches. I think the play would have had a much stronger effect if the sets were stark, bare and white with almost a spartan flavor. The slighest hint of blackness or color would have stood out that much greatly, in my opinion. Sorry for the longish post..

Colleen McCullough covers the subject well in her series of books on the Republic and I think this particular topic is found in her third book, "Fortune's Favorites" where there is an interesting scene between the dictator Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Caesar. Sulla has his own private reasons for freeing Caesar from the offices of the flamen dialis, a clever way for Marius to get rid of a potential rival, as Caesar could never distinguish himself militarily or have any political career in Rome, as long as he remained in that office. According to Colleen's version, Sulla frees Caesar not because he wants to do him a good turn but out of a sheer sense of spite or dislike of Marius, his way of evening the score by undoing what he wanted done. There is also another great scene in that book between Sulla and Caesar's mother, Aurelia, as Sulla had originally wanted Caesar killed and it is on her request or rather, plea, that he is spared by the dictator. I'm not sure if this is how all this occurred, as this is really fiction but good fiction at that, very believable in the way it is presented to the reader.

FV, perhaps I should have been more clear in my statement about women being 'jealously guarded'. I think it was an inappropriate characterization, as I used a more modern phrase for what was viewed a little differently by the Romans. The concept of 'cuckold' is more modern and what hurt more is the lack of control exercised by the husbands over their household, as women were treated more on par with property (certainly not as equals). If Caesar slept with the wife of a political rival, it was injurious to his dignitas. He was more concerned about that and the fact that people would perceive him as 'weak', since he couldn't control his own wife. I don't know if I'm getting the concept across right or not, as it is a little difficult to explain the mind set. Caesar, for example, purposely went out to seduce Bibulus's wife, when he was his junior colleague and consul in the same year as Caesar. Of course, Caesar always used a multi-pronged attack on his rivals and when it came to the games, the expenses were split between Caesar and Bibulus, as both were editores, but it was Caesar who got all the credit for staging the games from the public, as if he solely put up the lavish and extravagant games, funding everything from his own pocket. As far as Servilia, Clodia, Fulvia and a few others were concerned - these were the rare exceptions, as they had wealth and property of their own, under their own control and not subject to the whims of their husbands or fathers. This made them powerful and sought after, especially Clodia, who was a rich widow and courted by many a young Roman. Cicero attacked her especially, because her brother Clodius exiled him from Rome and he bore no goodwill towards their family.

Here are my 2 c.. on this. While some Roman women (especially in the later Republic) did have affairs or committed adultery (especially with Caesar, who was beloved of many a wife - a political strategy he employed, to humiliate their husbands), I think the modern mind is clouded with Hollywood and lascivious depictions, especially a Roman "orgy", which is a modern concept of what it was like. A lot of what we fantasize about Rome is often that, pure fantasy and while we would certainly like to imagine the Roman matrons running wild, more often than not, they were swaddled from head to toe in wool, covered with a veil and if you, by chance, happened to glimpse at their bodies, it would be quite podgy, with probably rolls of fat. No nubile beauties, unless you went to a specialist brothel, where you might find mostly foreign women, from Egyptians to Greeks, who might be a little better to look at. The Roman men jealously guarded their women and it was unusual for a woman to even walk the streets alone, unescorted. Most women led humdrum lives (with a few exceptions, of course, like Clodia, who was a rich widow and subject to attacks from Cicero - more political than factual, if you ask me) and spent their days spinning wool, in the kitchen and with their children and household slaves.

I'm still working on a project set in that time period - Gaius Sempronius Gracchus. However, progress on the novel has been pretty slow and I need to find more time to finish it. I'm not aware of anyone who has written a good book yet on the Gracchi and hopefully, my book will make the list. Although the Gracchi are only peripheral to the main story, they are very much part of the novel I have in mind and directly influence many of the important events.

I have read some interesting comparisons between the US vs Rome in the past. However, despite the clever nature of the arguments to substantiate this thesis, Rome was vastly different and if you look at the initial 400 years of the Republic since its founding vs the American "Republic", there is no basis at all for comparison. Firstly, Rome had a fairly small population, not numbering in the millions like we do. Second, the structure was more tribal with the initial tribes being the settlers on each of the hills. Thirdly, although the monarchy had been displaced, a quasi-monarchy was the rule as the consul / pro-consul ruled literally as kings. However, they had checks and balances - the senate, the short term of their offices and later, when the plebeians were included, the famous veto, which was much abused in later periods. Numerous other points can be made to annull the comparisons but chief among them all is the very form of Government. There were no parties or factions in the senate, as it was conceived. This was to happen much later, after the Gracchi brothers, when the 'boni' began to exert an influence. Otherwise, there was only one party, Rome, and the senate was supposed to act as one, for the benefit of Rome and its people.

As a rule, most prophecies in ancient times were not really specific but purposely vague and subject to a lot of interpretation, depending on who was asking the question. I'm not really sure on the exact sources for the quotes in the book you are reading but I would imagine that there were a number of people who believed in prophesy and therefore, it is natural to assume that many of the so called 'druids' of that time would have taken advantage of this, as well as the bloody and violent times that passed for what is daily life. Speaking about prophesy, in the older days, even in Celtic Europe, as well as the Greeks, women were thought to have the power of prophesy and many of them were linked to even older cults and religions - matrae, Cybele and some of the Eastern cults, all of which had common themes that linked them to a Great Mother or Earth Mother type of religion, which was peaceful before being replaced by the more patriarchal druids in Central Europe (all male) and subsequently, the Christian all male religious hierarchy. Most prophesy occurred at specific places where the one predicting the future (as opposed to more formal haruspicy, an Egyptian custom of reading the entrails and other Roman methods of divination or what is termed as auspices) would either be in a trance (self induced or by using external substances) or temporarily possessed by the spirit. The words themselves would be meaningless and usually, the prophesy spoken by a woman would then be interpreted by the male priests, depending on the status of the person who asked the question. A classic example is the Pythia at the temple of Delphi, a priestess who would inhale the vapors emanating from a crack within the floor, gases that came from deep within the Earth. The Romans, I think were more practical in their approach and all they would look for in the flight of birds or the reading of entrails (color being an important part in the examination of the liver) was a simple yes or no to whatever action was proposed. Before launching the final assault on an oppidium, Caesar would call his haruspices and ask them to sacrifice an animal and if there were no spots on the liver, the animal was healthy and clean and the blood was really red, it was considered auspicious. All he would do then is to stand before his army and say that Mars will be pleased and the signs are favorable for an attack and for victory.

Talking of Caesar and Gaul, I finally got my copy of "Vae Victis" a graphic novel which follows a group of Celts, Gauls, etc. as they try to get the better of Caesar at each of his key battles - at Avaricum, at Gergovia and finally, at Alesia. The series also covers Caesar's brief campaign in Britain with sub plots (of course, entirely fictional) that follow a love triangle between a young girl from Britain, an Etruscan doctor and a devoted Gaul (giant guy but a little stupid). I will be reviewing this in detail on my site shortly. The art is fantastic and the accuracy with which the battle scenes have been drawn is simply amazing, even breathtaking. The complex formations of the Romans, their remarkable feats of engineering and construction in the worst weather imaginable, the disarray of the various tribes assembled by Vercingetorix and his ineptness as a leader, everything is brought out vividly in the art and I think, in my mind, this is the best graphic novel series I have ever read and plan to re-read it again, as it is so detailed and so rich in its imagery. The only drawback is that it is entirely in French, which may be an incentive for some to learn the language. I don't think a translation is being planned and even if you just have a rudimentary knowledge of French, it may be well worth your while to read this, along with a dictionary .. Simply amazing ! [ For those interested, you can check it out on Amazon.com [ click on the France link to get to its french site and then type in Vae Victis].

Not one particular source.. I've read too many books on Rome and things connected with Rome for the past 25 years now and cannot pinpoint a particular source that all of this comes from... I have a fairly good picture in my mind now of how Rome looked and how the citizens lived... It certainly helps if you are a writer.

The custom of lictors accompanying those Romans with imperium actually dates back to the Etruscans, as their kings had lictors to symbolize not only the power of life and death (the axe) but also the power to punish or chastize (the bundled rods). The conspirators knew that they could not attack Caesar in the streets, on his way to the senate house, which was at that time, as PP points out, outside the Servian walls, in the Campus Martius, where Pompey had built a grand theater. I don't think the lictors actually accompanied Caesar into the floor of the senate but probably waited for their master outside. So, the only way to actually have a chance is to kill Caesar on the floor of the senate itself, with the assassins being the senators themselves, who would smuggle in knives for the occasion. I don't think Caesar or any of his advisors ever thought that senators, the first citizens of Rome, would stoop to such degrading levels to personally carry out an assassination. I think it was unthinkable, given Rome's long and distinguished history up to that point. Caesar may have regarded himself as inviolable, particularly within the hallowed walls of the senate. In fact, the cowardly senators, fearing Antony's brute strength, which may impede their plan, drew him away from the floor, so that they would not have to face him, as he would surely have killed several of them with his bare hands, as he was a skilled fighter and not an easy man to contend with. The rest of the senators were pussies and might have cowered in fright.

Alrighty then! You're probably thinking of Cato the Elder. We're talking of Cato the Younger. Speaking of Cato the elder, he was a very strict, conservative man who saw the declining morals that were prevalent in Rome, in 161 BC itself during the consulship of Marcus Valerius Messalla. In one important speech in the senate, he crticized the lax morals of the Roman elite, who were bidding up prices on everything, from young boys who were auctioned off for exorbitant sums of money to jars of caviar, which were sold for as much as three hundred drachmas. There was a lot of feasting and banqueting in Rome, as it had become quite rich, with the conquest of Greece and parts of Macedonia after the defeat of Perseus in the Third Macedonian War. There were a number of rapacious nobles in Rome, as the worst was to come later, when the city of Corinth was sacked and looted by Mummius, purely to further the business interests of the Roman knights, who had become another powerful force in Rome, apart from its generals, who were later to decide the fate of the Republic. Cato blamed Greece to a large part for the decline in morals, believing that their laxity, particularly in sexual matters, from hetaerae or learned courtesans to boys who were sold in Rome, contributed to the prevalent culture at the time. First, it was the Etruscans who were blamed for leading Romans down a ruinous moral path, then the Greeks. I personally think that this smacks of total hypocrisy as ultimately, they were all grown men and were probably looking for scapegoats to blame, to account for their own moral lapses. Interestingly, in that year, a lex Fannia was passed in the senate, curbing private expenditure and sponsored by Cato the elder.

Tobias, I think I would tend to agree with what you've said and my view is similar, in that there were many forces that were responsible for the downfall of the Republic and it would be incorrect to lay the blame at the door of a single individual or even several, no matter how influential those persons were in contributing to its downfall. First, the Republic itself, for many years, was in a state of decay and despite reform efforts by Sulla and later, by Caesar, to restore the Republic to its former glory, there were too many divisive forces within the senate and its leadership. The first signs were evident during the time of the Gracchi brothers, when land reforms proved too unpopular with the senate, due to the re-distribution of wealth that was being proposed. Rome had expanded too fast and was bringing in a lot of wealth, too much in fact, for the fragile Republican structure that depended on the honesty of men and called for selflessness in the way business was conducted in the senate. Second, the transfer of power from the senate to the generals who brought Rome her victories and her glory, caused a real rift in the structure, with factions forming to support this general or the other as everyone soon realized that the real power lay with those who commanded the legions. In time, the senate became no longer a driving force but a battleground for these various factions with two or three individuals splitting the overall governance and this was the reason for the Republic's downfall. The writing was on the wall for many years and if not Caesar, it would have been Pompey or someone else who would want to have complete control over Rome. Civil war was inevitable in the circumstances that had been created and many in the senate looked for strong leadership to take control over various matters that were threatening Rome - from grain supplies, to pirates, to barbarian migrations that were always dangerous and very threatening to Rome. There was also widespread corruption and constant fighting between the various factions within the senate, with little or no unity driving any of the various legislative measures that were proposed, as someone would always bribe one of the tribunes to veto, more out of spite for the man proposing the legislation than the actual proposal.

The houses of prominent Romans served as a kind of landmark and most people who lived nearby would give out their house directions by first pointing to say, Cicero's house and saying that you needed to pass his house and then go five doors down on the left to reach their house. Of course, most prominent Romans would send a slave (say a day earlier to a dinner invitation) and then just follow him or her to their destination. The ladies would travel by litter or even walk (if it was a nice day, as the streets tended to get really muddy), while the men generally preferred to walk. A little mud on their shoes ? No problem, there was a slave waiting to wash their feet upon arrival. Another interesting fact is that most people rarely entered via the front door, as the vestibule was always jam packed with clients and other riff-raff. Friends and guests invariably used a more private entrance to the domus that was probably guarded by slaves to fend off any undesirables seeking to gain admittance.

I pre-ordered the series at Amazon for $ 69.99 [free shipping] .. Just type Rome first season in the search box and the page will show up. UK buyers, you should have a friend in the US pre-order this for you and ship it via Media Mail to the UK.

I watched the video and I think the lady has dementia of some kind. You can see it her staring eyes and her inability to respond to an intelligent question except repeat herself again and again with the same arguments that she has convinced herself is true. Religion is extremely dangerous in the wrong hands and this is just another example of that.

Excellent link, Viggen. I like to keep an open mind but the facts seem to be against the theory that these "pyramids" in Bosnia pre-date Egypt. The excerpts from that Houston based Bosnian contractor's (not archaeologist, as he likes to call himself) book are very revealing indeed. I'm going to take whatever "findings" that are published by him with a large handful of salt.

Most religions evolved as a result of humans' inability to explain the mysteries of life, especially their own mortality. Humans are the only species to become conscious of their own mortality and were probably the first to honor the dead and commemorate their lives in some form, through tombs, monuments or simple ritual that eased the pain, the grief and the suffering by those who had lost someone. From these simple rites evolved the need for a greater understanding of the world and to a certain extent, Greek philosophy is based on direct observation. Not so empirical as science but nevertheless, it attempts to look at the natural world and environment around us and seeks to explain some of the mystery behind it. The more mystical aspects in Greek religion were probably the close relationships that the Greeks shared with the Persians and there was a cultural and religious exchange of sorts with some form of Persian beliefs also finding its way into Greek culture. For example, there were temples dedicated to the goddess Anahita, a Persian deity, that were found in Greece. There is also the mystery of prediction, the priestess of Apollo at Delphi, who was sought after by not only Greeks but also the Romans and other cultures. I think Christianity, being a state sponsored creation, sought to homogenize hundreds of other religions and faiths, adopting rituals from Mithraic practices and other religions of the time. I would tend to agree with some posters that philosophical aspects found in Greek philosophy must have been borrowed and then morphed to fit the overall emphasis that Christianity has on the holy trinity and the concept of redemption, purging of one's sins and other purificatory rituals, which were always associated with some form of extreme ascetiscm or violence (self flagellation, starvation and so on - more in keeping with the Greek hermits, who pursued similar ascetic lives but with vastly different motives and goals). For obvious reasons, the "one size fits all" approach does not work well with either religion or philosophy and what we have today is a hodge podge of beliefs that baffle the mind and lead to more confusion than anything else. One god, one human being, what could be simpler than that, one may well ask ? However, what religion has become today is not one human being with his or her personal "God" but a charter membership with a club that dictates how you should think and what you should believe in as also what rituals need to be performed to ward off "the evil eye", or promote good health, long life, good luck, etc. I think we are still gripped by the fear of the unknown and as long as people fear or want / desire something badly enough, we will be stuck with a variety of beliefs and will have to muddle our way through.

In my opinion, the key turning point for Rome was its victory over Carthage and the subsequent expansion into Greece and Macedonia. That, followed by victories in Africa, Spain and later, in Gaul under Caesar's leadership, really cemented Rome's position. Octavian's annexation of Egypt not only secured grain for the subsequent Empire but also provided the much needed wealth that was needed to pay the legions. I think the Republicans, from Scipio to Caesar, created a springboard for the continuing imperial expansion of Rome, with its military might virtually unchallenged by another civilization in the Mediterranean. Who could resist the formidable legions, their discipline and finally, their culture / civilization and also their superb administrative abilities. They were masters at organization and setting up infrastructure, where none existed before. Most peoples they conquered tended to be nomadic or migratory, especially the "barbarians" who typically settled in one spot and laid waste to the land around them until they literally ran out of resources. This forced the long migrations that Rome dreaded and which, in time, proved deadly for them, particularly in the Western Empire.

You're probably thinking of the theory developed by Robert Schoch and John Anthony West. You can read a nice dispute here. Thanks, Moonlapse. That was indeed interesting and I was sure at the time that the evidence pointed to a probably much later date but I am always willing to keep an open mind provided conclusive evidence is obtained. Right now, after reading a little more, I think the theory does not have much merit as it is always difficult to estimate the precise age through weathering, etc. A logical mind would point to a much later date. I'm very skeptical on the age of the so-called Bosnian pyramids and as one archaeologist speculated, it could be Europeans at a much later date with a fascination for Egyptian pyramids who may be responsible for its construction. At any rate, there is a lot of wild speculation going on, which may be good for the tourist trade but little else. Look at the Roswell myth and how much tourism it has generated for an obsure desert region. I think people want to believe in aliens, the miraculous and other "out of the world" phenomena. It is inherent in human nature to want to believe in something superior, I guess.

In terms of age, isn't the Sphinx supposed to be even older than the pyramids? I remember reading a theory years ago, based on the weathering / erosion of the surface of the Sphinx, that this monument may be over 10,000 years old.

Persecution per se was not a policy of most Emperors. Roman law rarely, if ever, proactively sought to 'persecute' people but was more or less, reactive in nature. When presented with evidence, Romans sought to bring their form of justice to the case and in fact, even in the times of Trajan, proper adherence to law was held much in regard. For example, Trajan writes to Pliny [ Source Pliny Letters 10.96 - 7], responding to a case against Christians : Quote: "You have followed the right course of procedure, my dear Pliny, in your examination of the cases of persons charged with being Christians, for it is impossible to lay down a general rule to a fixed formula. These people must not be hunted out; if they are brought before you and the charge against them is proved, they must be punished, but in the case of anyone who denies that he is a Christian, and makes it clear that he is not by offering prayers to our gods, he is to be pardoned as a result of his repentance however suspect his past conduct may be. But pamphlets circulated anonymously must play no part in any accusation. They create the worst sort of precedent and are quite out of keeping with the spirit of our age." Unquote I think the key thinking here of Trajan is that although Christianity is not a religion that they particularly like, people who practice this must not be "hunted out". Also, he was not in favor of administering justice based on anonymous notes or "pamphlets" but required people to be actually examined by a Roman official with powers to hear and pronounce judgment against a particular accusation, after proper examination of the evidence. Trajan's note is very clear that the "charge against them is proved" (see above quote) before deciding on a particular case.

This is a great book and deserves to be reviewed in depth. Am looking forward to reading your insights into this work, as I don't recall much of it now, having read this years ago.