Skarr

I hope someone writes a book with actual photographs etc of the "Chinese" who are blue eyed and have Roman features. It would be something to research into, if funding could be obtained as I would imagine that you would have to first deal with the Chinese bureaucracy and also seek the help of Chinese historians etc.. , before you were allowed to visit the place and interview folks, take pictures, dig around for artifacts that may be buried in tombs

The best scenes which I liked in Spartacus were the beginning scenes at the gladiatorial school (till they escape to Vesuvius) and some of the scenes between Ustinov and Laughton, which were really good. There were a lot of 'cheesy' moments (as one poster has already pointed out) and the failied seduction of Varinia by Crassus and the fine speeches she trades with him about a slave's honor is a little too unbelievable and I wonder what Stanley was thinking when he agreed with the script writer. The brotherly combat at the end was also a little 'cheese' and I think, had some strong political overtones about the oppressed sticking out for each other. I think Douglas did have a strong agenda and I'm surprised that Kubrick went along with many of his ideas.

Good review, Ursus. I have read a few accounts of violence that was perpetrated by the Church in the name of preserving their faith and I would tend to agree with your conclusion that you didn't need to read 300 pgs to arrive at that. Violence has always been a factor in any movement involving control or power over a territory, state or people's minds / beliefs. After all, most individuals fear physical harm and beatings, torture and a number of other things which are extremely abhorrent to our modern sensibilities were routinely performed on those who were weak or less fortunate in those times. There is a tendency for people to yearn for the peaceful times of yore, but that is more or less due to the romantic authors and the poets, who always tend to hyperbole anyway. Violence was a fabric of society and you had no real police or a form of justice that treated people with any compassion or with a sense of according them basic rights. It was all about who had the money and the power. If you think about it really, when Rome fell in the west, the aristocracy in Rome was not much affected. They simply shifted loyalties to their new masters and sure, they lost a little land. However, the poor lost everything - from their skin to their lives.

PP, it's amazing how so many people want the 'world' to end. Whose world ? The Earth has been here for a few billion years and will remain for a few billion more. We've heard enough of these crackpot theories and mark my words, 2012 will just be another day in someone's life - mundane, ordinary and nothing to remark upon. However, between now and 2012, there may be hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis and what not, as Nature doesn't function according to a 'man made' clock. Thousands may die but humans have spread all over the globe now and number in the billions. There is nothing significant about one particular date unless you happen to know that a comet or meteor is going to strike the Earth and can calculate exactly its orbit. Even that is not accurate and for all the great scientists in the world, it may still miss us by millions of miles. The Earth or the world will still remain and life will go on. Some humans will survive even after a terrible catastrophe. Unlike the dinosaurs, a few of us will be able to see it coming and will hide deep underground or wherever it's possible to survive. Don't write off mankind yet.

I think 'labels' are dangerous, in a way, as it exposes people to lumping individuals into categories and once you are 'labeled' and fit a particular category, whole bunches of people can be demonized. I think we are falling into the same traps as before and that's why history is so important and relevant and why it is more important to teach history than math or science. In the 4th century AD, a deliberate attempt was made to demonize barbarians and as Prof. Perkins points out in the book I recently reviewed, "The Fall of Rome", the most common coin (copper) was that of a Christian soldier spearing a barbarian to death and one of the most common phrases heard was that the only good barbarian was a dead barbarian. I fear that we may be falling into the same frenzy when we say "Muslims are this or Jews are this or Christians or Hindus or whatever".... Religion has a way of attracting fanatical followers and those who perpetrate acts of violence are still in the minority but have a great potential to cause major havoc. I think your doomsday scenario of people justifying the killing of millions of innocents even if a few madmen 'nuked' a major American city is certainly within the realms of possibility but in terms of probability, highly unlikely. In every American city, thousands of Muslims, Christians, atheists, etc. etc. would die. The bomb does not discriminate and kills everyone and the terrorist is 'faceless', one who professes to belong to a brand of Islam that devout Muslims abhor and condemn. It is like a fringe group and the more they kill, the less support they'll get. Like rats and cockroaches, they need to be weeded out and exterminated but they have so far remained resilient and are hiding like the true cowards they are. After enough murder has been committed, they may get sickened of it themselves ( I hope) and maybe this movement will die out in one or two generations. How many can you brainwash with promises of 'virgins' in the after life and other BS ?

I agree with Primus and would make a spectacular movie on the Gracchi brothers, who were the first 'reformists' and responsible for the formation of the Optimates and the Populares into two separate factions with the former trying to retain their land and their wealth, not granting the Gracchi their dream, which was to ensure a more equitable distribution, especially of the public land and also of granting wider citizenship rights throughout Italy. These reforms were extremely unpopular and led to bloody riots in the Forum with thousands of Gracchi supporters being killed or rather, 'butchered'.

Thank you, Flavius. The only problem is that we have such a long wait between seasons, it is going to be difficult for all "Rome" fans. Many of them are already in "deep depression", as apparent from the various posts in the HBO Forum, which has been really humming since the airing of the final episode. It's a pity that in the UK, they showed a chopped version of the first 3 episodes, chopping a number of scenes to reduce it to a mere 2 episodes. Funnily, I thought it should have been longer but again, I'm not with the BBC or HBO and therefore, cannot understand their rationale. One would think that they would shoot for more airing time with the footage they have, not less. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Well, I guess I can look forward to the DVD box (- it's amazing, but bootleg DVDs are already on sale at Ebay)

The best is, of course, saved for last and I agree with the sentiments of the posters here. The last two episodes were easily some of the best and if you're watching this in the UK, you have a lot to look forward to until the very end of Season 1. There have been rumors about Season 2 and some have even commented that the ship "hasn't sailed away yet" as "Rome" is more complex to produce than a show like say, "The Sopranos" where the star salaries are the most expensive part of the production. In "Rome" you have all kinds of sequences, including costumes, battles, huge sets and of course, hundreds of extras who need to be clothed, fed and of course, "paid". There are also not that many episodes per season and it takes a long time before you "can" each episode. However, despite the grumbling, I think HBO would be foolish not to go through with Season 2 as the story is far from over and some of the best action is yet to come (based on history). I'm particularly looking forward to : (in no particular order) - The formation of the triumvirate - The falling out and reconciliation between Octavian and Antony - The courtship of Cleopatra and especially the fabulous barge ( I wonder if HBO will spend that kind of money or will setlle for something cheaper as this would be only a few scenes at best, probably not worth the expense to build a realistic barge) - The final battle of Actium (again, the costs of showing a sea battle may be prohibitive and possibly, may be again skipped) However, there is plenty of room for drama and the main story, as always, will revolve around Titus Pullo and Lucious Vorenus, with the other giant historical characters revolving around these two. Of course, Antony and Octavian will have major roles and we may see Lepidus for the first time. Cleopatra, Atia and Servilia will be there but some of them only briefly. Atia may die soon and after her death, Octavian may plan a revenge on Servilia (despite what we know historically - she died a natural death). Anyway, until 2007, there will be plenty of debate going on and in the meantime, I do hope everyone is patient.

Professor Perkins, I did read your fascinating work recently on the fall of Rome and did review this for the Forum members and others who may be interested. My question relates to the 4th century AD where the success of Christianity and the displacement of pagan religions was probably closely tied to the demise of the Empire in the west. This diversion of resources from Rome's military to support the new clergy and the institutions that were developing caused a severe financial strain on the economy, as lower taxes were remitted to Rome and even these were unsustainable in later periods, as evidenced by the tax relief measures that were put in place, which proved that these excessive forms of taxation were becoming a real burden for many of the provinces that were under Roman rule. Do you think that the success of Christianity was in itself a cause for the demise of the Empire or was it just another contributing factor. I had the impression from your book that while Christianity's success and the relative burden it imposed from a financial perspective (by diverting funds for the church instead of being used for the army) was certainly one of the reasons, it was not the sole reason per se, as some others have argued. There were also the civil wars, the constant attempts at usurpation of the throne and also the development of a leisure class, one disengaged from the military and other technology of the times, forcing them to depend on fewer specialized type of industry for their needs and when these broke down, it was that much harder for them to regain their former strengths. One particular argument that I found interesting was that smaller societies which were not as technologically advanced as the Romans survived in pockets with little or no impact to their way of life, while large parts of the Roman empire in the West were utterly devastated as they lacked the resources to be self sufficient and had forgotten or lacked the knowledge to rebuild and survive. Perhaps the very specialization that the Romans sought, in order to get maximum efficiency, was the cause of their demise. I find that no other book I've read addresses this aspect as lucidly as you have done in your detailed account on the Fall.

Some have suggested, as other posters here have also hinted at, that Caligula's 'madness' was a carefully calculated act and designed to push through some radical reforms of his own. Perhaps his youthful arrogance showed itself here, somewhat similar to a rebellious, petulant teenager who deliberately does things to provoke his or her parents. Clearly, there was a huge difference in ages between Caligula and those whom he dealt with, who may have treated him like a child or talked down to him, which may have enraged him so much, this must have been some form of retaliation. He was an impulsive man and probably very hot tempered too. When he could not respond with reasoned arguments, as he lacked the experience, he probably tried to 'shock' them by showing off his power and forcing them to take notice, although his actions and methods may have seemed completely insane, something that none of the senators would have expected. In the end, however, he had too many powerful enemies and it was only a matter of time before they decided that enough was enough.

I guess I would have liked to meet either of the Gracchi brothers or maybe Marcus Aemilius Scaurus or even Cincinnatus.

I think the writers made some wrong choices concerning Caesar's portrayal. However, I guess it is in keeping with their view of Caesar as a manipulative man who sought to control and keep his position in Rome not only secure but was also a little paranoid about criticism. I do think Caesar was sensitive to criticism but I do not think he would stoop to murdering people either. Everyone on the streets of Rome would know Posca and if they saw him with a known gangster like Erastes Fulmen, it would soon be all over the city that it was Caesar behind the assassination. Why would Caesar resort to such petty methods? It was not in his nature and he was already dictator and for life, too. I think this does a great disservice to Caesar and perhaps it is a quirky attempt to make him seem like an ordinary man who presumed to be great but was no better than any other greedy politician or other man who hungered for personal power. Well, at the end of the day, no one knows what the real Caesar did and it seems unlikely, given what we know about the man. However, it is always possible that even he eliminated some enemies quietly and while this is certainly possible, many would argue that it was not likely or probable. Don't get me wrong, I love the show and have reviewed it again on my site, particularly after watching Ep 11. I think Ep 12 promises to be even more interesting, as they wrap up the season.

I think the last episode was very cinematic in certain aspects, especially with regard to the fight scenes. Well, although I would have preferred the authenticity you desired PP, I'm not complaining as it was done pretty well although the graphical quality was maybe a little gratuitous. However, this is more of a modern trend, made popular with films like 'Kill Bill', 'Sin City' etc. where the emphasis is on a highly stylized graphical quality to the scenes shown. Compare that to the fight scene in Spartacus and I still think the fight shown by Kubrick in that scene is one of the most authentic gladiator fights I've ever seen where each move was researched and the fight took months to film because of Kubrick's attention to detail. On Caesar, I think they wanted to show the 'lesser' side of greatness and I don't think they've really shown that he has fallen in the eyes of the people. He acts behind the scenes and the people in Rome still regard him with great affection and admiration. In regard to his veterans, they would never fight against Caesar but they are dissatisfied and are hoping that Caesar will give them the land he promised each of them. I think this is a separate issue and something that was more political, which Antony probably exploited later, after the death of Caesar. Throughout the triumvirate, both Antony and Octavian had problems with their legions and there were many negotiations between both generals with the commanders of the respective legions, something which had almost become routine.

There may be something about the intimidating factor, as people are usually shy of sharing their views, either from a fear of being 'judged' by those whom they perceive as being more scholarly or because they believe they have nothing to contribute. I think that either of those beliefs, if the new members, do hold them, should be dissipated and perhaps, if there was a welcome forum where upon joining, the new members were encouraged to post a little about themselves and why they joined the group, it may help break the ice and make them more at ease. I for one welcome all opinions, however terse they are. The point here is that we need voices here to speak and to share their views on various topics and I do think that if people are overly critical, we may have less people willing to share. We must encourage and draw these people out of their 'shells' and make them feel welcome here. Even if people do post to complete an essay, I think that's a good thing and we must encourage them to ask follow up questions and participate in other ways.

I'm agreed but I advanced my opinion only and this theme was honey to my soul. I know this viewpoint is not holds much favour nevertheless it has right to be. It is impossible to write and look back to bad scholarship. It is better then Celtic nationalism for example or something like that. Lacertus, I do agree with a number of your points. I think some of the tribal societies were pretty equal in regard to women's rights as well as men's. Unfortunately, as most of them left scant records or none, we can only speculate as to their status. From what I understand, marriage was sometimes performed between groups of people and I guess, it didn't really matter who the children were. As long as the mother could be identified (obvious), the husband she was married to would claim paternity, irrespective of who exactly the father was from a biological viewpoint as Celtic women were quite free in that respect and could choose their own partners. I think it was not matriarchial in that sense but more matrilineal and New Age theories overemphasize the matriarchial aspects. Women were respected because of their ability to bear children and this is evidenced in their worship of the fertility goddess. I don't think it conferred an ability for women to necessarily rule the tribe, although it could not be ruled out either. One sex did not automatically dominate or exclude the other and I think it was more of a partnership and fertile women were not only respected but their progeny were readily accepted into the tribe. I don't think we had the monogamous kind of relationships either as most of the tribes were fairly small and moved as a group. Having strict monogamy would lead to internal strife and disputes, which a nomadic tribe could simply not afford as it would threaten their very survival. You are right in that Caesar did comment on the group marriages in his commentaries but again it is a very passing reference as with other references. Plus, there were so many tribes spread all over and they would come together in one horde. To a certain extent, the disunity of the various tribes helped the Romans a great deal and they in fact, recognized this as something that was useful to Rome as many chiefs, many tribes and many leaders would ensure that they could never use their numerical superiority to any advantage. Unfortunately, over a period of centuries, the barbarians also learnt the value of compromise and to present a united front and in the 5th century AD, we have the tribes forming alliances and making a combined attack, which ultimately destroyed the Empire in the west. In my book, I do cover some of the openness in the barbarian society and contrast this with the Romans. It would have seemed strange to the Romans, coming from their obviously western approach, which we have adopted also to a large extent, although the Romans themselves could be considered fairly liberal in their attitudes compared to our more modern conservativeness. This is not to say that there were also extremes in the Republic, as we had the 'boni' on the one hand (people like Cicero singling out Clodia and others for moral attacks) and on the other hand, we had these very open, public affairs from the men, with Caesar and Antony being the most active on that score. Women were therefore in a considerably different position from the 'barbarian' women who had a lot more freedom to choose and could move in spheres within their narrow society that could not be contemplated by even the most liberated 'Roman' woman.

Thanks for the compliment, Viggen. One errata in my article - I will PM the sentence to you so that you can correct, if possible.

That is correct I think. It was done out of the public eye. Vercingetorix was strangled in the Tullianum, a subterranean chamber in the Carcer, accessible only by a hole through which he was lowered by the executioner who would have gone down and then strangled him. He was tired of living and was probably looking forward to it. Disgraced, defeated and paraded like an animal, a proud man like him must have had a hard time in captivity after being king to hundreds of thousands of warriors.

Well, finally finished it and I'm in the process of writing my review. Interesting book and took forever because it has so much information compressed in each line. Although the book is only 200 pages, it takes a long time to read each page as each sentence is a mine of information from various sources. Well, I guess you'll know soon enough once you read my review. One thing's for sure, this book requires a lot of concentration and is not a page turner, if people are looking for that kind of book. However, I found it thoroughly fascinating.

Didn't Caesar once amputate the hands of all the warriors of an entire tribe in Gaul as a warning or lesson to other rebels ? It was a very harsh punishment and I'm wondering if any of you know the exact details of this particularly heinous act from the great general which would be classified as a 'military tactic' by historians. Make no mistake about it, although we are all fascinated by the Romans, you cannot even begin to imagine how it would have been to actually live in those times. A casual acquaintance with death, cruelty and torture must have been a given for most people, as those were incredibly brutal times. We tend to judge everything from modern eyes and perhaps without our lenses on (our modern notions of what is right or wrong), things which seem barbarous to our sensibilities may have made perfectly good sense in those times.

Viggen, I did receive the book and am in the process of reading it. It is a dry work, however, and is pretty tedious in parts. However, it does appear to have been well researched and I hope to complete this soon and commence on my review. I have another book to review too, as Rebecca East sent me her novel on Pompeii AD 62.

Favonius, to me the Fall of the Republic was a greater loss. I'm partial to the history of Rome pre-44 BC, when Caesar sounded its death knell and expired at the foot of Pompey's statue. Since everyone here is interested in barbarians, why don't you check out my book if you haven't already? There are several interesting barbarians whom you must meet. You'll be surprised though as to the way they are portrayed. I have adopted a different tack / approach in my book and it is wholly unlike your average historical novel. However, you must read it fully to find out.

Yes, this is one of my favorite works and curiously, this is also my desktop. For all you people who visit the Ancient Rome section, go directly to Page 2. I think the 'visions of hell' section does not belong under this category and should probably be moved to a separate section on its own. I hate the morbid view of the afterlife and all the demons etc. - a very pessimistic view of things. It's interesting but Dante is dated, in my opinion and we have had a surfeit of demon related films too. I'm just tired of seeing the same 'devil' like images again and again. Page 2 has some truly stunning artwork though.

I just discovered that this would be my 100th post in this Forum (it's amazing how they add up) and I would like to post by sharing one of my favorite sites / forums run by my good friend, Decimus, who is the moderator of that site. Some of you may already be familiar with that site and for those who are not, scroll down below to explore. This is a fairly new site but membership is expanding daily and it's free. There are not only artists who are members but Romanophiles and Grecophiles as there are sections in the Forum devoted to Rome as well as Greece. The Gallery section is definitely worth a visit (kiddies - keep out, as you need to be over 18 to browse) as it has some really fantastic art created by various artists who post their work there. The Citizens gallery section has some really spectacular art with a noteworthy mention to Kosv01's gallery. His 'paintings' (although they are not paintings, they are worthy to be called as such) are truly amazing, especially his take on Alexander. The Rome section has some great art with a fantastic vision of Pompeii's forum by Decimus, easily one of the best works I've seen in a long time. Also, the march of the legions across a countryside plain and the building of a gigantic arch with a distant view of Rome in the background are also stunning works that you must see. The 18+ section also has stunning art, if nudity does not offend you. All in all, a great reason to visit and I would urge everyone to see this as well as participate by joining in the Forum there. We have a good group of people there and they are looking for new members to join in and contribute. Last, I have a selfish reason as well to promote this since my book has been showcased in the first edition of the Acta Diurna published by Decimus. He is looking for contributors for his next edition and if you're interested, please join up and start contributing.

If that were true, I guess Egypt should be full of Ptolemies and Cleopatras as they kept marrying each other and producing offspring who continued this process. I think the only difference is that the siblings kept also killing each other, limiting the number of branches that could have been possible. If one man and woman could do so much, is it a wonder that we have billions of Chinese (not to mention Indians). Was Adam from Africa or China ? I guess we'll never know, right? Maybe he was from another planet called Mars today. We are all probably Martians who fled the Red Planet when it lost all its water and emigrated to Earth. Our telescopes must have revealed the fierce dinosaurs and when they got killed off (lucky accident), we Martians must have planned for millions of years to send our last survivors to Earth. He he... that would be some crackpot theory, right?

Interesting. One of the major scenes in my novel takes place near Cremona. However, this is during a peaceful time, around 120 BC.