Skarr

For those who are interested in goddesses and myths, please visit my site where I've posted a really good link to a site that has not only pretty good write ups about the various Greek gods and goddesses but also some really cool images in the Gallery section. I particularly liked some of the fantasy art (Boris Vallejo is a favorite) and myths are always a good topic for any art of this nature.

I have posted a detailed review on HBO's "Rome" on my author site, for those who may be interested. While you are there, do not forget to preview my novel, explore some cool links to Roman related groups and activities and also download excerpts from the "The Book" section on the sidebar. Thanks in advance for looking!

Good write up, Ursus. There was also a cult dedicated to Aphrodite on the island of Cythera and she was also called Cytherea on that tiny island. There is another version to her origin which says that she was the daughter of Zeus and Dione. It says that Dione was the daughter of Epimetheus, who was the son of the Titan Japet. Some have also called her the female Zeus and another version has her as the daughter of either Oceanus and Tethys or Air and Earth, which just goes to show that no one knows her parentage. The version by Hesiod, however, is the most popular one, where she arose in the sea from the genitals of Uranus (as you have explained in your above article). I think the more ancient images of her show her armed, which explains her warrior like attributes which later morphed into the pure sexuality that she has become associated with. Her son by Dionysus, Priapus, had extraordinarily large genitals because of a curse by Hera, who frowned upon her promiscuity. I think the original cults dedicated to her were orgiastic and were originally regarded as 'holy or sacred' (maybe a throwback to the Ishtar cult, which has been demonized by Christianity) and later, fell into disrepute as the position of women fell in the ancient world from being revered for their fertility and ability to give life (women were regarded with veneration by many ancient cults, as birth and procreation were a mystery) to an inferior position, as male centered religions began developing. The old 'mother goddess' cults were largely extinct by the time the Hellenes developed their civilizations and Zeus assumed the all important position of 'king of the gods' in their hierarchy. In any case, it is difficult to really speculate what really went on and the information that we have is very sketchy and all we have is a bunch of speculation based on the scant archaelogical evidence that exists.

Here is my 2 c.. on why the Romans worshipped various gods (of course, this is before all Romans worshipped only one God under Christianity) The Romans, let us not forget, were made of various tribes that settled on some of the seven hills and I would presume that they already had some 'gods' that they worshipped at the time. Under Numa Pompilius, one of Rome's greatest kings, the worship of gods was considered natural as it was believed that the gods (who were many and each of whom controlled a specific aspect of nature) were interested in the welfare of man and that they showed their interest through signs. The Romans were practical and developed their auspices (or reading of signs) based on this simple belief and I think they did not really intend to know what the gods specifically thought or even what they were foretelling. It was not a fortune telling kind of worship but a more practical kind of worship where the Romans would look for a favorable sign from 'above', as it were, by looking at bird flight (augury) or haruspicy (an Etruscan custom, where they would examine the liver of a sacrificial animal - color, markings, condition, etc.) or other signs to give them a simple 'yes' or 'no' answer. If birds flew in the right direction, it was auspicious and the omens were good. I think the Romans knew that they could not influence the gods directly, all they could do was to look for signs that would help decide what to do for major events in their lives - marriage, birth of a child, undertaking a new business and so on. Interestingly enough, Numa did not anthromorphize the gods by giving them human faces or attributes. His temples were simple and open to the sky. An altar would be placed in an open space and that was enough. I think the specific images and other gods were adopted later on, as Romans became more familiar with Greek culture and began their process of 'romanizing' their Gods. They admired the Greeks for their art, their culture and so many other things - why not the gods ?

Rebecca, I did receive your novel recently and will review it once I've finished reading "The Fall of Rome and the end of civilization", which will be also reviewed here. I'm a little behind on various projects but will try and complete this soon.

Interesting theory, no doubt. Christianity, like most other religions are inventions or fabrications of powerful men who seek to control the masses. When kings could not control the 'sheep' or the 'herd' or the 'mob, popular terms for how they viewed their subjects (with a few exceptions, of course, there are always a few good men - however, the majority tend to be of the power grabbing variety), they depended on shamans, priests to induce the fear of the law, of the king's divine authority etc. etc. In any case, this is just another theory and who knows really? Jesus may never have existed and could be a complete fabrication. That is surely possible. On the other hand, he may have been a simple man with some teachings and followers and perhaps, someone saw in him an opportunity to make a religion out of it. That Jesus was a son of God and all 'divine' aspects - that, I find hard to believe as it is nonsensical, I think, for man, who is just one of the many species on this planet to assume that everything was created for him / her and that he / she shares a special relationship with 'God'. It is mere wishful thinking at best, which explains why humans are so arrogant, believing the Earth is special, our solar system is special and that life itself is unique and confined only to Earth. Looking into the sky is a sobering reality. Our planet is an obscure speck of dust, on the edge of another obscure galaxy (our Milky way) and we are little worms shouting out ... hey, I can think, I know who I am, all of this must have been created for me.. Look, I can talk, soon I will presume to know everything there is and will even tell everybody that the creator has made us in his / her image. By this logic, even if this were true, wouldn't the creator be an alien? By this, I mean not human. Who created the creator is the next question? Therefore, as theories go, Julius Caesar as Christ - Possible ? Yes. Probable ? NO.

Nice write-up, PP. I would tend to agree with most of what you've said and here's my 2 c... Roman 'racism' (I don't like to use this word as it has a different, modern interpretation as PP eloquently pointed out) was not based on color but on social mores, stature, culture and so on. For example, the Etruscans were despised because of their more open culture and the increased freedom that women had, including their aggression, something which no Roman male would brook from their wives or daughters. The Germans, Celts etc. were despised probably because of their un-Roman ways, their strange gods and customs, including their sexual behavior, which has been largely misunderstood. In some tribes, for example, there was no concept of 'marriage' (as we understood it) and a group of men would be 'married' to a group of women and it was never a problem when a woman bore a child, as the 'husband' she was married to would raise up the child as his own son. However, the women may have had multiple partners. On the other hand, there were also paradoxes and some warriors (Germanic tribes) preferred to be celibate, at least until the age of twenty [ I think even Caesar commented on this], as they feared it would diminish their strength. However, in the rivers, men and women would bathe without a problem and there would be a lot of promiscuity as well. Full of contradictory practices / beliefs, the Celts / Germans confused the hell out of the Romans, as they perceived chaos instead of order. In some tribes, there were perfectly chaste couples too, men and women who were utterly devoted to each other for the rest of their lives, viewing their marriage as a 'sacred' bond until death. So, you had all these various conflicting cultures grouped as 'Celts' , 'Germans' and what have you and I guess, at some point the Romans must have just given up and lumped them all into one category. The interesting thing is that the Romans did not attempt to learn or understand their culture but instead 'Romanized' them. In a few centuries after Caesar, for example, the Gauls were more Roman than the Romans themselves and found Roman ways quite easy to adopt and follow. Well, Christianity soon came along soon after that and changed everything. Another attempt at homogenization, which seems to be a favorite pastime of mankind, this one from a religious and not military perspective.

With reference to your question above, Vorenus was a true Roman of the Republic and his sense of honor is strong. I think it's interesting that the writers have chosen to show the decay in the values of the Republic by putting Vorenus in situations which have obviously changed a lot but he still insists on acting as per the old code, as it were. No woman, even if she were of royal blood, could command a Roman to sleep with her, like some slave or animal. There is no way that Vorenus could accept that and he says as much to the Queen, saying that he was not a slave and that she couldn't treat a Roman man in that fashion. It was something that went against the very things that Vorenus believed in and I can certainly understand. Pullo, of course, is an opportunist and doesn't have the high education that Vorenus has, nor his ancestry or his values. He is a man of the street, a Roman plebeian to whom life was simple and not very complicated. If Pullo saw something of value, he would take it without hesitation. However, as he points out to Vorenus on more than one occasion, he is not stupid either.

Collecting Roman coins is an expensive hobby, particularly for those rarer coins. A silver denarius, on the other hand, can be owned for as little as a $ 100 or more, depending on its condition.

Favonius, recorded history is shorter and really authentic sources, even shorter. History is like one big puzzle that has to be put together based on the surviving fragments and full stops recorded on the way. By this I mean, you know the exact date of an event based on historical accounts and perhaps you can even place individuals like Caesar, Pompey etc. at the scene. However, there is a lot of gray muck on what brought them to that point or what happened immediately thereafter. For example, we know that certain civilizations developed in the Americas and that these people were originally from Europe or Asia. When the crossing / migration occurred, however, is a pure guess as there is no evidence. We can only speculate that they crossed over the Bering Strait and basically just walked from point A to B. It may have taken not only some years but also generations for them to reach the southern most tip of South America, a long migration that perhaps spanned a few centuries. I would guess that most of these tribes were nomadic, moving from one food source to another and hadn't really mastered agriculture, like they did in Egypt and Mesopotamia and in civilizations along the Indus river in what is today's India / Pakistan. They would have been following the gathering / hunting lifestyle, which the Germanic tribes continued to follow until the Romans absorbed them. Basically, these tribes would settle in a region and soon enough, within one or two generations, the entire land around them would be laid waste and once they would run out of resources, they would simply load the wagons and move to 'greener' pastures.

Violentilla, Egyptian women did not have a single hair on their bodies, even their heads. You are right, most of them would wear wigs. However, Cleopatra was more Greek or Macedonian than Egyptian and I guess there is also the question of artistic license. I was a little puzzled by the pipe, which I thought was a later invention as Egyptians did have some hallucinogenic substances, which were probably burnt as incense in a closed room and as you entered the room and inhaled the smoke, you would typically enter into a trance that would enable a closer communion with the gods. The significance of its early use was more religious in nature and seen as a way to get closer to your chosen god. Most royals had duties towards their subjects as well as their gods and there were many religious ceremonies that required the Pharoah's participation. Cleopatra considered herself to be Isis incarnate and had elaborate rituals of her own, where she was the high priestess of the cult. There were, of course, rumors that the cult was orgiastic and like anything else, we have no real evidence of these things. I agree with PP's observations on Cleopatra's choice in the tent scene. It is highly unlikely she would have chosen a Roman and knowing the fastidious nature of the Egyptians, she would have probably insisted on Pullo having a complete bath / cleansing / grooming before being brought to her. They would have spent hours preparing him for his 'audience' with the Queen. Cleopatra always traveled with a wide entourage of slaves, both men and women and she probably had her own personal body slaves (men) who would attend to any physical needs. Egyptian women were forceful, commanding and very aggressive. A woman like Cleopatra would have used men the same way a powerful man like Caesar would use attractive women.

I've always been a great fan of the ancient Greek myths, especially the myth of Zeus and Europa, which I've incorporated in some form through one of the characters in my book. The fun the gods had was just unbelievable.

The life of a vestal virgin must have been pretty hard, I would imagine. Some women, of course, would have the Roman version of 'fun' as the rich Roman youth flooded the city during summer. The Romans were strict and brought up their youth under the control of pedagogues or 'tutors', usually expensive, learned Greek slaves. Because of this long bottling up, on their free days, these youths would roam in gangs and terrorize the common folks, who were advised to stay inside. There was no police and it was every family for themselves. However, it must have been a pretty tame affair as most youth came from fairly conservative families and I think it must have looked like a 50's social during the Republic. However, instead of dancing, they would probably just have music and sex. You could say that it was a different time then and today's standards would seem out of place in those times. The youth would roam unchallenged, fight, harass any passers by and all you would hear the next day is some senator condoning the wildness of youth and remembering his own days, a rite of passage that existed then. I would imagine that on most nights, it must have been pretty unsafe at nights with these wild youthful gangs of aristocratic youth. The lupanar would have been a rough place, unless you had ex-gladiators and armed guards to control the wild, snobbish youth. It's a wonder that the HBO guys haven't thought up an episode with the aristocratic sons of the city, who acted as if Rome was their playground at night. Of course, some of the youth were so rich that they already had their private homes and mistresses on the side and not necessarily patrician either. Some of the freedmen became really rich and many of them were clients of Marcus Licinius Crassus, who made his fortune from being the biggest landlord. Owning blocks of insulae were his primary cash generator, which he leveraged with other investments in Egyptian stone quarries and mines, latifundiae and other interests - shares and stock in a number of shipping companies. The main opposition was from pirates, who were defeated by Pompey. A learned mathematician would have been worth his weight in gold as a slave and sought after by people like Caesar, who needed such men to extrapolate simple calculations and figure out probabilities and other decisions as he had to constantly balance the lives of his men with the objectives of the mission or campaign and his own safety. Caesar roughed it out with his men, there's no question about it. The current "Rome" series doesn't show this simple soldier side of Caesar, the man from the Subura, the common man in Rome who would not balk at spending some time in the ditch, digging along with other soldiers. He would march along with his men for long periods, not traveling by either horse or litter and take rests and breaks only when his men wanted to and never insisted, not once over the instructions of his centurions. He was well liked by all the centurions, who were the first line of battle and always, you wanted your best men in front. The fact that in all his accounts, Caesar mentions only two centurions by name, Vorenus and Pullo, makes the Rome series a little more interesting. They must have been two worthy men who attracted his notice through their bravery on the field. There is no better place to judge a man's true character than in the thick of battle, when he is about to lay down his life for his commander. It must be a strange feeling as I'm sure that even after all these years, we have very few men of the caliber of Caesar coming along.

The Etruscans did use the Greek alphabet but their grammar and sentence structure was entirely different, a completely different language. I personally think the Etruscans were migrating tribes from the huge grain basket of the steppes, as this would have been the first gathering place for humans as they came out of the ice age and settled down at specific places to pursue agriculture. Once humans began settling in one spot and using that as a permanent base, I think they also began to develop ways of communicating with each other and possibly used common symbols (like the letters in an alphabet) but combined them in different ways to mean different things, as they all came from various cultures. Maybe there was a partnership, a sharing of knowledge that briefly took place before the abundant times ran out. Once population exploded and resources became scarce, wars and conflict would break out, with the removal or destruction or migration of those societies which were weaker than the others. The Kurgans and the Pelasgians probably migrated to Greece, with maybe a mix of them finding their way to northern Italia, where they would become known as the Etruscans. It is a very challenging period to understand - between 5000 to say 1000 BC, as there are not many records which exist of the various migrations of people from one part of the globe to the other. I'm sure these migrations took place over generations and on a mass scale. One has to only look at the South American tribes and even those in the North and how they originally must have come from this 'grain basket' in Asia Minor where humans who survived the ice age may have congregated. There are, I'm sure many cities buried under the sands of the Gobi desert and other remote places in Central Asia.

A single battle scene to be shown for a few minutes in one episode out of 12 would be quite an expense, I would imagine. Perhaps a small scale battle (shown through a memory of one of the soldiers) would probably cut the costs a bit but still, you would have viewers still complaining about the 'lack of spectacle'. I think bringing "Rome" to the small screen is as much a challenge as to the big one, as the costs have skyrocketed since the days of Ben Hur. Insurance costs more than the actual sums paid to the extras needed and in the end, there is a huge cost to mount such a scene and later, enhance it with CGI. I do hope Season 1 does really well and if they make a ton of money, perhaps they may stage some of the sea battles between Octavian and Antony. I think that would be good to watch, particularly the final battle at Actium.

Violentilla, I think this is precisely the reason why the Romans tried to suppress women and deny them any rights, especially political rights, as they were most fearful of women influencing Roman politics. History is more biased in that respect too and writers preferred to mostly talk about men and largely ignored the women, unless they created a huge scandal (with their own hidden agendas of course, which were political) like Clodia, Messalina etc. It is interesting to note that in the early part of the 2nd century BC, Roman matrons took to the streets to protest against laws that forbade them from wearing colorful clothes and various other restrictions that were sought to be imposed and eventually prevailed over the Tribunes by blockading their homes.

Viggen, I did get my "free book" and will be posting a review of this, once I've read it. This is "The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization" by Bryan Ward-Perkins. The theory proposed sounds interesting, even a little intriguing and it does appear to have a number of scholarly references. Thanks for your continuing encouragement and the others on this forum, who are too numerous to name. The real meat in my series will be in the sequel or the second book of the three part series, where most of the action takes place in the city of Rome. However, in order to get a proper perspective, you do need to read the first book.

Yes, Livy described the Etruscan culture in a way that demeaned them and exalted the Romans for their superior control and the restraint they exercised over their passions. This quality of restraint has often been praised by various Romans who did not frown on sexuality per se but believed that anyone who indulged in this to excess was to be blamed. You're right about the privacy aspect though. Within the domus, it did not really matter what they did or even with whom, etc. as the domus was under the absolute control of the paterfamilias and the state had no right to interfere with the affairs of a household. This was a continuation of Rome's ancient laws, largely unwritten but well known and loosely termed as the mos maiorum or the ways of our ancestors. Numa Pompilius, one of Rome's greatest kings was the first to recognize the role of the paterfamilias and the obligations / duties it entailed. In a way, within the domus, the head of household duplicated the priest king's role that Numa had assumed as he was not only the chief priest but also the king at the time. Livy's objections were not so much the sexuality itself of the Etruscans but the open way in which it was practised before strangers who were told by the servants that the master was engaged in ...... [with a graphic description of the very act he was performing]. Also, the fact that the women were on par with the men as regards their status and were also sexually aggressive in their own right, muscular, athletic and very conscious of what they wished to do, threatened the Roman view of family life with the father controlling every thing. After all, the status of a woman in most households was just a little above that of a slave and practically speaking, she had little or no rights in the public domain. For example, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to put his wife to death if caught in the act of adultery but she could not do the same, if the husband were similarly caught. Also, wives were allowed to be put to death for drinking wine and even possessing the keys. I presume the keys opened the locked storage room where the wine was stored. Morality is always a double edged sword and the Romans shrewdly used this to suppress women and certainly, they did not want women to be like the Etruscan women, who had more status and were much freer in regard to their rights as opposed to Roman women. It is therefore important to realize that Livy and others had hidden agendas and often colored their reader's perceptions, much like the media today which seeks to sway public opinion in a particular direction.

Yes, Vitellius was quite a glutton, wasn't he? There is, of course, the famous story about Antony appearing drunk in the senate and later, even throwing up. I'm not sure though whether he threw up in the very chamber itself or somewhere outside, maybe on the steps. Antony was famous for his all night carousing, being fond of drink, good food and of course, women. Caesar was also fond of those things but I think he knew how to control and restrain himself, taking them in moderation, as opposed to the excesses that formed part of Antony's reputation. Somehow, I thing the old wildness of his youthful escapades never left him and carried into adulthood. It's a wonder Caesar still kept him after the debacle in Rome while he was "Master of the Horse".

Moonlapse, there would be no mention in the credits as this 'actor' did not have a speaking line, much like the guest appearance of Sean Penn in Ep1, where he will not get the credit, although everyone knows it was him, because of the close up. The actor I believe is a well known adult performer in Europe (according to a poster in the HBO forum) and therefore, it is real (according to that post). In any case, I think the scene was irrelevant in a way and maybe a little over the top. I guess it was an excuse to bring Octavia and Servilia together in a scene with Atia providing the necessary impetus. I guess this will set up a possible behind the scenes plot where Servilia will probably be allies (indirectly) with Atia, who is now against Antony, and therefore against Caesar and therefore, allied with Brutus, Cato, Cicero and the rest. As a writer, I can see where Atia and Servilia could bury their differences, united by a common hatred against Antony (Atia) and Caesar(Servilia, who should also be against Caesar's right hand man). Interesting possibilities for future episodes. The men go to war and the ladies call a truce and unite against the men. I think there will be a twist to the plot against Caesar and HBO may deviate from the traditional view made famous by Shakespeare. Sure, it will be controversial but I wouldn't miss it for any reason.

Ref post by Favonius Cornelius Wow...you've even had personal communication from people? Amazing how personal people can get, especially when I think of how remarkably diplomatic you have always tried to be. It seems like its either 1. Carnival extremists who love that show so much they hate anything else that comes out on HBO or 2. the academically jealous, heh. Thanks, Favonius. I do read your posts on the HBO thread under your Caesarion handle. I'm not sure what sparked them off and can't even begin to guess. Take a look at the thread called "Writers wanted : new interactive novel" and read what a poster named tribune37 had to say. I did respond to him in detail and haven't heard back since. To everyone who did send me a personal note, I did send back a polite, reasoned response and haven't heard back from any of them. Not even the courtesy of a response to my questions, which were only in relation to their own statements.

To add to the discussion, I think Caesar trusted Antony especially during this period and there is no reason to believe that Antony was not completely devoted to Caesar at this point in time. I do think that he may had some doubts later, particularly after his failure to meet Caesar's expectations while he was "Master of the Horse". After all, he was supposed to be acting for Caesar while he was away and was in fact, supposed to be doing things as if Caesar himself were there in Rome. This is something that Antony probably brushed aside as he had some blind confidence in his own abilities as a statesman, thinking it of no account to deal with the senators who wished Caesar ill. I guess he learned the hard way that it was much more difficult to manage people in peace than on the battlefield, where clear tactics could be planned to defeat the enemy. Antony was primarily a soldier and a brilliant one, at that. However, he could not grasp the complexities of dealing with various senators and the subtleties involved in the different relationships, something that Caesar grasped almost instinctively. Lacking patience or the understanding to negotiate with the senators, he resorted to his favorite method of settling disputes, through violence, something he clearly understood well. I do think he was tempted a few times to lash out openly against Caesar but in the end, I think he remained faithful to Caesar and one could possibly accuse him of obtuseness as someone more perspicacious and more aware of the political nuances and feelings in Rome would have been more vigilant around Caesar and maybe, even have prevented the assassination of his dear old friend and comrade.

I would tend to agree with PP on his observations. I've seen Vin Diesel in several movies and he's no 'actor'. That's what I like about Arnold. No pretensions to being an actor, just an action machine. I think I would very much like to see Denzel in the role of Hannibal, as he's a great general, which implies that he is a great thinker, a strategist and one who commands the respect of everyone he meets through the force of his personality, which was his intellect and his ability to lead. I could be wrong but I don't see Vin pulling it off unless with his brand of leadership, he makes his point all the time with his fists. I could see that kind of leadership too but I don't think it would be convincing enough, at least not enough to beat a highly organized force like the Romans. Russel Crowe, Denzel Washington are actors. Vin Diesel is an action hero and will not be able to pull this off. It was like Colin Farrell attempting to play Alexander. That was a miserable performance and only Val Kilmer acted well, as Phillip. I don't know what Oliver Stone was trying to do but he should stick to war movies or politically charged films and not attempt to recreate history. A guy like Ridley Scott struggled and just pulled it off with Gladiator as he had superior acting performances across the board. I think the late Oliver Reed was really great and probably carried the movie on his broad shoulders. Some of the best scenes in Gladiator are enhanced by the presence of a great actor. Well, I will certainly see the movie with Diesel in it (don't get me wrong). However, will I watch this several times? The jury is out on that one and I hope Diesel proves me wrong.

It is always disturbing to read accounts of mass slaughter, written casually by historians with numbers that were probably broad estimates of the dead. Many of the dead may not have, indeed died but may have survived. However, none of these historians were ever on the field themselves and relied on some Roman to give them an account of the battle, the numbers involved and how many died. Needless to say, it is my opinion, that given such a scenario, the brave Roman who was 'there' would of course, exaggerate the number of the enemy when they were facing defeat and would also exaggerate the count when they were victorious as more dead meant that you were really victorious over the enemy. You have to realize one thing that although the Roman legionaries and even the horsemen were pretty tough, pursuing a fleeing enemy and killing them to the last man serves no purpose. I'm sure many a barbarian chief has laughed at the dispatches seized from a Roman courier to the senate, describing a glorious battle and a victory over 100,000 barbarians and killing untold numbers when they probably vanquished a tribe of a few thousand with a few hundred killed and the rest fleeing in all directions. It's always important to read between the lines when you read historical accounts and not take everything at face value. It's one thing to say Caesar stood with x number of men vs Pompey's y number of men as they definitely knew how many legions were there but at the same time, how many Gallic were really killed is the real question. I do know that there were some horrific sieges and that probably the entire population involved perished (maybe due to famine, disease and other reasons) but the actual battles always seem to me a little embellished on the side of the Romans. This is just a general opinion from my side and I'm using some of the numbers for purely illustrative purposes and am not talking about a specific battle or account from Caesar's Gallic commentaries. Many of them were Caesar's own accounts as reported to him by the centurions and others he spoke to as the Roman army would be spread out over a vast area. I think Caesar did some of the numbers in his head and extrapolated the rest.