DecimusCaesar

You are right about that. I can't remember a single line from it. I tried to enjoy it as a piece of light entertainment fluff (ignoring all the historical inaccuracies) but it was really outstretched, going on for over 3 hours. That was a bad move on the USA network's part - it was too inaccurate for history buffs and too long for the casual viewer.

Yep, the Usa network's Attila the Hun takes the biscuit as the most horribly inaccurate Roman period film I've seen. I mean you have Gerard Butler playing the role of a short, horribly disfigured asian king and Powers Boothe as Flavius Aetius - straight from a 1950's Hollywood B-movie. Even weirder is the depiction of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. Rome is a pagan, classical city straight from the high imperial era, while Constantinople is displayed as a christian medieval city, complete with dank dark rooms, huge candles and tapestries hanging from the walls. I won't bother going into the inaccuracies concerning the film's narrative.

I remember reading that Malcom McDowell said that he was trying to make Caligula a sympathetic character. After having seen the film, I can safely say that McDowell's Caligula is one of the most unsympathetic characters in film history. On another note, wasn't the film's Claudius rather odd as well? There's none of the stuttering or head jerks seen in other productions -I,Claudius - The Caesars - even the awful Boudica. The actor who plays him just acts like a fool.

That's very useful, thank you very much Ursus!

Have a very happy birthday VTC!!

it is funny you should mention 'billhooks' as I thought the same when I saw the Adamklissi monument. It is also rather similar to the Japanese 'naginata' used by the samurai. Checking through an old Peter Connolly book I have, he does display in one of his illustrations something that looks like an excavated remain of a falx. Unfortunately he doesn't give any information where this falx might have been found. It is approximately 90 cm long according to his description - and it does fit in with the falx displayed on the Adamklissi monument.

I thought his name was something to do with shrimp, or am I going mad?

Thank you very much for posting the "Beard-Hater" Segestan!

Does anyone know where to find the collected (or even partial work) of Julian the Apostate. He wrote letters, poems and even a satire that have survived to the modern period, but I have never found that these have ever been printed in English in their entirety. There is supposedly 700 pages of his writings and I am curious to have a look at them, especially his religious satire. Having had a look on amazon, it doesn't seem to be much about the man, except a few modern biographies and the writings of Ammianus Marcellinus. Could anyone give any information on this topic?

Here's a reconstructive drawing of the Lady of Elx by Angus McBride: Rome's Enemies 4: Spanish Armies Cover

Philip was assassinated by Pausanias, an ex-lover he had betrayed. Philip had allowed this man to be raped by Attalus' thugs (Attalus had become a member of Philip's family after Philip had married his daughter, Cleopatra). Philip's failure to redress this injustice led to Pausanias taking matters into his own hands. There were rumors that Olympias was responsible for his murder (and there was also some rumors that Alexander was associated too). Alexander quickly executed Attalus, while Pausanias was killed as he fled the murder scene. As such, it was difficult to trulyt know who was responsible. There were some rumors that Aristotle investigated the matter.

Great review Ursus! I've also read and enjoyed Cartledge's book. I have to agree with you on Cartledge's conclusions - it doesn't really fit in with the historical record. As Peter Green mentions in his biography of Alexander - a large part of his success with consolidating his conquests was that he didn't force Greek culture on the conquered, at least initially. He did demand resources and soldiers, but that is about it. As a result, many within his empire remained outside of Hellenic influence and Alexander's successors (the Diadochi) certainly held the conquered people's in contempt. Notice the Ptolemy dynasty's attitude towards the Egyptians. Cartledge's ideas seem to be a rehashing of W.W Tarn's views on Alexander following the Second World War. At the time the United Nations were being formed, and Tarn wanted a 'modern' Alexander to fit with this new institution. Tarn mentioned Alexander holding a feast for the Persians and Macedonians, and he cites this as an example that Alexander wanted them to join together as one people - all equal in his eyes. Yet, he doesn't mention that Alexander had made strict rules on where certain people were allowed to sit at this banquet, and the Persians certainly didn't get any good seats.

In the Dominate period the Emperors assumed full powers of legislation. They would occasionally make an 'oratio' to the Senate, but it was usually just to pass an edict - which covered constitutions, mandates and rescripts. The rulers from Diocletian's day onwards were the sole legislator's of the Empire, and they had the right to interpret the laws in their own way. Yet the late Roman emperors still considered themselves to be bound to these same laws. The laws passed by these emperor's were still considered to be greater than the 'throne' or power of the emperor himself, as is displayed in an edict passed in AD 429: "To acknowlege himself bound by laws is, for the sovran, an utterance befitting the majesty of a ruler. For the truth is that our authority depends on the authority of law. To submit our sovranty to the laws is verily a greater thing than Imperial Power." The emperors of the Dominate might have held more power than their predecessors in the Principate, yet they still weren't "true" monarchs. As J.B Bury said "The ultimate check on any autocracy is the force of public opinion." Julian and Constantine might have had more power than Augustus or Tiberius, yet the fear of being deposed would keep them in check. If they were considered too cruel or tyrannical, the army (or sometimes even the Senate) could declare a new emperor in their place - this new emperor beng considered the legitimate ruler. Of course, this didn't work all the time. Honorius for example, managed to beat back several pretenders to the throne, the most notable being Constantine III.

Oddly enough Melvadius, I was just about to post a link from Mary's blog right now! This is a great discovery, even if it might not actually be the cave of Romulus himself (considering his existance seems to be in doubt). What I found great is that Mary Beard has linked this site to her blog (if you click on the word "Romulus" in her entry, it will take you straight to an article on Romulus and Remus from this site!) It's great to see UNRV increase in popularity.

8000 slaves (volones) formed 2 legions after Cannae disaster, being promise freedom and franchise on discharge. Livy 22.57. Another 6000 were raised from criminals awaiting punishment and debtors, who were promised amnesty. Livy 23.14 The Romans also recieved mercenaries. After Trebia, King Hiero of Syracuse sent 1,000 archers and slingers, who were meant to counter the balearic slingers that served Hanniba. The Romans also had Cretan archers in their service. Some historians suggest that this might have been the first time that the Romans used mass archers in warfare. The Romans also lowered the property prices for inclusion into the army from 11,000 asses to 4,000. This allowed the proletarii (who were usually exempt from military service) to join the legions.

Not only are the Arcani (or should it be Areani?) ridiculous in apperance, they are also in the completely incorrect period in time. They should be in 'The Barbarian Invasion' expansion pack, as they were first mentioned as assisting the barbarians during the Barbarica conspiratio of AD 367.

I saw my first episode of the Tudors last night. I Couldn't get to sleep, so I flicked through a few channels and came across it. The show wasn't as bad as I expected, but it wasn't terribly exciting either. Most of it seemed to revolve around Henry VIII sitting in a castle in seclusion, with demons and the devil haunting his dreams. I don't know much about the Tudor period (other than the patchy stuff I learnt in school) so the historical errors didn't trouble me in the same way as the 2001 TV movie Attila did. With my expectations lowered, I might watch another episode of this...but only if I come across it on air again.

I'm sorry I'm a bit late with this Doc. My source for this comes from Kathryn Welch and Estelle Lazer's book - The Romans. It says: The Romans co-existed with death in a way foreign to us. Not only were funeral feasts held inside the burial chamber, but the concept, "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die" was commonly expressed in literature and art. Dining rooms featured skeleton-like butlers carrying in the wine*, or skulls and other deathly features as patterns for mosaics as the table top." * as seen in Flavia Gemina's photograph. Similar sentiments can be seen in some scenes of Petronius' Satyricon.

In Ammianus, Book 25 - 2.7, it says: His escorts of Guards, who had been scattered in the melee, were crying out to him from all sides to avoid the mass of fugitives as he would the collapse of a badily built roof, when suddenly a cavalry spear, directed no one knows by whom, grazed his arm, pierced his ribs, and lodged in the lower part of his liver. This translation comes from Andrew Wallace-Hadrill's edition, and the italics are his own. The spear might have been thrown by the 'Gyan-Avspar Peshmerga' - a group of Sassanian cavalry warriors who were skilled in the use of spear and sword. Perhaps it was these soldiers that killed Julian.

The HBO Rome book has finally been released. I had a chance to look through it and it looks like a typical glossy coffee table book. The book itself is low on details, and it seems to be nothing more than an extended episode guide with lots of photographs. I would have liked it if they discussed the making of the show a bit more, or at least a little of the history of the Late Republic. There are also a few errors in the text - I notice on one page it discusses montefortino helmets, even though those displayed in the photographs are clearly not montefortino types. That said, it really is a beautiful looking book and it sits as a nice companion to the series. It might be worth getting if you are a huge fan of the series, or if you still have some spare change to spend.

Thank you for posting those links Melvadius! I've been trying to get hold of genuine Roman music for a while. They used to sell CDs on Amazon, but I checked for them a while back and I couldn't find a trace of them. But they do still sell copies of Ancient Greek music. Here's one example on Youtube: Ancient Greek Music with Images What's interesting about this is that the poem is narrated over the music instead of being sung, like the Roman fashion. The second poem is sung however. I don't suppose anyone knows how to speak ancient Greek? If so, what are they saying?

What I find interesting on the Roman attitude towards death is that they didn't dwell on it as much as many other ancient cultures did, despite being confronted by it on a regular basis. As far they were concerned, living life to its fullest was important, not the afterlife. You often see symbols of death involving food, drinks or partying - skeltons with wine jugs for instance- and they represent the Romans attitude that seems to be 'live every day as if it were your last' If you compare that attitude with the Ancient Egyptians' morbid obsession with death, corpses and the afterlife, as well as the Christian obsession with living your life in preparation for the more important afterlife; the Romans appear much more modern in their attitudes towards death. (My condolences with your loss Caldrail).

I think that interest in the Roman world went into a sort of decline following the Second World War. Maybe it's because the fascist empires copied Roman symbols, architecture and the militarty. Even as far as Japan, Mussolini payed for the erection of statues in honour of samurai heroes (especially the White Tigers of the 1860's) with SPQR written beneath them. Along with the depiction of Rome as an evil militaristic empire in the Hollywood epics of the 50's and 60's - The Roman Empire's image has been badly tarnished in the last few decades. Most people's view of Rome is based on its image in popular culture, and not many people actually bother to pick up the works of Tacitus or Cicero. As a result its easy for many people to believe that Rome was decadent and worthless, as they simply have no real knowledge of it beyond films like 'Gladiator'. I find it very interesting that Greece and Rome are now referred to as 'Mediterranean Civilisation'. It's similar to the Celts being renamed Iron Age Tribes or the Anglo-Saxons having their existance questioned. I think this stems from historians and archaeologists problems with forcing identities on diverse peoples with catch all labels . They are even thinking of doing away with the word 'medieval' as "it is a word that carries too much baggage." Personally I don't see the point in using 'Mediterranean Civilisation' as it is far too generic. Plus it tells you nothing about the Romans or the Greeks.

I didn't get round to catching it...and reading the Augusta's and Spittle's opinions it seems I ddin't miss much. I did see a rather funny review of the series courtesy of Charlie Brooker a few weeks ago as well.

This is very sad to read, especially as I was reading about Aurelian (or more accurately Zenobia of Palmyra) last night. I don't think they'll ever get a hold of that 140 Million Euros.