frankq

All this, and the producers don

I

Be careful. Modern names are not always the same as ancient ones and sometimes names are identical. There were at least two Nazareths in the holy lands for instance. Also if Titus marched through uplands it would conceal his advance as much as potential ambushers. The ambush would also require enough ambushers to congregate there and were they allowed enough time to do so? Not sure what you mean by this. The map is specifically designed to address the place names of the 1st Century AD. There is no confusion here. And as for the uplands concealing the legion? This was exactly the kind of terrain that the Jews had used to always best their opponents. They had recently used the high ground to send the XII running with its tail between its legs. Moreover, Gallus had auxiliaries and almost 30,000 men under his command. Titus would gave been marching north with only one legion. However, your question put about whether the rebels would have had time to post a resistance is a valid one. The nationalist movement was riddled with dissension. Nevertheless, Josephus had drilled his fighters well. If I were a general, I wouldn

Post them in another thread if you could.

Ptolemais was actually a viable port. (But it was outside Judea) It is highly possible that Titus arrived by sea. This was spring, the winds were good. Josephus doesn

I

Here

That reminds me of Phil's early cinema depiction post. I have never seen Gielgud's portrayal but, physically speaking, the thin hair and all, I would think that he would come closest in actual likness.

This makes sense. Priority given to the overall production. Consider a more Claude Rains version in the scheme of the script. The actor'd be crying for more convincing dialogue. And yes, I agree, many actors take cue from the director, and many if not most actors havent got a brain in their head. They're chameleons.

PP wrote: but his portrayal strikes me as a man who reluctantly reacts to events around him rather than the energetic force who proactively conquered Gaul and crushed the opposition I think this hits the nail on the head. Caesar's driving personality turned Rome upside down, challenged the old order of things. I get no feeling of any such momentum from Hinds. It's almost as if we're suppose to assume that he's done all this, and it presupposes that the viewer is already acquainted with Roman history, which, in fact, is not true with the broad viewing public. The writers and producers clearly know their subject matter. I find it hard to believe that such a sedate portrayal of Caesar is what they wanted. I think the key here is as Phil stated, it's Hinds' interpretation of the man.

Caesar was known to have unbridled energy. I get no feeling of this at all from Hinds. Authority, yes. Majesty, too. But no sense of zip or spark similar to the way Harrison, Calhern, and Rains portray him. Of course, in all fairness, I've only seen the first four episodes.

I

I've finally got to see ROME. At least, the first 3 episodes. And my opinion of Hinds so far is that he's too sedate, too snobby. Too fixed. Caesar had a spark and a way with everyone, a real life to him, something that Harrison captured and Claude Rains used as the core of his presentation and portrayal of Caesar. So far, I find Hinds' Caesar boring. But don't fault me too much, as I said, I've only seen the first three episodes.

http://cf.geocities.com/legioqc/histoire.html Interesting, many of you probably already know about the XII Fulminata having bad luck...

''Records office'' is the only term I have come across so far. Or ''civic records office''. I don't have access to the Greek version to press further to root out the term. The issue here is that what the Zealots were after were all the records of debts and all the accounts of the moneylenders. I have read somewhere that these were kept for safe keeping inside the Temple, not some accessible and easily raided civic office in the Upper City. But, again,. who am I to question Josephus? I didnt live in 1st Century Jerusalem, he did. I do not doubt that there was a tabularium of some kind in the city, but the debt accounts were a life and death matter. Destroying them meant getting the peasantry and the poor on one's side. Which is why the dissidents went for it when they seized control of the Upper City. (According to Josephus.) The only key is for me to go over the many bios I have on Herod. But I do not recall seeing a reference to him creating a civic house for his domain. Had there been debts, and records, he would have kept them close at hand. (I assume.)

These principes went to the Curia and to other ceremonies on foot, kept from being accosted too much by lictors, but much closer to the mob than modern equivalents ever get. Indeed, Claudius, during a famine, passed through the Forum and got pelted with bread.

Herod's palace was used, yes, and was, in fact called the praetorium. As for a records office being kept in the heart of Jerusalem, I have found no source for it other than this instance and Jerusalem was a seditious city. Anything official would have been behind vaulted doors.

Here's something that has me stymied. See what your opinion is. Some theorists have proposed that one of the reasons why the authorities were so alarmed at Jesus turning over the moneylenders tables in the Outer Court was that his ultimate design was, backed by his followers (many with a Zealot rap sheet), to get hold of all records from the moneylenders and all debts owed by the peasantry, all archived within the precincts of the Temple. OK. Cool. Why then does Josephus suddenly consign all these documents to a ''records office'' located in the Upper City? Judea, as a Roman province, had two administrative command posts in Jerusalem, the Antonia, and Herod's palace, which was headquarters for all procurators when in the holy city. As far as all local debts were concerned, the safest place for them was, indeed, inside the temple. And if the powers that be wanted them really under lock and key, they would have placed them under Roman custody at the two places mentioned. From where then, comes a ''record office''? I have combed for references to it, even under the Herodian period and can't find any. Yet it surfaces in Josepus' account of the takeover over of the city in 66 AD. He describes the Record Office being in the Upper City. Did he really mean the temple mount and get it wrong? And who am I to question Josephus? He lived in Jerusalem at this time and was not writing years later and after rumored fact.

Good point. The rating itself could be reworked with this in mind. So scoring system good. ''Fire'' bad.

Caldrail, This is a good idea. It might even merit its own thread. FQ

The key to finding the quote is to use the word ''uxor'' in the search. There are several sites that should yield their translation of his quote. And I agree, it really nails Antony's character.

fROM A LETTER Antony sent to Octavian after Octavian chided him for neglecting Octavia: "Why are you changed towards me? Because I lie with a queen? (Cleopatra) She is my wife. Is this a new thing with me, or have I not done so for these nine years? And do you take freedoms with Drusilla (Livia) only? May health and happiness so attend you, and when you read this letter, you are not in dalliance with Tertulla, Terentilla, Rufilla, or Salvia Titiscenia, or all of them. What matters it to you where, or upon whom, you spend your manly vigour?" "Quid te mutavit? Quod reginam ineo? Uxor mea est. Nunc coepi an abhinc annos novem? Tu deinde solam Drusillam inis? Ita valeas, uti tu, hanc epistulam cum leges, non inieris Tertullam aut Terentillam aut Rufillam aut Salviam Titiseniam aut omnes. An refert, ubi et in qua arrigas?" Actually, according to the Latin, that should really read ''entering'' or hence ''giving it to'' or ''screwing''.

Harrison and Calhern commanded the most authority but both men were too tall for the role. Caesar was not a tall man at all. Apropos to all this, I have never seen Heston's version of JC. I don't know why, cause I've seen Brando's version several times. How do they compare? I somehow can't see Gielgud as Caesar, though I'm a big fan of his.

Dio says these locations were "burned" not "destroyed". I burned my hand once, but I've still got two. What about this is difficult to understand? The fact that the Theater of Taurus has been recorded as being destroyed by the fire. Nero built another amphitheater to replace it. The fault is not in my lack of understanding but in Dio's choice of words and lumping the Palatine in along with it. And the other 2/3rds of Rome which was rendered in most parts unusable and had to be rebuilt. Moreover, read carefully his line and the hyperbole Phil suggested, ''the whole Palatine Hill...'' So what exactly is your sarcastic point...?