frankq

Did you find more confirmation other than the biography of Herod you mentioned earlier? It really is a rather interesting little historical tidbit. It was in either Barret or Balsdon. I'm cross-refering them and getting dizzy.

I finally came across what this was. It was a thin coated armored breastplate. Augustus hated wearing it but he was convinced he had to. A good thing because John Wilkes Booth got caught up in Dr. Moriarty's time machine (which he stole from H.G.), landed square in the Senate, quoted his Latin, was corrected by Augustus, then went bonkers and shot him.

It's time to answer my own question again. Jamnia, as part of a royal estate, and a coastal city with duties, had its own financial agent. Josephus just misused the term ''procurator''. Anyone knw more about these ''financial agents''? Were they actually entitled ''procurators?''

Phil, I have to agree with Primus. And actually, I see where and why people are reacting critically. It's because your presentation is very sweeping and majestic, but it is also very detailed, too. While you may be presenting an aerial view, you are also giving us such a detailed picture that, naturally, people are going to critique if they disagree. Moreover, while I flow with 90% of your presentation, when I do hit something I do not agree with, it suddenly jolts me out of the pleasant flow. You are covering so much territory that you're naturally going to be subject to pointed feedback. It might have been safer to present this by pin pointing just your theory and not events, but then we wouldnt have had the fun of traveling with you through this time period. It's a tough call. This is an ambitious thread. FQ

I've combed material regarding Augustus' succession and passing and no where have I encountered any reference to Germanicus being considered a direct and immediate heir. That he was more popular than Tiberius there is no denying, but Augustus, always the wise ruler, despite his antipathy for Tiberius, had had him serving as colleague for too long, and could never deny Tiberius superior skills in the field and in administration. Germanicus, despite Tacitus' grand picture of him, wasn't the great field genius that history was later to deem him. If Augustus was one thing, he was a good judge of character. This is not denying that, as he passed away, there was some hope that Germanicus would outlive Tiberius and take his place. RE the Caligula hit. This was no knee jerk on the part of the Senate. They had been itching to X him since 39. And the popular legend that Claudius was found hiding and selected as a spur of the moment thing I feel can be ruled out. The Praetorians went along with the Senators but were never so foolish as to put themselves out of a job. IMHO, Claudius had already been approached and if he was found behind that curtain it was not hiding but waiting to enter center stage. That the senators played their hand is also revealed by the fact was that, once Gaius' bodyguard's found him dead they went looking for senators with a vengeance, killing as many as they could get their hands on.

My source on the plot RE Gaius is from Scramuzza, probably the most noted biographer of Claudius. My most recent source on Tiberius and his son Drusus is from Barrett's work on Caligula. No, I mean Drusus Major's son, Claudius' brother. I don't think the elder Drusus was ever considered a possible heir. I do not recall any source stating that Augustus ever was considering Germanicus as an heir. And considering Augustus' dislike for Tiberius, had he had the option to override him, he would have taken it. What is your source on Augustus considering Germanicus as an heir?

Gaius was eventually assassinated, not by a widespread conspiracy, or because he was unpopular, but because he had offended and belittled a small clique of Guards officers who resented it. His death ended an experiment which was not forgotten, but which was understood and followed by his nephew Nero two decades later. Phil, I have to disagree here. The Senate from top to bottom was behind this, or knew of it. They just used Chaerea as the patsy and striking hand. After he had killed Caligula the Senate, backed by the city cohorts, seized control of the Capitol and planned on reinstating the Republic. Yet they were divided on whether or not they should also reorganize the principate. And while they lost time, the Guard acted. Moreover, not all the Guard was involved. The acting prefect, Clemens, was busy dilly-dallying with the senators. I do agree that Caligula was popular with the masses. In fact, when the people heard about the hit, they were really pissed.

Phil, You wrote: His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus... By Germanicus do you mean the elder Drusus who, though favored by Augustus over his brother Tiberius, died too early to be slated as an heir? Secondly, you wrote: His partners were Agrippa and later Tiberius. Agrippa, although a potential "regent" had to adopt the eventual heir, Germanicus, while his own son Drusus was consigned to a lower place. Thus the succession would not run through Tiberius but would remain with the Julian family. That should have read Tiberius, not Agrippa. Tiberius had to adopt Germamicus. Moreover, just to note, Drusus the younger really didnt resent his first cousin's preferential treatment. The two were very close and Drusus the younger felt that he was too much like his father and that Germanicus was better suited to the task.

By the way, ''Howard''. Leslie Howard? Or Trevor Howard? Couldn't be Leslie, he was killed during the war. Am I missing a Howard?

Olivier came from a French Huguenot family.

Yeah, I agree, but you do mean the Broadway play, right? Not another movie? It was one of a kind, can't be redone. I recall Zero in only one other film, from the 50's, and he played like a gangster. I just don't think he ever took off on the screen. Or didnt like it. Alfred Drake is another case in point. Surely Mostel is Bialystok in the original Mel Brook's 1970s "The Producers" (IMDB agrees with me - I just checked)!! The Producers has been remade as a film recently - dvd out today in the UK (I have NOT bought it)!! Phil Eeee-gads. But it's probably a film of the musical, which the original film was not. And Brookes has been the active force behind the new version. All time best line: ''Smart as a whip.''

I remember bookmarking it and went back to find it. Of course, my own personal memory of Nero's Circus is vague at best, I was very young at the time and...LOL. That was the day Nero was singling out Methodists.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...C/3*.html#sec16 PLAN OF OLD S. PETER'S, SHOWING ITS RELATION TO THE CIRCUS OF NERO You may have to scroll down...

I believe that you are right when you say the Vatican structure was a circus (for chariot racing) - originally built by Gaius Caligula on land that had belonged to his mother (as I recall). I was not aware that it was ever converted to an arena (for gladiatorial combat). Can ayone else shed light on this - Ill check my references. Rome had several circuses in republican times - the Circus Maximus (still there) being the greatest. I think there was also a Circus Flaminius, Pompeius Magnus built the first permanent theatre for drama, but had to disguise the purpose by pretending the seating were the steps of a temple. As late as Augustus' reign, Statilius Taurus (I think) still had to construct a wooden amphitheatre for gladiatorial fights as no permanent structure existed. My point related to gladiatorial arenae, not circuses. Phil My sources on this are Balsdon and Barrett in their section on Caligula's career as a builder. Both state that the Vatican race course was converted into a circus and both state that it was here that the Christian purges took place under Nero. How great a difference is there exactly in the definition of circus and arena? Were there not chariot races later on at the Flavian structure?

Yeah, I agree, but you do mean the Broadway play, right? Not another movie? It was one of a kind, can't be redone. I recall Zero in only one other film, from the 50's, and he played like a gangster. I just don't think he ever took off on the screen. Or didnt like it. Alfred Drake is another case in point.

Anglo-Dutch father's side going way back. Some Irish got in there, too. Norwegian-Swedish mother's side, turn of the century (the last last one) immigrants.

Until a late date - I think offhand the construction of the Flavian amphitheatre - Rome had no permenent amphitheatre for gladiatorial or other fights. Either wooden ones were built as happened under Augustus, or the Forum Romanum was roofed in with awnings. For those who have visited the site, I am sure the picture of the bright sun shining through multicoloured cloths and making the pavement seem like a mosaic must be a visid one. But a continual sight in Rome must have been public slaves erecting and dismantling barriers, stands and tribunals. There was the Vatican Circus, first started as a race course by Caligula on his Vatican estate, then built into an arena of some kind under Nero. It was here that the Christians were persecuted. I've never seen a depiction of the structure, but I think that part of the present Vatican was built on the site.

I agree with Primus, this has become totally semantic in nature. The publishing company isn't hypothetical, I worked as an editor in one. I know the conservative rules of engagement RE the word ''science''. In reference to archeology, only in recent years has this field started to benefit from scientific techniques. Before that time it was quite often a hit or miss operation, indeed, a field of study pertaining to social behavior. It still is, in large part. The issue here, again, is a definition of the term ''scientific'', which, as defined by Webster's, is ''regulated and conforming to the principles of exact science''. More conservatively put, it is ''a systematic knowledge of the physical and material world''. History, anthropology, and archeology cannot be mathematically systematized in this manner. All this has started regarding the term revisionism, and your bold insistence that Rameses was committing revisionism. He wasn't. He was just being youthfully deluded. Revisionism is a legit term but I agreed early that it has a nasty ring to it. Better the term ''revised''. When a text book is updated, you get a ''revised edition''.

The problem is you are not drawing a more conservative and necessary line between the natural sciences and the social sciences. And I cite again my examples if you were approaching this matter in both the academic and publishing fields. Your interpretation of the word science and scientific would be taken to task. Let's take this if need be to another thread.

Another interesting thing about this film is that it's one of the very few where you get to see Zero Mostel. He made all too few, sadly.

''Social sciences still fall under the scientific method.'' This tells me nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is an evasive blanket statement. As far as observation, hypothesis, experimentation, verification and---prediction (that's stretching it) are concerned related to work in history, they do not draw from the same set of laws as are applied to the natural sciences. Even our precious logic falls within the realm of philosophy and philosophy falls within the social sciences. The initial argument here is the word scientific as applied to history is misleading, and the reason I don't approve of the term. In the conservative academic world the word scientific in its purist sense is applied to the natural sciences.

Huh. I thought you said they weren't sciences. Why are you moving the goalposts now? I never claimed they were physical sciences, merely sciences. Now you've proven my point for me. Thank you. I didnt move the goal post at all. Social science is a term that's been in use for a long time. And you did not define the term ''the scientific method'' so how can your point be proved?

''The scientific method?'' Just what exactly is ''the scientific method''? Archeology and philology fall under the social sciences. The social sciences are not the physical sciences, they are in greater part mental sciences, and the exacting and mathematical laws of the physical sciences don't apply here. Yes, there can be carbon dating within archeological research, but many if not most of the procedures require a great demand on right brain thinking. Certainly this is the case with philology. Language isn't a set thing. It's constantly evolving. Of course, everything is evolving in all fields but I return to my point. If you went to a publisher with a historical piece and you told the editors it is based on scientific deduction, they would sit back and demand what field of the physical sciences you were referring to, math? Chemistry? If they were to promote the book, trust me, they'd make you throw the word ''scientific'' out. In this instance, scientific is more misleading that the word revisionism.

How is scientific misleading? Archaeology and philology are both sciences. Following the scientific method is the only requisite of science, and both do that exactly. Next thing you know you hear that "evolution" isn't science. Archeology and philology may follow certain procedures to exact findings, but I find deeming them ''scientific methods'' an overstatement; they are not categorized as sciences, nor do they follow exact rules as one might find in the physical sciences. Go to any university and see what departments archeology and philology fall into. Moreover, write a history book, take it to a publisher, and use the term scientific. Boy, will they take you to task.

Again, the word ''scientific'' has a misleading ring to it. It denotes too much the left brain field. As scientific as archeology tries to be, and philology, they aren't sciences, nor the arts of deduction and speculation which are tools of the historian. I don't like the word revisionism, but I disagree that it has only been used in the negative sense. The word first popped up RE the revamping of African-American history. Oh, see my original original above post. I changed the wording.