phil25

When I was a schoolboy aged 12 or 13, I had the good fortune to hear a lecture given at my local archaeological society by the great British historian and excavator of Roman Britain - Sir Ian Richmond. He excavated the Agricolan legionary fortress at Inchtuithil in Scotland and it was on that he spoke. He died not long after (in the 60s), at a comparatively early age, but Richmond was a figure of great influence and importance and was ahuge loss. My reason for mentioning him in this thread is not only to pay tribute to a half-forgotten figure, but because of what I still recall him saying in his talk. It rocked young Phil back on his heels. At that age (12 or 13 as I say) I was inevitably much influenced by the populist "Hollywood" view of the legions. Richmond changed all that. He painted a picture of the legions, at least at the time of Agricola, as principally engineers - building roads and walls and forts. I was so amazed that I asked a question to check that I had really understood him when he said that, in that period they were rarely committed to battle. At Mons Graupius, he said, the legions had been kept in reserve, it was the auxilia who did the fighting. (Nowadays, I see it as a little similar to the way Napoleon used his Old Guard - as a resource of last resort.) Richmond's explanation as to why made sense - generals and administrators could not afford to lose such an important technical and logistical (I nod to an earlier poster in this thread) resource. Who would do the engineering, the river-crossing, the fortification, the surveying if these experts were lost? It was the legions who built the Wall for Hadrian, but they did not man it!! No doubt views have changed in the last 40+ years, but Richmond had much experience of military sites in Britain, and was a deep and incisive thinker. I give the view to add to this discussion. Of course, as others have rightly said, the legions did not stay the same over some 400 years. Caesar's legions were as dissimilar to those of Marius or Sulla; as they were to those of Vespasian. equipment, strategic and tactical thinking, training and sources of manpower all changed with time. Thus we need to avoid generalisations, I feel. Richmond's views related to the Agricolan period, and might logically be extended to Hadrians. They would not, for a moment, necessarily apply to the Gallic War or to later periods. I hope these thoughts might be useful. Phil

Indeed an excellent review MPC. Phil

Probably they'll find a new way of expressing the old adage: "What goes up must come down"!! Phil

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, Caldrail, and if that explanation satisfies you, sobeit. Personally, I think it a dangerous assumption. As The Augusta perceptively observed in another thread, a posters views on homosexuality "then and now", said more about the poster involved than the past. Privacy did mean something different in 1st Century Rome, and was as dissimilar to our notions as the same concept was to both in (say) Tudor times. But as several authorities on Roman house design have commented, the Romans had concepts of intimacy and confidentiality, that were reflected in their archieteacture and the plans of their dwellings - see for instance the House of the Vetii in Pompeii. But that's by the by. What I feel most undermines your explanation is that nero and Domitian (essentially close contemporaries) the latter of whom was familiar with the former's buildings, appears to have had a totally different concept of the Palace/Urbs relationship that did his predecessor. Now I am quite prepared to agree that ideas can change, even in a couple of decades, but Domitian's building and concept, which we can analyse and explore more readily than Nero's, self-evidently had a number of dimensions - both figuratively and practically. It was sophisticated in concept and purpose. Yet you would deny that to Nero and ascribe everything (seemingly) to what might be summarised as "megalomania". Domitian too suffered from that disorder, yet he was capable of conceiving and fostering a huge building though probably less of an "artist" than Nero. Was Hadrian's vast villa at Tivoli/Tibur simply an exercise in extravagance? Would anyone who has read about that emperor ascribe such a simplistic purpose to that complex man? In our own time, Hitler and his new Reichs Chancellery, was certainly carrying out ideas about public buildings that appealled to him, but he had other purposes too - to impress both on his own and Germany's behalf, to awe and frighten state visitors; to act as a magnificant backdrop to state and party functions. His own apartments were small and ordinary as they were in all his residences including the berghof. But the last analogy is simply to underline my point - I am not suggesting that Nero and Hitler were similar in ANY way. Simply that buildings have many facets and purposes, and we need to recognise that fact. Phil

Luck probably - in the same way that Caesar's commentaries have survived whereas we have lost those of others over time. McCullough and the ROME screenwriters did what good authors always do - found names and hints in the sources and then brought them to life. I doubt we will have anything more on V&P, but by a huge coincidence, the tombstone of the cavalry trooper who killed Trajan's great foe, Decabalus of Dacia was found a few years ago. The moment is shown on Trajan's column in Rome, now we have a name and know the soldier's details and career. Who could have predicted that? So you never know about V&P. Phil

I'm no expert, but I have delved into the subject a little. The Alexandrian court was heavily Macedonian/Greek and seems to have adopted that style - ie Hellenistic dress - himation, chiton, etc. The putative bust of the last Cleopatra seems to show her wearing the "diadem" or linen band of kingship which Alexander had taken from the Persian royal tiara/mitre-crown. Royal guards would have worn Greek style armour, thopugh some celtic mercenaries might have worn their native costume. Priests of the native religeon would have worn traditional dress (as from Pharaonic times). Personally, although it is probably inauthentic, I have always liked the look devised for Liz Taylor's "Cleopatra" from the 60s. Not, I hasten to add her VERY 60s influenced costumes, but those of the Court, especially in the scene when Caesar is greeted on the palace steps. However, I doubt any Ptolemy ever wore the Tutankhamen inspired gear used - unless during their Coronation at Memphis. They would have worn Hellenistic gear. Reliefs on temples such as that at Dendera which I have seen are, I think, misleading. They use the traditional Pharaonic trappings, but I think that is creative anachronism in action rather than a representation of reality. I'd be fascinated if we do have someone here who has researched the period in depth. Phil

But surely a repository of civil records - marriage agreements, legal agreements, business dealings, wills etc might need to have been secure but would not necessarily have warranted military or government protection. Similarly, a religious record hall would have been protected by the Temple militia under the control of the Sanhedrin, I assume?? By the way, are we sure that the word used by Josephus is properly translated? Phil

Count me in. please. Phil

I was responding to an earlier point made by another poster. I was not, personally, looking for a debate on the topic. MPC - it's so nice to see you again too!! Phil

Thanks Ursus - very helpful indeed. Phil

Rome had a "Tabularium" between the Capitol and the Forum Romanum - why should other cities not have had the same? Did not Hadrian(?) burn many of the debt records of Rome from the "record office" as depicted on a balustrade now (I think) kept in the Curia building? One of the three "municipal offices" at the end of the forum of Pompeii is often termed a "record office". On that basis might Jerulsalem have had such a building which was not military or official, but maintained civil and municipal records? I also have read that the procurators of judaea used the Herodian palace as their residence when up from Caesaraea, not the Antonia. Or have I been misled? Phil

And I still argue that while that might be one facet of the reasoning (and I do not disagree with you), it does not begin to accommodate all the angles that need to be understood. But I would question one thing, and that is whether there is a touch of anachronism in the modern/ancient analogy? As I perceive the sources, the Julio-Claudians (from Caesar himself to Nero) lived cheek by jowl with their subjects/fellow citizens in a way that modern celebrities and rulers do not. Caesar lived in the Subura and then in the Villa Publica just off the Forum. Augustus' town house was modest. Tiberius (or his immediate successors) extended the Palatine palace, but perhaps more as offices than living quarters. When Tiberius needed solitude he retreated to Capri, not by building a new dwelling in Rome. 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. They held daily levees for their clients So I am not sure that I altogether accept that this desire for extravagance would necessarily express itself in the way you suggest in Rome in the 60s AD. Now copying other analogues might: Alexandria? for instance. But then you know my speculations about an Antonian thread in imperial policies that links IMHO Gaius and Nero. No doubt this one could run and run!! Phil

On wrist guards, eagle stamped tunics and costume armour... Designers have to take into account many things apart from strict accuracy when creating costumes and props for TV and film. One of the most important is that, in close-ups and especially in films when the images are projected hugely enlarged on the screen, blandness and simplicity don't always work. If you look at films closely you'll see that a shirt or a tunic will have embroidery or be of a coarse-textured material; that jackets will padded or have buttons or nails on them; that patterned materials will be used, or layers (the overlays of Vorenus' tunic may be down to this) - anything to give the camera something to linger on and to make the image interesting to the viewer. Thus a bare arm of a man in Roman uniform is not as interesting as one "broken" by a wrist guard. Similarly a "torque" or necklace makes a neck/throat more "interesting" than an expanse of bare flesh. Designers will also seek to create subtle (or not so) modern resonances with their audience. I suspect the legionary tunics with the stamped eagle as meant to call to mind similar equipment and style in the US Arny of the last 50 years. There are many problems in designing for the Roman period - that is why the toga is so often "messed around with" - too much white can be a problem; too much monotony so we get colours etc. Directors may also deliberately wish to avoid repeating a look that has been "done" before. Hence the absolutely unhistoric design of Egypt and Egyptians in ROME. This contrasts with the more realistic - but still 60s-in-feel - look of Alexandria and the Ptolemaic court in Liz Taylor's "Cleopatra". In ROME, I think the designers were also seeking to attain a "feel" of modern Middle-eastern or far-eastern cities today. Their "Subura" reminds me of the souqs of Cairo or Damascus in the squalour, colour etc. One could also discuss in similar terms the simplifications and anachronisms that the screenwriters have to employ in regard to soldiers' relationships/marriage; and the exact meaning of the words patrician/plebeian. They have discarded the proper but narrow useage and replaced it by a more easily grasped one of "nobles" and "working class". I suspect that this is also why Caesar in ROME does not appear to be Pontifex Maximus - too much need for explanation of Roman religeon. On the whole though, I think the makers of ROME did an excellent job and made good choices. It may fall short of absolute standards of historic accuracy, but it is better than many similar shows IMHO. Phil

But monarchs have other uses and advantages. And many republican states have ended up with pretty undesirable heads of government or state as I recall - including a few today!! But I am always inclined, personally, to get behind titles and look at the political reality. Titles and terminology tends to have fashions and to reflect the dynamic of a particular historical period. Thus the celts had kings and high-kings, "ricons, ard-righs, etc" but their roles and powers reflected a tribal culture and the term "king" as a transaltion can IMHO mislead. The Romans threw out their "rex" (but how much do we know about his powers) and replaced the office with balanced consuls (but the powers may not have changed, just been shared). It's all in the name. Later, words like Imperator and princeps (already existing but with a different connotation were employed). The title and role of Dictator - every different from tjhe modern usage and implictions was eventually abolished. But Caesar (a name) and Augustus came into use. How nearly we might today be referring to the Roman Romuli has Octavian made a different choice. Moving ahead - in the middle ages titles like king; Count and Duke did not bear their modern definitions. The latter two were derived from late Roman military ranks or positions. To interpret them with modern notions of aristocratic hierarchy would be wrong. Napoleon made himself an "emperor" deiberately looking back to Rome. Today a man with similar ambitions and in a similar position, might title himself Leader, or Chancellor, President or Chairman. But that reflects modern bias and taste - NOT IMHO the underlying power or requirement. My point - that simplistic analyses of contitutions which simply say "monarchy" bad; "republic" good; President = modern and democratic; king = class ridden and old -fashioned; miss the point. Look at the roles and the evolution of that state; look at the way the office has been handled. That, IMHO says much more. Augustus, Gaius, Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus all held very similar titles as part of a line transmitting an office to successive incumbents. Heredity had only a partial role to play. Yet how differently they interpreted their roles, and can we be sure that gaius, nero and commodus were just mad or aberrant as so often claimed; or did they attract such a reputation because their opponents piled the invective on them because their radical and novel interpretations of government - not just of monarchy - in that age - failed? It's a big subject. Phil Phil

As I have argued elsewhere on this site, I think there is much to be done in exploring the rationale behind Nero's successive palaces in Rome - first the Domus Transitoria and then the Domus Aurea. I have never been wholly satisfied with the explanation that Nero was a megalomaniac with a desire to live extravagantly - though like George IV, there may have been an element of that involved. But when one looks at the great palace builders - Louis XIV (Versailles/Marly etc); Charles I (unexecuted -sorry about the pun! - designs for Whitehall); Domitian (the Palatine) etc there is often a new concept of government/monarchy/social relations involved as well. If we look at Domitian's later buildings, they left intact the historic (House of Livia/House of Augustus) and the probably official/bureaucratic (Palace of Tiberius though probably Claudian, under what is now the Farnese Gardens). and they included both a private residence for the emperor (though vast and magnificent) as well as a suite of state apartments including a dining room, judgement hall, chapel and throne room. There was also a ramp connecting the Forum Romanum to the Tiberian structures on the hill which had a colossal hall as entrance. This may have been the approach for citizens seeking to do business. Now Domitian would have known and recalled the Neronian palaces especially the Domus Aurea, and some of the purposes would, no doubt have needed to be recreated. Thus I believe there is merit in re-examining the Domus Aurea in particular, to ascertain whether we can distinguish public and private areas; a "passage" from open and public to intimate and reserved; whether the buildings link the city with the governmental; and what the whole concept says about Nero's view of the evolving imperial role and responsibilities. Given recent work on the surviving elements of the Domus, I believe this is an exciting time to conduct such a re-appraisal. Phil

I'm afraid that, like The Augusta, I must be largely critical of this "Nero". For all the hype about this being the "FACTS" it was IMHO shallow, sensational, trite and misleading - it may also have been factually wrong. Maybe scholarship has moved on in recent years, and I am out of date, but I understood that one of the fascinating enigmas about Nero as a "bad" emperor was that the empire did not seem to have been misgoverned in his reign, and that amazingly whatever the personality and local actions of the princeps, the bureaucracy continued to function smoothly. I was not aware that we had any basis for Nero putting "art" on every street corner - we know he wanted better town planning and building regulations, an end to the flimsy insulae etc. We know he constructed himself an amazing "House" and have debated here the reasons for that. But some of the scenes with the "model" (Ustinov did it better in "Quo Vadis"!!) smacked more of Hitler and Speer than Nero. The castration of Sporus was stupid and insulted the intelligence - in the ancient world the operation was well-known and frequently carried out. It would not have been done on the floor on a whim in a grotty grotto. And it made nonsense of the subsequent relationship. Nero's sexuality is complex - possible incest with mother, marriage to step-sister (whom he seems to have loathed), the affairs with Acte and Poppaea; the murder of the latter, and the later bi-sexual or homosexual activities... Surely there were things to explore here beyond the superficial? The programme also lacked consistency. If so much of Rome had been destroyed, how come the temples and their treasures were still intact? Surely they would have been damaged or destroyed? And would the princeps have needed to use a battering ram to gain entrance? Was the corpse of Poppaea ever propped up on a throne in the curia? Why was so much time spent on rubbing salt in a man's eye, and on the special effect of its result when so much else was skated over? The "Christians" and persecution was ommitted which I applaud, but why? Blame by the mob of Nero for the fire, despite other criticism of his tyranny , was never mentioned. Odd. The dropping of the sceptre seemed trivial and contrived. I don't think Nero actually WAS a great actor/mime/singer - but I doubt he was THAT incompetent. He did take it seriously and must have had much coaching by the best teachers. Why choose the last few years of his reign - I know I Claudius covered the accession, but that was years ago. The more interesting period is surely that up the murder of Agrippina Minor - her attempts to rule; the quinquennium Neronis (why were those years so good?); the murder of Britannicus and later Octavia and finally of his mother herself. Finally - and I could say much more - what about the depictions of Seneca and Tigellinus? I had always thought the latter a much sleazier character and much more sly. Here he was depicted as a soldier through and through with a SS like devition and ruthlessness. Seneca was hardly the kindly old man shown here - his financial dealings and profit-taking may well have caused the Boudiccan revolt in Britannia. His judgement and the outcome of his tutelage of Nero were catastrophic. we got "Gandalf"!! to continue an analogy from a previous poster!! I ought to say before ending that the production values were not bad - one Forum image seemed to be direct from "Fall of the Roman Empire" (60s epic). Costumes better than usual, but Tigellinus in white? And armour in the Urbs? I look forward to the next episode on Caesar with undiluted eagerness. They may make a better fist of the politics than they did of the sex and sensation and Pertwee looks promising. But if Mary Beard thinks what was shown on Thursday represents the reality of history, I wouldn't trust her judgement in other things. Maybe she protested and was over ruled by the producers, but this was not solidly academically based reconstruction. To me, an opportunity was missed to explore whether the truth behind the legand was less about a monstor and more about manipulation of a weak man. Phil

My apologies if i have failed to "use a modicum of tact". I have simply sought to assert what I had thought was a pretty conventional view of the period (obviously not) if my posts have been read as "heated". Time to leave this thread, methinks and maybe take a breather from UNRV. Phil

You are hung up on legand, GO, NOT fact. Get into the facts of Dunkirk and you'll find the small boats were important but not crucial to the operation. I'm afraid i don't rely on "Mrs Miniver" for my research. If you want to true guage of British public opinion, look at the attitudes around Munich and the archive of Mass Observation (the organisation that got individuals to keep regular diaries). look at the evidence that much of the population of London would have done ANYTHING to stop the war during the Blitz and cowered in the underground system and shelters. Look also at the emerging material on the Hess mission that indicates a strong will to find a negotiated peace in the UK as late as 1941. What relevance Vietnam has to our discussion I cannot think - different world, different "Cold War" ethos and political doctrine, with the US in her post-war-victor/nuclear power mode. Intervention in Latin America was in the US backyard and part of US imperialism (of which of course we do not speak!!). No relevance to taking on Europe. In the 30s the US was in isolation - it had not joined the League of Nations. It had come into WWI only late and under deep German provocation (unrestricted submarine warfare etc). It had, only with reluctance and at a huge price, undertaken "lend-lease". I see no evidence of a US preparedness to enter a war that had ended with no easily identifiable aim. (Things are different now!) Face the facts, in 1940 - and I stress the year - had Britain sought a negotiated peace (as France did) there would have been NO WAR in which the US could have engaged. Are you really saying that in mid 1941 (and without Pearl Harbor having happened) the US would have supported a COMMUNIST state against a victorious Germany? Sorry the logic doesn't wash with me. What, I ask again, would have been its base of operations? But above all what would have been the casus belli? (In fact Hitler was so frenzied that he MIGHT have given one, but I assume he would not until or unless he decided to support the Japanese. On internal US politics, would the interveners have won out in the face of a wholly victorious Reich? My view is that I doubt it. We perhaps have to disagree. I have given a lot of time to this thread, and I see no sign that my words serve any purpose other than to rile you, GO. I have other things to do, but will continue to try to get the facts across if you insist. So do you want to draw a line or carry on? Phil

My answer, is absolutely YES!! The US was NOT in the war, and unless hitler gave it the excuse by himself declaring war, I doubt that Congress would ever have gone to war, or FDR have made that decision. As for Stalin and Russia - it was almost a year between the Bof B and Operation Barbarossa. Until the invasion by Germany - and even after for a while, the Russians were desperate not to do anything that might aggravate Germany. Alamein by the way was in 1942, a long time after the Bof B and required a continuance of the war in Africa, which would not have happened had the Uk sued for peace. Look at your timings - I think your chronology is out of sync with reality somehow. Phil

There was a certain "defeatism in the British High Command in 1940. Don't forget almost the whole of the Army's equipment had been left in France when the troops evacuated Dunkirk. There was only one, even moderatley fully equipped division in Britain and that was, I think, Canadian!! The principal commanders - Gort was somewhat discredited, Brooke had yet to establish his reputation as a strategist; Montgomery and Alexander were comparatively junior and Brooke was not yet in a position to be their mentor. Men like Ironside were really not up to it. If the Bof B had been lost, Dowding would have been even less influential than he was as victor (don't forget he was thrown out even having won). The Naval men would have been more concerned with saving the Fleet - maybe getting it to Canada or the US rather than scuttling it or seeing it fall into German hands. But the key consideration, in my view, is how a "coup" - because that is what you are talking about - would have been staged. Churchill, with the air battle lost would have been a spent force. What would he continue the war with? Chamberlain was an appeaser, Halifax and Butler pro- a negotiated peace (Butler had almost come a cropper trying to negotiate one already). Who would have been the Army's placemen - an outright coup with a military Government would, I think I am right in saying, have been impossible in 1940 britain, as it would have left the king-Emperor in an impossible situation. Had he not backed the Army - and knowing George VI, I doubt he would have done so - such a military junta wiuld in any case have been illegal. But on the right, Moseley or Fuller would have been just as likely to be pro-German and seek a negotiated peace. Even the radicals, such as Lloyd George (premier 1916-22) were pro an armistice. No, on balance, I think the Services would have gone along with the Government line and accepted a peace settlement quietly, which left the Fleet in being, the Empire (less perhaps the former German African colonies) largely intact, and Britain independent outside Europe. They would have had no other choice. But please come back at me if you think I have misprepresented the facts. Phil

Most of the major cities in Britain got a pounding - Coventry was very badly hit; but Plymouth lost its historic centre, Liverpool, Portsmouth, and many more. Civilian casualties were also heavy - though fortunately less than predictions before the start of the war when 1 million deaths in the first few weeks were feared. The "doodle-bug" V1 and later the V2 rocket bombs caused guite a lot of damage and more casualties from mid-1944 onwards. Phil

Historians may also, in this strident clamouring world, have to attract attention somehow. But any discussion about the Battle of Britain, in my view, is to be welcomed. One can always pick the wheat from the chaff and something good may emerge from dross. Thanks for the offer, but I am quite well versed in Wilsonian politics myself. I was working in Whitehall in 1976 when he suddenly resigned. the speculation immediately was that he had be given a choice - go quietly and with honour, or be exposed as a Soviet agent and lose everything. Given his background the speculation - although wholly unfounded - was not without some basis. I am also, I should say, a lover of the enigmas of history - Richard III; Kennedy assassination; Jack the Ripper; Iron Mask; was Edward II murdered (poker etc); etc. I enjoy the ingenuity of the arguments and trying to spot the special pleading and the flaws in the arguments. I suppose it helps me sort through my own thinking too. Phil

Thanks for the laugh your post gave me, TCB!! I think you may be contradicting yourself. Maybe, that must be your judgement, but then I am not arguing a case, just refuting that weakly put by others. You are a strong advocate of the fact that Rome itself would change, I am not an advocate of ANYTHING except the fact that the Roman republic was a failed system which would and could not have done what others her claim or assert. But look at Italy today, and especially the city of Rome - the culture is ENORMOUSLY influenced by that of Rome. I know modern Rome quite well. But i see little connection to the classical Urbs. Modern Italy is a different type of state. Mussolini even tried to return the "glory of the empire" to Italy once again. George IV dressed his courtiers in Tudor-style dress for his Coronation in 1821 - but that did not mean his power was equal to that of Elizabeth I. people often look to the past but cannot recreate it!! The Catholic Church speaks Latin, and even the Italian language is very similar to Classical Latin. Not to mention the hundreds of monuments and structures that still stand as a testament to the glory of Rome. The English still use Anglo-saxon words, the Tower of London contains Norman buildings, the English Coronation service is essentially that of Dunstan in 971, Elizabeth II can trace ancestry direct to Cerdic the saxon in c600. yet i would never claimthat means that Anglo-saxon England has survived in any real sense. Continuity maybe, but NOT survival. Do you really think it would have changed beyond recognition in a few thousand years? Yes. Absolutely - in dress, manners, culture, technology, form of Government, concerns etc etc. In all relevant ways. The Egyptian civilization has been around for more than 9,000, and their traditional culture still remains deeply rooted in their history. I don't agree for a moment. So is it really so far-fetched to think that Rome would remain as Roman as it ever was? I think you know my answer by now. It's an absurd idea IMHO. Of course the east would never want to revert to Republicanism - it didn't have nearly as many problems as the west did. That's the line that made me laugh most. Go tell that to the Byzantines. Things would be better, considering the Rome of 200 AD was much more powerful than that of 200 BC. Exactly, and the Roman republican form was a CITY government essentially that failed to evolve. Rome had a more powerful military... The reason the republic fell. After all, it took the French several times to get Republicanism right - Rome wouldve definitely tried a new system. And France still hasn't sicceeded - it's a veiled monarchy. But your broader argument makes my point. In 2,000 years, Rome would probably have reverted to monarch again as France did variously under Napoleon I, the restored Borbons, Louis Phillippe and Napoleon III. De Gaulle seriously considered restoring the monarchy. The prospect of the Roman empire surviving under a Republican is not merely sentimental. Utterly so, as your post demonstrates.

It's a reasonable question, is it not to ask whether Cleopatra might have had a negroid appearance? Everything surely depends on the reasoning and the evidence. As I understand it the identity/race of one of Cleopatra's grandparents is unknown, so, in my view, the speculation is reasonable. Even if I personally would need a great deal of convincing that she was other than pure blood Greek/Macedonian. I see no reason to question the logic behind asking the Gaitskill question, especially if one recalls that for many years Wilson was suspected of being a Russian placeman. Gaitskill's death was sudden and unexpected. Again, nothing wrong with the question, in my view one just has to bring maturity and common sense to the game of speculation. Elvis and JFK - I have read deeply on the JKF assassination, but never seen that theory advanced. I'd be fascinated to see the logic - it could be fun. As for the Bof B - has any serious historian ever doubted that in 1940 Britain regarded its navy as it's primary defence. Had Hitler got to the point of trying a seaborne invasion, then in all likelihood the RN would have swept down from Scapa and disrupted the barges as they crossed the Channel. But as i have argued strongly in another thread, there is absolutely no evidence that Hitle ever seriously planned for an invasion, or intended to mount one. But I say again, look carefully at the arguments advanced - I have not read the article - but does the author talk of the Navy being key to the Bof B or to stopping an invasion? I suspect that press-hype has distorted the wording. A recent book - 1940 - which i have, takes the line that the importance of the RN has been overlooked, but does not argue more than that. Phil

Just come back tio this thread. As is probably evident from my initial post in it, I am of utterly the reverse opinion to that posed by Cato and supported by so many others. First, I find it sentimental. the Roman republic (so-called, it had few features that would have made it commendable as a modern republic) was every bit as cruel, devious, grasping and nasty and it successor empire. why should we want it back - it failed. It was outgrown. And it was never more than a crudely effective city Government. Second not a single argument is advanced as to HOW the republic could havesurvived or returned. It fell for good reasons and powerful forces would have prevented its return. Why on earth - even had it done so - would it have succeeded any more than the earlier one did. There also seems to be a supposition that a Rome that survived would have be recognisable as it was in the first millenia - the jest about togas makes the point. Yet Byzantium by 1453 was unrecognisable as Rome. It saw no reaon to revert to Republicanism. Even if you were right and a version of the empire had survived to today - you would not recognise it as such in terms of its culture (you might JUST in terms of political forms) any more than Washington would recognise Bush's USA, or William I, Elizabeth II's britain. In the latter case both are monarchies but they have been transformed . Rome would have been too. Phil