phil25

What about demagogues who learn to use the media - or at least to do deals with those - like Murdoch - who own/control it? Augusta - constitutions evolve, or can be changed. the US constitution is changed relatively frequently (before FDR there was no limit on the numbr of terms a President could serve). Over several hundred years (and the English kingship has already lasted well over 1,000) who knows what situations could serve to severely limit the powers of a President (they were curtailed after Nixon/Vietnam); or to split the ceremonial and executive functions as in the UK. In the UK almost ALL of the powers of the executive rest with the Crown, but are now exercised through the Prime Minister, and cabinet, who are reliant on a majority in the Commons to get legislation through. Most significant changes to the political geography of a nation (I mean a political state really) are made by or to popular acclaim - Augustus, Napoleon, Hitler - who ruled under emergency powers. Who can say what could happen in the US in the aftermath of nuclear war; terrorist outrages; or in the wake of a religious take-over, or racial splits, if a President or group suspended the constitution (with Congress' approval); or used a coup, or a majority in Congress to pass new laws/constitutional amendments. A majority might support them - look at demographic changes and social trends. And once again, I am looking at a timespan of centuries not decades. Phil

Well, generations of military historians and professional soldiers in numerous cultures and countries would say you were wrong. However foolish his oppoenents, perhaps the key is the simplicity of Hannibal's strategy, its style and the "classic" nature of the manoeuvre he used, almost perfectly carried out, and the totality of its success. In many senses Napoleon lost Waterloo (ultimately, a much more decisisive battle than Cannae) rather than Wellington winning it. But for the allid armies to have victory in 1815, Wellington had to have stood on his ridge, and withstood all that the French could throw at him. Napoleon and Ney were unimaginative and threw away chances, but Wellington knew his opponents, had evolved tactics to deal with them, and was still clinging on when Blucher brought up his Prussian Corps. Can you say that Hannibal did not know his foe, did not plan his battle and find it worked? Sometimes a good general can play to his enemy's weaknesses and trick them into doing what they ought not. I have no axe to grind, but maybe a prejudice against arm-chair generals!! Phil

The key question is whether we are taling words (king, emperor) or process (how the system works). What differentiated Stalin from Peter the Great in practical or policy terms? The words/titles by which people are known/referred to are IMHO irrelevent. It is process that is crucial, and their role in the system. Phil

I bow to all your greater wisdoms. Phil

Monarchy is surely simply a type of government - usually rule by one person which is hereditary (though many monarchies have, or have had elective elements - it still remains within the English coronation service). There are many names for "kings - ricon ard-righ, Tsar, emperor, Kaiser, Caesar, rex, roi - to name but a few. A man or woman "called" president, could still effectively be a monarch. Indeed, the current US presidency has many monarchical features and in the Nixon-era the term "imperial presidency" was widely used. Are there now also "dynasties" already present in the elective post - the Bushs, Kennedys and Roosevelts spring to mind. England has had a monarchy for over 1,000 years, if you treat the coronation of Edgar in 971 as a staring point. In that time, our unwritten "constitution" has changed many times - there have been periods when kings have ruled absolutely and when they have been cyphers, even a time when there was no "king" at all, but a Lord Protector who was offered a crown!! My point is that in the next 1,000 years the US could see many changes in its Government, even should it last so long as an independent country or a single unit - it has already had one civil war. Who can predict what changes may be welcomed in the circumstances of the future - after all only 60 years or so ago , the US decided to limit how many terms a president could serve. A future demagogue might seek and gain additional powers which would be granted almost by applause because of the times in which he presents himself to the people. Napoleon confirmed his absolute power by plebisicte, so did Hitler. Who can predict what military coups, internal problems, external threats, demographic trends or natural disasters (I recognise of course that the US does not regard climate change as real) will bring political change in their wake, and that the result might not be something politically close to "monarchy" though deliberately called something else. Up to the mid C19th, terms like king and emperor were often assumed by rulers of new states. Since the same period, terms like Chairman, President-for-life etc have been fashionable. But what's the difference? Caesar recognised that the term king/rex was anathema to the Romans, so he used Dictator for life, but was he not effectively a king? Octavian found a new term - his honorofic name, Augustus, or was referred to as first citizen - but was he not a king in effect? A wise reader of history will look at the stories and political development of countries of long-standing - France, the Italian states, the German states, the constituent parts of the UK - or older examples, dynastic Egypt, Rome itself - and recognise that huge changes took place in political relationships, names and titles, and the balance of power in those states. The USA is not, and will not be IMMUNE to that process, IMHO. An inauguration can become a coronation with little change, and it does not require crowns or chrism to do it. It requires a person with political will and the right backing, and circumstances that make it appropriate. All that said, I reject any idea that a british monarch will ever sit on an American throne again. And Augusta, I think the UK will have a monarchy for some generations to come. The danger point will be when there is a consensus as to what should replace it. There is none today. George VII (as I believe Charles wishes to be known) will be a good king rather like Edward VII - but will probably NOT be Head of the Commonwealth or monarch of many of the old Dominions (though Canada and New Zealand might still recognise him as Head of State). William will follow him (unless we have an unexpected political revolution). We cannot reform the House of Lords with a clear view, let alone decide on wider constitutional changes. But that the territory now called the USA could, over the next 1,000 years, become (by evolution, revolutioon, coup or accident) effectively a monarchy is, I believe, wholly within the bounds of reasonable probability. Phil

To what "inexcusable character traits" do you refer, Wot Wotius? Caldrail, I doubt ANY 1st century *or* has been found at the Villa Iovis. If you have a source, I'd be VERY interested to hear it. Tiberius was a PHILOSOPHER (at least, manque) who found a retreat satisfying - hence the sojourn in Rhodes. I doubt fellow thinkers such as nerva would have shared his "exile" if he had been as perverse as later writers suggest. NOTE: there areno such claims from Rhodes or any other period of his life. The "stories" are just fill-ins for the gap left by this private man, who cared not a jot for what others thought. Whatever Sejanus' defects and motives, the model of a 2shared" principiate was not unknown to or absent from the Augustan model. What else was Agrippa? except a more moral Sejanus? What role would Lucius have played under Gaius (his brother not Caligula)? To answer an earlier question, Vipsania (Tiberius' first wife) was Agrippa's daughter by his first marriage. Nero's mother is usually referred to as Agrippina the younger or Minor in English. Phil

Like many aristocrats - indeed many high-achievers - through history Tiberius regarded the "mob" with scorn. Who were they to judge him? What basis did they have for their judgement?Shakespeare illustrates the attitude well in the character and actions of Coriolanus. "You common cry of curs..." Who is to say he is wrong? Would anyone today really respect the judgement of someone who's sole source of news was The Sun or the Nationasl Enquirer, who who never read a newspaper/watched the news? What Tiberius got wrong, IMHO, was that he ignored and alienated the SENATORIAL lobby. Phil

George Baker's perfomance in "I CLAVDIVS!" is superb, but dictated by Graves' idea that Livia was the puppetress. Andre Morell, to me, IS Tiberius - the man I see and study in the statues and busts in The Vatican Museum, the Capitoline etc. Austere, intelligent, tragic, honest, capable... I can say no more, Phil

Busts on the other hand seem to have accuracy demanded of them. Caldrail, I am confused as to whether this is your comment, or a statement about how "busts" were regarded in Roman times. Please clarify. Phil

I think the artificiality of the "Caracalla" bust is suggested by the pronounced "X" between the eyes which connects forehead and cheeks, and the sudden twist/turn of the head, which is seen in many derivative busts of this emperor. The aim is clearly to inspire awe/fear and to provide immediacy. It is thus an artistic contrivance. the degree of resemblance to the emperor himself is likely to have been reasonable, but heightened, IMHO. Beware of the apparent "realism" of the Egyptian coffin portraits too. I used to get excited about the character which they seemed to show - personalities seemed to jump out of the frame. But my reading indicates that these were pretty much "form" paintings. A young man in the family died - you bought a "young man" portrait. Simple as that. the quality depended on the price you paid. the faces are "types" not individual. In the early empire we know that Gaius (Caligula) was balding early, but his portrait heads show him with plentiful hair. Augustus - even in the Prima Porta statue - is never shown as ageing. (As astonishing as Bilbo Baggin's prolonged preservation.) There is some realism in portraits of Claudius - sticky out ears etc - but he is often shown as heroic and god-like. Trajan appears to have aged in sculpture as in life - there are various "old" heads. nerva is usually shown as distinguished and lined, but noble. He might have been craggy and doddery - would we ever guess from his statues or refliefs? Titus again is pudgily athletic - probably he was fat, or fleshy. But as semi-divine ruler, he is made to look as though armour suits him (he had been a soldier, so perhaps muscle ran to fat once the wars were over?). Nero's thick neck and fleshy face are hinted at, decorously - but no sign of the acne we are told of. Like Queen Elizabeth I, I believe Emperors and pincipes had "types" modelled at various times which contained certain individual features - the arrangement of locks of hair, the proportions, the size of nose/cin whatever. These were then copied and dispatched around the empire for local craftsment to copy. Thus many of the busts we see now were probably carved by men who had never seen their subject in life - simply reproduced using proportions and details. That said, I think we have a view of what each of the main individuals looked like and would recognise them if we went back in time. But we might have some surprises too. Phil

I think it was Gaius who established the Vatican amphitheatre in his (mother's?) gardens. Gladiatorial combats could take place either in the Great Circus (Circus maximus) or in the Forum Romanum, which was capable of being covered over with awnings. Phil

Another commonality of interest, Augusta. I know a SMALL amount about imperial portaiture and both public and domestic architecture in Rome, Ostia, Pompeii and Herculaneum. Happy to discuss or start a few threads, but I was roundly chided when I tried to discuss potential wider interpretations of Nero's Golden House. So be warned. But as always from you, August one, a great idea. Phil

Briefly (and hopefully ironically) the USA is a concealed monarchy (President) pretending to be a republic/democracy. It is expansionist, the most dynamic and militaristic power in its world. It has had and retains an overseas empire (which once included the Phillipines, Cuba etc and still includes Puerto Rico and Havana. Power largely depends on wealth, it has faction rather than party politics, is deeply corrupt. It has a Senate which sits in a classical-style building. It has the same sort of relationship with Britain as Rome had with Greece - condescending but slightly envious. A young, thrusting nation, aware of what it owes to an older, mature more deeply cultural mother-land, from which it derives many of its forms of Government, language, life-style and tradition. The "barbarians" are coming in to destroy westernism - directly from Mexico, and through legal and illegal immigration in its European sphere of influence. Oh and it's currently ruled by a man widely perceived as insane. (Oh for a Suetonius!!) Now if THAT doesn't get this thread boiling, nothing will!! Phil (PS please don't take what I have said (too) seriously - I am a great USAphile. )

The missing books of Tacitus. I'd love to know what Livineius Regulus had done to get him banished from Rome. He's the Senator who turned up in Pompeii in 59 and helped foment the riot in the arena, an event that fascinates me. Of course the missing books would tell us much more too. Phil

I have it, read it and enjoyed it. I think I recommended it in a thread at the time. Hardly the greatest book ever, nor groundbreaking, but a good read, interesting and worthwhile. I don't recall it annoying me with inaccuracies, and in tracing descent, it mirrored somewhat a theme I was personally exploring at that time. Hope this helps, Phil

I was intrigued by something The Augusta wrote in her thread about the achievements of the republic, and opened this new thread to avoid diverting the other. What she said, in part, was: ...although I am a great admirer of Augustus, I nevertheless believe that he made a very fundamental mistake in creating the Principate: he made its success dependent upon the personality of the individual Princeps. This may be naive of me, but it is a belief I have held for over 30 years. Augustus was capable of ruling well, but could not legislate for his successors doing likewise. Briefly, I wonder whether Augustus did recognise and try to find a solution to this problem. He brought up Gaius and Lucius veryu carefully, and trained them in his methods. They must have been given a VERY intimate understanding of his vision, motives and methods. When they died prematurely, he reverted to Tiberius - a known quantity, but put in harness with Augustus for a time. (As Augustus could not know the timing of his own death, the period might be long or short, but it was done.) Further, Germanicus - a soldier currently proving himself in the field - was made tiberius heir and successor to the purple, even over Tiberius' own son, Drusus. Now elsewhere we have discussed Augustus' perceived desire to preserve his own bloodline on the throne, but could we have here also an attempt to ensure sensible succession two generations ahead? The problem came in that Germanicus' family were killed off - with the exception of the enigmatic but odd Gaius. he in his turn killed off Tiberius' other heir, Gemellus (unproven in ability). So Sejanus - and possibly Agrippina Minor's impatience - may have distorted Augustus' intentions. But I would go further and ask: In Tacitus were are given a picture of Tiberius resisting the imperium - wanting a debate. This is depicted as a devious trick, as asubterfuge. But what if it was genuine? Did Augustus want the Senate to be part of the process of the succession? Was it hoped that men of the right blood (ie Octavian's descendents) would be chosen, but that the senate would weed out the unfit or undesireable? In that case, Augustus' (and Tiberius') error may have been to underestimate the extent to which the Senate had lost its will and ability to act without direction. Like an invalid in a hospital they had lost the ability to take initiative. They had become institutionalised. I recognise that this view is not incompatible with Augusta's. But I would welcome her and others' views on this explanation which has just struck me. Phil

The geography of 4006 will be very different, as the result of global warming the seas will have risen and many of our great cities will (like Alexandria) be submerged. I suspect that there will have been huge population movements in the late C21st and early C22nd, because of shortages of foodstuffs, climate change and a demand for scarce resources. the nations, even the racial mix we know, may have changed beyond recognition. Many of our archives will have been lost because the hardware required to play discs and databases no longer exists. (That is, I understand, even true of data collected in the 1980s already!) So effort may have to be put into rebuilding computers in an equivalent of decyphering the Rosetta Stone. If the technological gulf between our world and that of the future, the USA might be regarded rather as Atlantis is today - how could a country have been "real" that possessed such weaponry, machines that flew and so much wealth etc etc? I don't have time now - I'm about to leave for work, but I'll return to this anon. It'll give me something to think about on my journey to and from work. Interesting topic. Phil

....what distinguished the republic from the principate if not the democratic elements of the republic (e.g., free electoral competition, free speech in the forum, the ability to bring private lawsuits against magistrates, etc)? FREE electoral competion? For the rich maybe... hardly democractic, and the corruption was notorious. FREE speech in the Forum - for a canting prat like Cicero maybe, but hardly for the uneducated. The "mob" seemed to be pretty hostile to "free" speech too under gang-leaders like Milo. Procesutions? Vendetta maybe - but healthy freedom? pah!! Rigged juries and contrived actions. You are a romantic Cato - and you look at the republic, IMHO, with rose tinted spectacles. It was no model of anything except itself - and it could not deal with the fault lines within its own structure. Nor could it transform itself into a workable form to govern an empire. Your comments relate to the surface, not the substance. Phil

Of course, Russia CLAIMED to be a democracy, MPC - in part because it was a supposedly "peoples' republic, but also because it wanted to LOOK like the equivalent of the modern republic in post French Revolutionary style. In short it was "contrived". It was NEVER a democracy in practice - Leninism could never have allowed it. In the world today, in my view we have two sorts of democracy - and I should add here that I am no fan of democracy, I prefer oligarchies. the two sorts are: a) those which have or are evolving from another system and adapt or add to their civil strustures to allow greater popular participation (the UK is an example which has evolved over severl hundred years and continues to do so; those that have created political systems on a "sheet of white paper" (the US is the prime example) following some chosen "model" of democractic practice. It is a matter for debate how far either is a true or actual democracy, or even if real democracy is achieveable or desirable (my personal answer to both is that they are not). Rome was a republic, but never in my view a democracy - it got rid of its kings, but not the institutions or the concepts (the rex sacrorum remained, as did the consuls who retained many of the attributes and powers of kingship, simply divided and made annual. Eventually, this was seen as unworkable, and kingship was restored, while retaining many of the trappings of a republic. My ramblings, Augusta, have finally clarified for me the essential quality that i see as the great achievement of the republic - PRAGMATISM. Phil

Why does any mature state require an oath of loyalty? New UK citizens now have to take one, copying the US system - and I think it ridiculous. By the way, how did "god" get into the US oath of allegiance - I thought there was strict separation of church/state? Anyone who becomes a citizen of any country - ie goes through the legal process - clearly accepts the norms and mores of that society. If they act counter to them then the state has the right and ability to act. What more is needed? Phil

Augusta - I don't think I have anything to add. I reject all the romantic guff about democracies today looking back to the republic - the republic was not "democratic in any way we would recognise. Classically educated statesmen of a few centuries ago created a benign idea that is not solidly based. The republic was an oligarchy, with some monarchical traits (the consuls) and the slightest veneer of consultation with the mob. The assemblies and voting system were totally rigged. But the energy that was caught and directed into expansion, the will to survive when facing the challenge of carthage, the creation of a cursus whereby men could gain experience in office and of administration, at various levels then put that into practice as generals or governors, largely worked well. Much of this was continued and even built into the "system" under the principiate and empire. The great problems for the republic that it never solved, were how to control successful generals and their troops; and how to attain consistency of approach in governing an empire larger than a city-state. One-man rule was a patch which helped with the issue of the generals (they were either members of the imperial family or denied glory); and the triumvirs gave priority to the land and resettlement issues for their troops. Consistency and a bureaucracy of freedmen came with one-man rule too. But generals occupied the throne under Augustus, Tiberius, Galba, Vespasian, Titus, Trajan to name but a few. And Tacitus specifically asserts that the secret of empire was the will of the legions - so no change there then. To conlude, it was the republican system, modified which was its great achievement, but it was deeply flawed. the cure may have been worse than the disease, but it was unavoidable. I suspect that this still doesn't give you what you want. Phil

I'm not sure how far one can take this. Gaius was assassinated by a conspiracy led by the Praetorian Prefect (Chaerea) whom he had apparently personally humiliated and insulted - it might have had wider support and deeper motives, but rumour and wider unpopularity don't seem to have played much of a part. Nero faced a revolt on the part of the legions which he failed to confront - had he done so he might have survivied for a while. But if the surviving accounts of his reign are to be trusted, Nero's grip on government had been slipping during his greek trip. He was certainly not so unpopular that pretenders using his name did not gain support in later years. Domitian was paranoid and seemingly an open enough tyrant and arrogant enough to have built up considerable resentment, but I am unaware of any revolt or popular feeling against him. In the cases of Gaius and Domitian, the numbers involved in the killing were comparatively small. In the case of Nero he committeed a panicky suicide while fleeing demons that were almost of his own making. (Though maybe he came to believe his own black myth!!) I wouldn't want to deter anyone from assessing the role of rumour but for the reasons I have fgoven I personally don't see the cited examples as good ones. Phil

GO - I am VERY pleased that your post was meant to be sarcastic, but I regret that didn 't come across in context, at least to me. I'll try to look up some of your blogs sometime. I'm sure they'll be evrey interesting. Regards, Phil

You beat me to the question, Augusta, and for the same reason. There is a view that the Romans did have a "thing" about a third person watching two others making love - there is a book which I have called "Looking at Lovemaking" by John R Clarke - University of California Press 1998 which explores this. It's subtitle is "Constructions of Sexuality in Roman Art" and it consider various relief on cups, frescoes etc. It is an interesting theory, though one about which I have suspicions. If Caldrail or anyone else can provide other evidence or sources, I for one would be very interested. Nudity is a different issue - like many things, when it is omnipresent it effectively becomes invisible. The Romans did not see sensuality as sinful - there was no Judeo-Christian morality in late republican/early principiate thinking - so nudity would not have been a big thing. I remember reading once a quote (can anyone confirm it, I have lost the source) that Livia once commented that seeing a naked man should have no more impact on a woman than seeing a nude statue. Public latrines did not give privacy, and the smell, noises and general atmosphere must have been intolerable (at least to modern sensibilities). There was no nudity. the tunic covered the nether regions at all times, the seating was made to facilitate cleansing with modesty - all assuming Colleen McCullough is right and Romans did not wear any underwear. I support her contention for practical reasons. When I mentioned public toilets it was in the context of the lack of privacy - no locks and doors, rather than about nudity. You can share a room with others and never see them naked, unless they strip to wash. If people keep their day clothes on, as they did in much of antiquity, there is no problem (well there are problems including body odour, but of a different kind!!) I once had the experience of speaking at a conference centre in Cumberland Lodge, a former royal residence in Windsor Great Park - I stayed over night. Apparently rooms do not have locks in royal residences and the bathroom - not en-suite and pretty victorian in character - had none. So, given that there was no shower, I had to sit in the bath (enamel and cast iron on lions feet) set on three steps in the middle of the room, facing a door that anyone could have come through. I am not particularly modest, but it was difficult to relax. Those who live in such circumstances all the time presumably adjust and have ways of "coping". Phil

Result: No oil problem; no Castro, Chavez, Morales, Tito, Lumumba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, etc., etc., et al. But a hugely negative and immoral legacy that would simply have stored up greater troubles for the future. And hardly realistic. I hope you are being ironic GO, though I see no sign of it in your post. In 1945, the Wehrmacht was defeated, destroyed - where would the german force in your alliance have come from - and who would have led it? Indeed, why wait til 1945 - why not ally yourself with Hitler and join in Barbarossa!! It's what many fascist's in the 30s wanted to do - communism was the greater evil. The Nazi's could be controlled, couldn't they? And is bombing anyone "back to the stoneage" a recipe for anything? If you are serious in your post, GO, then it confirms why to many in the world it is the USA that is the "rogue state" and the centre of the "axis of terror" in the world today. Not a sentiment I yet share, I can assure you - though I welcome Rumsfeld's ignominious departure - but one I understand more and more. If a MOD wants to split off this digression into another thread to allow GO to respond and avoid spoiling this one, then I have no objection at all. Otherwise just bomb me back to stoneage!! Phil