phil25

But Cleopatra was, in a sense, suzerain over Herod in Judaea, and Palestine was a traditional appanage of Egypt going back to at least New Kingdom days. Look at the Donations of Alexandria if you want the details, Antonius made the Egyptian "sphere of influence" large and potentially powerful. I think the analysis you cite is flawed by assuming that EVENTS would still have occurred (such as the Jewish revolt of c68AD) even if other things had changed. An Antonian east might indeed have treated the Jews much better - there was a long-standing and large Jewish dispora in Alexandria for instance. So Judaean affairs might well have been treated more subtly. Whether Christ would have been crucified is another matter - he might well have been for several reasons (blasphemy, revolt, insurrection etc). As for the feminist movement, I don't understand what is being got at here. Sure a Queen (Cleopatra) would have had power - but she had that anyway before Antonius. And there were powerful women in the REAL Augustan world - Livia Drusilla, Antonia, both Agrippina's to name but three. Phil

We know they used thick mattresses on triclinia couches and in the brothels, but I think one writer once observed that the cells in the pompeii establishment seem designed for "promiscuous dwarves"!! While the back seat of a car may be the acme of erotic opulence for some, I'd just say that it doesn't allow the full variety of possibilities. neither does the brothel. I have always had a nagging suspicion that that should lead us to a profound conclusion about Roman life, but I can never quite grasp what it is. sad, eh? Interestingly, I have never yet seen a surviving example of a Roman double bed. A fair few bed frames have surived in Pompeii and Herculaneum. All are single. In the front upstairs room of the House of the Wooden Frame in Herculaneum, there are two beds (carbonised) which have their heads abutting at right angles - both are single. Phil

By the 40s BC, Kosmo, I wiould question whether the City of Rome itself was any longer the unquestioned seat of power. Caesar had spent many years running Government while absent from the City itself - from Pharsalia to his return to triumph. He was about to leave Rome again on a prolonged absence, when he was killed. I do not question that Augustus re-established at least the perception that the empire had to be run from Rome, but later Emperors, including Trajan, Hadrian and Aurelius were absent for long periods without detriment to government or stability. It would be interesting to discuss whether, had the centre of government been moved to (let's say) Ephesus under Augustus, whether it would not have lasted longer. The Government and the princeps/emperor would have been closer to the wealth and trouble spots of the empire, and away from the distraction of the Roman mob, its constant craving for bread and circuses, and the sheer weight of tradition and conservatism. Constantine made the decision in 300 - why could it not have been an equally wise decision 350 years earlier. Gaul was conquered, Spain was restive but not a real problem, there was no need to invade Britain, the rhine frontier was relatively secure. Rome, the city, was not central to the chief troublespots any more - they were to the east - Armenia, Parthia, Dacia. mayhap with greater concentration of mind and energy in those areas the empire might have remained intact for longer. I write rhetorically, of course. But to weight the options for Antonius, does one not have to try to wipe the slate clean of Augustan assumptions and solutions? Phil

I know when I was reading up on Nero's reign some years ago, I had to piece together Tigellinus role, career and influence from various sources. As I recall, I found him hard to fathom. Not a career soldier, I think, but a "political" appointment as Prefect. I saw him as a sort of Thomas Cromwell - Minister to Henry VIII - useful, a "Mr Fix-it", not too scrupulous, even devious, clever. But what his precise talents or abilities were, I was never able to determine. Certainly NOT the figure portrayed in the Ustinov "Quo Vadis film! Phil

I can have no idea what Antonius would have done, Cicero, I can only extrapolate from the scant and heavily tainted/biased evidence we have. I'd say (hence I used the word "monarchical" in my last post) that Antonius did not purpose something as subtle as Octavian eventually evolved. From the "Donations of Alexandria" I infer that Antonius and Cleopatra conceived a sort of "cascade" of government, with themselves as sort of supreme rulers, and their children, including Caesarion as various tiers of sub-king/queen below them. This would have been mixed in with client kings like Herod, who would themselves have been tributary to the Ptolemaic satraps. But this was only for the east. As far as i can see BEFORE Actium, Antonius was content to have the western empire ruled in a different way by someone else, though with him as senior partner (hence I referred to the Diocletian model) in control of some of the prime economic and political levers of power (grain supply etc). If Octavian had died at Actium then no doubt Antonius would have reconsidered the situation, maybe installing a new "partner" in Rome who would be more reliable. I don't see Antonius as sweeping away the republican forms and he may have learned a lesson from Caesar - rule, dominate, but do it from a distance. His own focus was now on the east. For himself, I suspect Antonius would indeed have assumed the trappings of overt kingship and even divinity (in Egypt) perhaps on the Alexander model (often shown wearing the horns of Amun), though with Dionysus as his patron. Who is to say, with the ability of the Ptolemaic Egyptians to come up with hybrid deities like Serapis, that Antonius might not have become a new divinity acceptable to all (or almost all) peoples of the empire from Gaul to Syria, Greece to Africa, even if Rome rejected him. Phil

And you thought it was true? Phil

He could have done it, I think, because in the years after 44 and after Philippi, he learned that the centre of the Roman world was no longer Rome, but to the east. He had gained, I think, a Ptolemaic/Alexandrian perspective which recognised that in RWAL terms power, and affairs no longer rested naturally in Rome, but in the east - control of the wealth, trade routes and wheat. Without them Rome was powerless. Hence, I think, Antonius' leaving Octavian with control of Italia. It was no longer relevant to him. Had Antonius been a better politician, and had Octavian not seen the potential of a propaganda war, he might have been proved right. The Senate by the late 40s BC was a cypher. Rome might be a symbol, but government FROM the Urbs was no longer essential. (That Octavian made it appear so for several more centuries was made possible by his genius.) You have to change your thinking (I believe) and dismiss from thought what actually happened, to understand Antonius approach. It was monarchical, but not Caesarian; it was Greek-based not Italian (by which I mean centred in the perspective, mind-set and symbolism of the Hellenistic world; and it was based on real-politic. But Antonius was not the politician - lacked the subtlety, insight and energy - to carry it through. He was seduced, as so many have been, by the hedonism of the east (and I don't mean the personality of Cleopatra), and it drained him. the parthian adventure drained his resources and reputation and he took his eye off the ball. I think also he was too trusting. He trusted Octavian to keep his part of the bargain, and saw himself as betrayed - stabbed in the back. See, in Antonius potentially the first glimmer of the Diocletianic system of a split empire; the embryo of Constantine's move of the capital. IMHO we can glimpse the policy only dimly through the haze of the Augustan myth, and in the policies of some of Antonius' descendents. Phil

The initial post seems a little "definite" for my taste, though I am perectly happy (as an non-expert) to accept some of the conjecture (as just that, conjecture). I had understood for many years that there was evidence 9how strong I know not) that Rome was under Etruscan rule for a time, and that Lars Porsean of Clusium (I love Macauley's Lays) did conquer rome for a time (pace Livy). is that a position still taken? Whether Romulus himself existed - who can say. But I see no reason why the story of two brothers might not have some (slender) basis in fact. After all, Rome had to have a beginning. I have always thought that the tangled legend of Quirinius (the alternative name for Romulus) - who seems to have been murdered by Senators - also seems to have some credibility. Let's not forget that 753 (compared to Egypt, Troy, Ur, Ugarit, Mycenae etc etc) is NOT THAT ancient. Why should not the surviving legends incorporate some element of truth? Phil

This is where, I think, in the past people did react differently to the way we so, Spittle. I emphasise that this is purely a subjective interpretation and others think that our predecessors in ancient cultures were just as we are. I differ. In my researches on C15th English history, I find Cecily Neville, Duchess of York (mother of Richard III). She had several sisters and brothers in a large family, that died or suffered bereavement because of her "in-laws" actions. Her bother (Salisbury) and nephew (Warwick) died in - or as a result of - the same battle (Wakefield) that killed her second surviving son (Rutland). Other relatives also died. A brothers in law (husband of her sister, Buckingham) had died in an earlier battle. She spent time in the custody of a sister. Her golden elsest son died young; her next surviving son (Clarence) was judicially murdered; her grandsons disappeared and may have been killed by order of her youngest son (Richard III) who himself was killed in battle when his mother was about 80. This catalogue of tragedy would drive any modern person insane (IMHO) yet she lived on. (I have not mentioned the children who died in infancy). She was Queen of England in effect - and in reality but for chance. I entirely agree the electricity of the Catoian/Servilian, Caesarian relations, Spittle. How did they cope with the (to us very difficult) tensions. The "old" view was that people in the past were more like children, with emotions on the surface. I cannot agree with that. But cope they seem to have done. Though of course, what part all those relationships played in causing Brutus to plunge in his sword, is a nice question. Colleen McCulliogh takes a lot of ink to try to explain it. But did it play any part at all, at the end of the day. Cicero's account of the post assassination meeting presided over by Servilia, seems devoid of any trace of such elements. Phil

It might be helpful if you could post a copy of the picture, Alex. I cannot see a link. Phil

That would be my answer too, MPC. Phil

Copies of the missing books of Tacitus - because they would give us so much information. The same, if possible for pro-Antonian memoirs and histories of the late republic and the civil wars; any of the writings of Claudius as an historian; missing works of Cicero, Livy etc. If I could go to Pompeii I'd like to understand better the use of the so-called Building of Eumachia (apparently a fuller's exchange), the Basilica and the (again so-called) temple of the Lares (which may have been a public library). In Herculaneum, I'd like to meet the family of Marcus Nonius Balbus - not least the formidable Vaciria; and see who lived in my absolute favourite Roman house, now called the House of the Mosaic Atrium. If I could observe safely, I'd like to be in Rome on the day of Caesar's assassination and watch events unfold. I'd also like to gain greater insight into the motivations of Gaius (Caligula) - was he insane or has he just been misunderstood. Is that too much? Phil

It's been open for years, and most of the hype surrounding it's restoration is questionable. For instance, I have seen it suggested that the small paintings of sexual positions over each door indicated the "speciality" of the girl within. This is an old hypothesis that, in practical terms is almost impossible. Far more likely, that they were simply there to enflame the passions of customers waiting to be serviced. Far more interesting is the fact that the beds, in addition to being "hard" - they are solid concrete - are only about four and a half to five feet in length. Thus the "missionary position" would have been impossible to perform. How and why the women performed is an interesting question, to which I have yet to see a practical answer. As with Roman toilets, the sheer smallness of the cells and the whole establishment indicates that the Romans had a very different approach to privacy and intimacy and to the natural functions to those which westerners have today. Phil

Interesting, Virgil, but I note the cited works and quotes are all C19th. I once recall reading a book on "The Historical Novel" (published by Penguin years ago) which focused on Scott and Tolstoy etc. No mention of more modern works. To me it is interesting that many of the C10th works - Ben Hur in particular, are still in print. Films and TV series are still made of all those novels cited (Last Days of Pompeii and Quo Vadis as well as BH). Will Massie's own novels, or the mass of Roman detective novels (do the French refer to them as Roman roman policiers?) bu such as Saylor, Davis, Wishart et al last very long? The Roman detective novel it seems to me has little to do with interest in Rome per se (except on the part of the author) and more with the overwhelming success of Ellis Peter's Cadfael series. Look at all the historical whodunnits, by people like Doherty (several medieval series and one ancient Egyptian); Elizabeth Peters (ancient Egypt), Peter Tremayne (Dark Age Ireland) and others in more recent times (Regency, Edwardian, Elizabethan and Jacobean etc). For serious historical novels on Rome, Anthony Burgess wrote one to go with the 80s TV series AD, but it is no longer in print. There have been odd attempts to do books on Commodus and other figures. Colleen McCullough's massive saga has sold well I assume, given the multiple covers I have for different editions. I like her and admire what she has done, but is she highly rated generally? Will people still read her in 2106? My own personal favorite is Wallace Bream (Eagle in the Snow which has a real feel for the period and subject, but it has been out of print for years and has only recently re-emerged in a small scale re-print edition. So is this indicative of a real increase in interest in ancient Rome? I am unconvinced. Look at what is I suppose the biggest current seller, Conn Iggulden. I have not read his series, but by all accounts accuracy is not a key priority. This is surely spin off stuff for the post-Gladiator generation? The C19th authors reflected a society in both Europe and America which was classically educated, sympathetic to the cultures of Greece and Rome, knowledgable about ancient authors, excited by discoveries at Pompeii and herculaneum, collectors of vases, statuary etc, and prone to build in the classical style (Capitol in Washington, many stately homes in the UK We have none of that. A film, an exciting book may generate some curiousity, there will be an ebbing and flowing of demand for books etc; but today there are many other cultures to compete for interest - Egypt, mezo-America; the Far East. I don't think the classical world has had a resurgence of interest to match that which accompanied the Tutankhamen exhibition in the late 60s early 70s. Oh that things were different. Or am I just an old cynic? Maybe I am wrong - I hope so, and I'd love to be proved so. Phil

Quite right, WotWotius. In fact the curia was not only being repaired it was being repositioned and rebulit. Caesar replaced the old Curia Hostilia with the new Curia Julia, on its present position. The whole of that end of the Forum Romanum was being re-thought with the Rostra and Comitium also being moved. part of this related to the construction of Caesar's new Foum Julii behind the curia. But would one have wanted a set wholly surrounded by scaffoldig and masses of dialogue explaining where the Senate was meeting? In fact the senate met in various places - on the Capitol (where, as I recall, Shakespeare has Caesar murdered); the Temple of Concord, Temple of Ops etc. I think it is probably a convention of drama that the senate is considered to meet in one place. I don't think the arrangement of seating was accurate either, but the actual arrangement, three rows of steps facing each other with the Senators sitting on stools is probably not so interesting in visual terms (though Fall of the Roman Empire - 60s epic - did it accurately). On Fulvia - I think Atia in part may be meant to be her "type". There is a comment in the commentaries on dvd, I think, that Atia is based on Clodia. But with her and Servilia in the cast, another "strong" woman would be a little too much. I don't see why they could not introduce her in Series 2, but I don't expect to see her. I think all the manoeuvering around Mutina will be heavily cut or simplified. Octavia is depicted as more feisty and colourful than her real-self is usually portrayed in the history books, so maybe she will assume part of the Fulvia role too?? Phil

Spittle - I don't say there are NO mistakes in the series. You may be right about the quote, or not, I'll come to that. I just say that the example you gave first strikes me as deliberate anachronism for the reasons i gave. From a scriptwriters' view, what would be wrong in comparing Antony to the Gracchi - socially disruptive, potentially revolutionary and tribunes of the people as Antony becomes; or Marius - a general (as is Antony) who moved to tyranny and bloodshed. True, I don't see the relevance of Cincinnatus, although he did serve as "dictator". So a writer could be trying to say, "Antony is (to me) worse than tribunes who threatened revolution, and a potential tyrant without breeding!" Extreme, but hardly inaccurate or unbelievable, surely? Or have i missed something? As I say, there may be mistakes and this might be one, but I think there are other explanations. Phil

One cannot write a biography of Spartacus because the sources simply do not exist. His story was recorded by the victors. His, and his confederates', side of the story is lost irretrievably. That is why for Howard Fast (and there was another book written in the 50s by a philosopher who committed suicide later, Arthur someone? - can anyone recall his name?) Spartacus was a cypher, a name on to which they could project their own fables of freedom and the rights of men. That is his use. Kirk Douglas, Kubrick and Dalton Trumbo - as I noted earlier - contrived a pro-Zionist panegyric, which met a need to the time. their film continues to be regarded as among the most "literate" and intelligent of 50s/60s epics, not least in its longer form released in recent years. To the Romans, to make a positive film or write a book about Spartacus would surely have been like making a hero out of an escaped murderer, or terrorist. I doubt they would have seen any of the angles which we now seem as so positive or edifying. Phil

I think it's supposed to be a joke!! Truffles and wine are particularly associated with modern France - hence importing them. And in any case, did the Romans know of the equivalent of a "grocer"? You are almost certainly right, FACTUALLY, but miss the point in terms of the script. ROME is not meant to be absolutely factually accurate, either in look or reference, IMHO. The Subura scenes echo the look of the Indian bazaars or Middle Eastern souks (suqs) of our day. The ALLUSION is probably quite effective, but in absolute terms no doubt wrong. The Egyptian scenes look nothing like Ptolemaic Alexandria or the Hellenistic court of the Ptolemies. But the commenatries on the dvd make clear that the producers did not WANT to re-produce the look of other films (most notably the Liz Taylor Cleopatra, I suspect) - so they invented something. If one went through all the episodes with a notepad, I'm sure one could come up with a hundred anachronisms of the sort you mention. But all would, I am sure, be deliberate, not the result of negligence. Phil

Before we interpret this incident as another example of Claudius "making a fool of himself", I think we need to examine how it might hve been perceived at the time. Is the US custom of having a celebrity (often I believe the President) throw out the first ball at certain baseball games foolish? The President may no longer be young, not be a good pitcher etc, but the gesture is understood in a certain way. In ancient and some pre-industrial (I was going to type primitive!!) societies, it is important for various reasons for the ruler to be seen to protect, or fertilise, or bring good luck to his people by doing certain SYMBOLIC things. Cutting a ribbon on a new building formally to open it; or turning the first sod, is often done by someone important to signify start or finish even though the celebrity concerned may not be a builder, work in the building etc etc... So with Claudius. I think it highly probable that this SYMBOLIC "killing" of a sea creature (a monster?) which had invaded the state (Ostia harbour) could represent the triumph of Rome over invasion, the sea (one is reminded of Gaius, the sea-shells and his "triumph" over Neptune/Ocean only a handful of years before). Add to that that ancient cultures placed a lot of significance on the borders between the "civilised" and wilderness areas (cultivated land and desert for instance). This creature had crossed the border, he threatened order, was an agent of chaos and had to be slain - who better to do it than the ruler? Throwing spears had terrific symbolism in the ancient world. Alexander hurled a javelin ashore from his boat before landing in Asia, thus symbolically proclaiming his conquest over its current master, Persia. Is there not a current thread on the Roman custom of declaring war, which involved a "spear" which was thrown? After Claudius' death many in the new Government had a vested interest in "spoiling" his reputation and for various reasons. To pick up items like this and distort them would not be impossible. Claudius' personal ineptitude, lack of physicality etc made him an easy target. If Pliny recorded his brother germanicus in his prime as having done the same thing, would we interpret it in the same way? But Nero's symbolic acts have often been picked up and made to appear "antics" in retrospect. But I find it unlikely that successive rulers (even autocrats) do consistently foolish things and court ridicule and humiliation deliberately. There is justification in re-examining at least some of these examples to see if there are not credible alternative explanations 9as i have argued elsewhere in regard to Gaius, and to nero and the Domus Aurea). I don't expect all posters to accept my arguments for reconsideration and review since some seem happy with the traditional (and to me superficial, unsatisfactory and unrealistic interpretations). But maybe I can at least ensure that the alternative is registered and urge others to think anew and "outside the box". Phil

I don't personally believe that the evidence allows us to do more than speculate about what Antonius intended. Not only is the real evidence scarce, but what there is has been tainted by Augustan propaganda to a large degree. I think there may be something in what is said in the quote in Cicero's opening post - no single answer, but traditional forms in the west (perhaps "managed" by a trusted Antonian legate). Certainly the so-called Donations of Alexandria seem to suggest a semi- (or maybe wholly) independent Ptolemaic satrapy ruled from Alexandria. But, as I have suggested elsewhere on UNRV, I think that a discernable theme in policy under the pricipiate (emphasised most in those principes who were Antonius' direct descendents, Gaius and Nero) that might be labelled Antonian. (And before anyone attacks me for being presumptuous and promoting a pet theory, I underline that this is just an hypothesis, it is the result of my personal reading of the evidence, and I leave it for others to accept or reject as they will.) I wonder whether Antonius and Cleopatra (the latter perhaps with the long experience of the Ptolemaic civil-serice behind her) had not recognised 300 years before Constantine, that the empire was now too large to be ruled from one place, or as one. For the east, I think Antonius may have envisaged a Hellenistic monarchy, with all its splendour and personal divinity, ruling Greece, Asia, the Levant and any conquests to the east, and much of Africa from Alexandria (or maybe Athens or Antioch for part or all of the time). I do not see this monarchy as necessarily offending Rome had Antonius been able to explain his motives or had the power to impose his will - any more than Octavian's settlements are now seen to have created much opposition. Government in the east would have been by means of client kings like Herod the Great in Judaea, or by his and Cleopatra's children, with Caesarion (Caesar's son in a special place). This would have been entirely in keeping with the traditions, style, philosophy and practice of much of the eastern empire. Dionysus would have been its protective deity, as Apollo was for Augustus. Much of Antonian symbolism (as for Gaius and Nero) centred on this god. Whether east and west might have gone their separate ways eventually, or even come to blows who knows. But Antonius had at his disposal a marvellous control mechanism for Rome itself - the wheat supply from Egypt which (like the spice in the s/f novel Dune) "had to flow". Just my thoughts and ideas. Phil

I think, if we could see them in real life, we would find differences in the cut and colour of tunics. I suspect that material was bought in bulk, but would be cut and sewn by different tailors - or the men themselves. Sun, rain and the elements would fade the dye in different ways too. I don't think that "a uniform look" - if by that we mean the British Grendier Guards in full dress at the Birthday Parade (Trooping the Colour); or troopers of the cuirassiers of the French Republican Guard on Bastille Day - was ever approached by the Romans even where the Praetorian Guard was concerned. I see in my minds eye, varieties of equipment, perhaps several variations of shield within a unit, depending on the supplier and date of issue, differences in helmet design, in the detail of bosses and studs on belts and baldricks etc. (I actually don't think Napoleon's Imperial Guard achieved uniformity in a modern sense very often, if at all, either.) It is a relatively modern, late C19th concept IMHO. There is another thread about the Roman "salute" - I frankly wonder if there ever was one. I recall reading somewhere recently (was it on here? I cannot remember) that the classification system devised for styles and dating of Roman helmets by Russell Robinson (Keeper of the Royal Armouries and the great and highly influential expert on Roman arms and equipment of the last generation) is now being challenged as too rigid and precise. We tend to perceive the past as similar to our own society (though with obvious differences). I am strongly of the opinion that we would be in for a BIG surprise if we could go back. Phil PS - With respect DC your pictures are interesting, but I don't think we can take photos of modern re-enactors as evidence of anything. Even if not an accident, the position will be a reflection of someone's interpretation that lack of uniformity is OK.

It certainly seems that Octavian was the main motivator in bringing the "Liberators" to book. Butb it took two years. I doubt he could even remotely have had that as a priority - even as an aspiration in must have been long term in 44. But it underlines my basic question - what was Octavian's principal motivation in 44? Phil

I Claudius undoubtedly has "style". Although it's interesting that the cast appear to have had no idea what they were achieving at first. But someone had a vision that was carried through to the final production. Phil

I THINK Davis was the first, but several series emerged close together. In an essay in The Mammoth Book of Roman Whodunnits (ed Mike Ashley) Steven Saylor confirms this. Davis first book was published 1987 and saylor found it a few days after submitting the manuscript of his first Gordianus novel. NOTE: The Gordianus books are actually by Steven Saylor, NOT by Scarrow. There is another series under the group title SPQR by John Maddox Roberts (I had copies of some as US imports but lent them to a friend). These began in 1990 There is also a series by David Wishart, and yet another set in Glevum, Roman Britain by Rosemary Rowe. Hope this helps, Phil

I agree frankq, that the "rythmn" of that episode was slightly jarred by the lack of a more visual battle - the lead up, and what we had seen in Gaul in Episode 1 certainly suggested that we might get the cavalry charge later discussed, or something. We could naturally debate Hinds