Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

phil25

Equites
  • Content Count

    702
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by phil25

  1. 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.
  2. phil25

    To Choose The Moment

    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
  3. phil25

    Augustus The Movie

    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
  4. phil25

    Marcus Didius Falco

    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
  5. phil25

    Veracity Of Hbos Rome

    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
  6. phil25

    Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

    A valid and timely corrective, Augusta. Phil
  7. phil25

    Augustus The Movie

    There have been elective Emperors - the Holy Roman Emperors were "elected", but gradually it became effectively and then totally hereditary in the Hapsburg family. Technically an "empire" simply denotes a state that is not tributary or subordinate to another power. Hence Henry VIII, breaking with Rome and the authority of the Pope, declared "this England is an empire" - meaning that the kingdom of England was no longer anyone's to command save it's own Government. The Queen wears the "imperial" State Crown (ie one with raised arches rather than depressed) after her Coronation and at the annual State Opening of Parliament because she is "sovereign" - ie subordinate to no one. Empire as a term for an assemblage of foreign territory ruled by a state comes, I rather think from the Roman "empire" which was ruled by men bearing the title/name Imperator. This is a more modern useage of the term - though it dates back many centuries - Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman "Emperor" (Imperator) in 800AD. I don't know how (say) Alexander's conquests were titled in Greek - that is before the Latin term came into use. Phil Phil
  8. phil25

    Veracity Of Hbos Rome

    I was disappointed by Pharsalus too, but the series is focusing on character (IMHO) and we did get the wonderful "unease" of Cranham's Pompey - dolled up in his imperatorial finery but seemingly lost and overwhelmed. Compared to that Hind's fatalistic and calm Caesar, unruffled, but also conveying how much nervous energy he had expended. Given the choice between a half-baked battle simply to impress, and the great acting we got, I think we got the better bargain. Phil
  9. phil25

    Augustus The Movie

    Bonapartism was a form of republicanism - the ultimate outcome of the French Revolution as Napoleon saw it. From Augustus angle did the roman republic ever end? If so in what way - because all the elements of the old constitution continued to operate? He never claimed to have "conquered" an empire - just found a better way of running one. It's odd that titles a fashionable element to them These days it is president (as in Putin) where in effect he is the Tsar (and would have called himself that in C18th Russia). Once it was King or Emperor. Under the Communist spell the title of choice was "Chairman" (as in Mao, or Kruschev). Tsar and Kaiser are of course developments of the name Caesar!! Often translated Emperor, is that what they meant really when assumed as titles? Who is to say what the title of choice of the future will be? By the way, turning to fiction, the TV series Babylon 5 had the Centauri Republic which was headed by an Emperor!! Phil
  10. So does this stamp pre-date the Penny Black then? Was it self-adhesive? Did postage prices increase as much then as they do now? Have they found the post box they put their scrolls in? Phil
  11. phil25

    Troy = Tyre?

    Aegyptus The so-called Treasure of Helen is controversial for several reasons. It is not clear whether Schliemann found the treasure as or when he claimed (I think he said his wife was present when she was not). It certainly dates from a period EARLIER (around layers or levels 1 or 2) than that now normally ascribed to "Homeric" Troy (layers 6 or 7). It thus came from lower down within the mound or "tell" created by the successive levels of habitation. The treasure might just have been deposited from above as a BURIAL by later inhabitants, but I think stylistically this is considered not to be so likely. Phil
  12. phil25

    Augustus The Movie

    The title of the film is dumb (If he was the first emperor how did he inherit an empire?) The head of state does not have to be an "emperor" for a country to possess an empire. The Roman republic had an empire befre Augustus and the term "Imperator" (which he took as a name) had nothing to do with territory - it was the title given to a victorious general by his troops. The USA has an "empire" but not an emperor - so if George W got even bigger ideas, he could declare himself anything he wanted and "inherit" the empire from the previous republic. Sorry just being picky, but I don't think the title is that daft. As for the film, I thought O'Toole touched greatness once or twice (though at others he is as far off/or so static that it makes no sense). But on the whole, though the film does not touch ROME or I Claudius, I am of the opinion that it does have some good touches (the design is again quite impressive) though structurally all over the place. At least Agrippa and Maecenas (is he the one you thought a cook?) are there, and given their correct roles. As for Charlotte rampling - I thought she was a good corrective to Sian Phillips in I Claudius (though not such a technically proficient performance as the latter). I might wish for a better use of resources, but at least someone made the film and I don't regret that. Phil
  13. phil25

    Recent Tv

    I thought the BBC series on Elizabeth I was dreadful and far inferior to the Channel 4 two-parter with helen Mirren. Neither compared to Glenda Jackson's "Elizabeth R" of the 70s. The recent BBC series was banal, inaccurate in detail and thrust, badly cast with juveniles who could not act, ineptly costumed for admittedly populist reasons and dreadfully scripted. The girl who played elizabeth was a common, working class actress with scant idea of either the notion of breeding or power, who seemed act a struggle to achieve those skills and qualities that the real Elizabeth took for granted - poise, natural charisma, being born to rule and self-confidence. It even lacked the style of the equally inaccurate (Burleigh cast off - he served until 1598; Walsingham at the Queens side to the end of her reign - he died 1590; Dudley/Leicester banished - he remained a major player until his death in Armada year) but brilliantly focused and achieved film, Elizabeth of a few years ago, with Kate Blanchett in the lead role. Phil
  14. phil25

    Starting Of Greek Civilization

    But were the Minoans a separate culture, DC? Or did Sir Arthur Evans get it wrong? To me the "palaces" at Knossos (Crete) and Pylos (Greece) look awfully similar. Phil
  15. phil25

    Recent Tv

    Charles - as "1066 and All That" would have had it - was wrong but romantic!! He was a bit of a hero when i was younger - I see him now as a brave but very scheming, weak and duplicitous man, lacking all political judgement. Everett was far too tall to play him, and the script of To Kill a King was inept. The best Charles, probably never to be bettered was Guiness in Cromwell Spittle Fire Over England - with Flora Robson as Elizabeth (plus Olivier and Vivien Leigh) was made c 1937. I have never seen a video or dvd, but recorded my copy from TV years ago. Flora also played Elizabeth in Errorl Flynn's "The Sea Hawk" c 1940? - it should be around on dvd, I have a commercial video. Flynn played Essex to Better Davis' Elizabeth in "Elizabeth and Essex" (c1940?) - again this should be on dvd. Davis played Elizabetb again c 1950 in The Virgin Queen - I saw a dvd of this last week in a shop in London. The First Churchills is available as 2 BBC dvds, as is the first series of "By the Sword Divided" (Civil War). Have i missed anything? Returning to the Tudors, Richard Burton was a poor Henry VIII in "Anne of the Thousand Days" but that includes the best Cardinal Wolsey I have ever seen, a rounded performance of great command and strength by Anthony Quayle. If you want to see Michell's Henry - the film version of his performance "Henry VIII and his six wives" is out on dvd. Not bad. The TV series was available as six BBC videos but I have not seen it re-released as dvds. Phil
  16. phil25

    Marcus Didius Falco

    Age of Treason is not the worst fil ever made, but equally, it's similarity to the book is almost non-existant. I have a tape of it somewhere which i recorded when it was on TV. I seem to recall a female gladiator!! A TV series would be great, but to be done properly a la Miss Marple?Morse with the production quality and really good casting would need a budget the size of Rome. I don't think the print series is yet successful enough to warrant that. Even the Cadfael series of films petered out quite quickly and without all the books having been filmed. Phil
  17. phil25

    Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

    I don't think Caesar had an inkling he was going to die (I don't see him as suicidal for a moment), but I suppose if you are seeking to educate your heir-to-be then to have as his class-mates a soldier-in-the-making and a bright, politically-savvy lad makes sense. I referred earlier to something I had read (where i do not know) of unfounded rumours that Agrippa was Caesar's illegitimate son. If verified, that might be something Agrippa himself put about later to make his claim to the principiate more solid. But an alternative could be that Caesar had noted Agrippa's talent in some way and fostered him as a protege - intending he and Octavian to rise together. Is anything known of Agrippa and/or Maecenas BEFORE they emerge with Octavian at Apollonia? Phil
  18. phil25

    Marcus Didius Falco

    CiceroD - I am a great fan of these books. I bought the first one - "Silver Pigs" when it was first issued and loved the characters and idea at once. I love the mix of solid research, believable extrapolation and wit (parallels with modern life, raymond Chandler-type fiction etc etc). I haven't caught up with the latest - though they are on my shelves apart from Delphi, which I have not yet bought. I have been to so many of the places that Davis describes - not only in Rome but elsewhere (Petra, Pompeii, Palmyra) and her writing brings them to life. Recommended to anyone who has not yet found them. Phil
  19. phil25

    Recent Tv

    He was Bothwell - and very well cast with regards to looks, I think. It was the script and some of the acting that was lacking in that series - the casting was imaginative (a lad from Eastenders played Darnley and looked the part). Phil
  20. phil25

    Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

    Over the years I have become very suspicious of the coincidental in history. That's not to say that I see murder everytime there is a convenient death!!, but often what seems to the precise right thing, also seems to occur by happenstance, I tend to look again. With regard to Agrippa and Augustus was it luck that gave the former a friend who was fortunately a good general? Or did someone - Caesar maybe - arrange it? Do we know how and when the two men met, or how Agrippa - and one could Maecenas - happened to be with Octavian at exactly the right time? Could a military genius have spotted native talent in even a very young man? Phil
  21. phil25

    What Was The First 'civilisation'?

    I can't see any sense or value in the approach - there's only one civilisation... Sorry but that avoids the question, may well be a misplaced (and very PC C21st) assumption, and most important fails to analyse or consider the implications. Personally I don't think that trends and attempts to ignore differences between sexes or races are moral, useful or well-based. At worst they are condescending. Ask an Egyptian whether an Atlantean was responsible for their ancient culture, and you'll soon get an answer. They are proud (rightly) of their heritage, and dismissive of western attempts (Bayval, Hancosk etc) to argue that they could not have done it themselves. But then, I suppose, we all know that it's the British who have to take the credit for the achievements of the US Founding Fathers. (Don't feel you have to pursue that JOKE!!). There was no ONE human race in 5000BC or whenever, and is not now. It's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. All MHO of course, Phil
  22. phil25

    Recent Tv

    To me - the externals are often less important than the basic truth - with these TV series. As with an adaptation - does (say) a TV version of Pride and Prejudice give us something of what Jane Austen tried to convey, or some modern, sexed-up travesty? I rather disliked the latest version of that book (the famous one with Colin Firth) because i could not see a controlled gentleman like Darcy ripping off his clothes and jumping into a lake as he did in an invented scene. I have warmed to other aspects of the production since, but to me that was a betrayal. Equally the recent film with Keira knightly and Matthew Macfadden might have been renamed Shyness and Independence, since both charcaters were given modern rather than period defects of character to overcome. Thus, to me, the epitome of a good historical costume drama (ie one based on fact) are the 70s Six Wives of Henry VIII (Keith Michell) and the Glenda Jackon Elizabeth R. These were faithful to history (even if events were telescoped) to period look and feel; in casting and managed to cram in some of the complexity of politics and court in the period. By contrast the Ray Winston Henry had only one note - Henry was a sort of gangster/crime boss, let's show him as such. It altered history in unpardonable ways, and its portrayal of the period was grossly out of order. Here was a great Christian and Renaissance Prince, noted for his learning, a cultured, sophisticated man, whose splendid palaces were legendary, shown living in bare walled castles, speaking in a working class way and being generally venal and brutal. The real Henry (believe it or not) was a prude!! and fastidoius in matters of dress and ceremonial. Apart from that the acting was lamentable. Compare, if you are able, Michell's detailed chronicling of a man's descent from golden adolesence to obese physical corruption, with all the detail that makeup and characterisation could add. Winston was Winston with a bit of padding and powder at the end. Of course, series date and acting and editing styles change - but when I look at videos of the 2 series on the Tudors I have mentioned; on The First Churchills (Neville and Hampshire as John and Sarah); or By The Sword Divided - on the English Civil War - I see history recreated. It might not be perfect (and it was certainly studio bound and budget limited), but it looked and felt genuine. James Villiers' Charles II, as well as the James II (actor not known) and William III were superb (First Churchills) and you could use the series to give you a sound foundation in the period for academic purposes. As for the various Elizabeths - Glenda, I felt tried to subsume herself in the real woman. Mirren by contrast gave us Elizabeth as she would have been had she been the actress 9the truth was there but not the feel or look). The actress in the BBC Virgin Queen was simply awful. But all of them (Glenda least) lacked the feel for the demeanour that Flora Robson brought to the part. Hardly a beauty (as Elizabeth by any reasonable standard was not) Dame Flora understood what bearing and dignity, and the force of personality can do (she was also a believable Tzu Si in 55 days at Peking in the 60s). Her Tilbury speech in Fire Over England is unmatched IMHO. I'd also put in a word for Bette Davis (Elizabeth and Essex with Flynn and The Virgin Queen with Richard Todd. Way off in so many ways, dear Bette got the spitefulness and mean-mindedness of the woman exactly. In Essex the decor was superb too - a suggestion of Tudor architecture without the detail. I could go on, but will sign off before I bore everyone. Phil
  23. phil25

    Claudius

    Again, to defend (I suppose) both Gaius and Claudius, I think you'll find that the boat sunk to make the fioundations for the Ostian "pharos" was the ship used to transport an obelisk from Egypt - a feat in itself and the craft was now redundant - rather than a pleasure vessel. Gaius' floating palaces on lake Nemi remained in situ until burned probably in 69, and were excavated and preserved in the 1920s until destroyed in WWII bombing. I sense implicit criticism in comments about flaoting palaces. May I urge a word of caution about judgeing the past by todays standards. In the past, conspicuous expenditure by the elite was a major economic driver and means of passing "wealth" to areas outside the capital. Besides which other, then valid, assumptions may have inspired the building of such edifices and boats. We should, IMHO, view the past by its own standards and not our own, lest we be misled and reach incorrect conclusions. Phil Edited for spelling.
  24. phil25

    Claudius

    I thought the floating palace (on lake Nemi?) was one of Gaius' projects? Phil
  25. I don't know whether this topic is in the right forum, but if not perhaps someone will move it. I don't know whether the subject has been discussed before - but I could find nothing similar. My apologies if this is old hat. I have been reflecting recently on the sort of historical approach that I, personally enjoy most and also find most useful (not necessarily the same thing). I wondered what the views of fellow posters were, on the various types of "history book" available. I evry much enjoy a good narrative history - and there are any number on ancient Rome around at the moment (Richard Holland's "Augustus"; Tom Holland's "Rubicon" to cite but two). I find these illuminating, if the author is well-read and has thought deeply about his period; but they involve assumptions about cause and effect, and often emphasise character, at the expense of the economic or social forces of the time which can be harder to make interesting. (That said, many authors do tackle such issues well.) A desire to appeal to a general readership can also mean that they can be simplistic or spend a lot of time on basic facts. yet they can be fun, and provide an epic sweep and a good introduction to unfamiliar territory. Yet when I am interested in a period and have some basic knowledge under my belt, I find that a detailed study or monograph on some aspect of the period draws me in and provides colour and granularity. Indeed, I find that as i try to put together a mental image of what (say) Augustan Rome was like, I wander into those areas of detail increasingly - military equipment, gardens, food, clothing - or politics - the nature of amicitia, client/patron relations, the role of freedmen; the nature of slavery; architecture... Then there is biography - a good study of an individual charcater (Augustus, or Goldsworthy's recent Caesar) can make one think about their impact on their day; the influences that shaped them, their experiences and relationships. But biography can also distort, by framing a period through the perspective of a single person. All these types of book, of course, throw one back on the original sources and for our period, it is fortunate that authors like Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Cicero, Caesar remain lively and readbale, even exciting. In the academic method one should go to these first, but I must admit that my usual approah is through a modern author first to catch the sweep and gain some insight into the modern thinking on the subject. I do try to establish a basic chronology of the period and events - a timeline if you will. Fortunately many books do contain such a timeline as an appendix or introduction. But adding to them and making them more detailed can be useful and fun. I also find inspiration, insight and amusement from good historical novels - there is a vogue for Roman detective fiction at present which is often well-researched. They can make one think about how life was like and even lead one to question the author's or your own interpretation. there are also more serious works by authors like Wallace Breem (his "Eagle in the Snow" about the barbarian crossing of the Rhine c 408 AD is superb) or Colleen McCullough Finally, I should mention the differences between academic authors and generalists. The latter can be very well written, racy, easyily digested and in all ways excellent, but a Syme or a Birley can be mined for information over a long period, even if sometimes rather dense and indigestable. So what do fellow posters think? What are your tastes and preferences? How do you approach a new subject? What is your choice of book? I look forward to replies with keen anticipation, Phil
×