phil25

I meant you, GO - knowing the first and last letters of someone's name!! I often wish my memory allowed me to get so close! Phil

So you agree then MPC, that Dio was wrong even to suggest that all or even muchof the Palatine was even burned? You seemed to be suggesting earlier that he was right, but the hill was burned, just not destroyed when you wrote: Dio says these locations were "burned" not "destroyed". I burned my hand once, but I've still got two. What about this is difficult to understand? I am just seeking to understand what YOU think happened. . Phil

Did both Sulla and Marius possess crystal balls then, to foreseen the future so clearly? I posit an insightful reading of young Caesar's character, but you seem to base your argument on full knowledge of his fate Pompeius Magnus! Phil

The Romans themselves had oddly differing myths of Romulus - he was also Quirinius (hence the synonym for Romans "Quirites!") - and may have been murdered by Senators. I'm not sure that I wholly dismiss a real person behind the myth - like Arthur, it makes sense for there to be an individual who brought "Rome" together. Equally the story of the Sabine women may enshrine some real event. But QVS is right to be cautious about accepting legends as fact. There is every indication of Etruscan influence over early Rome which lasted a long time, and the 753BC foundation date and the seven kings are probably later embellishments. My recollection (and early Rome is not my period at all) is that there may have been groups living on various hills at an early date - Palatine and Capitoline especially - taking advantage of rome's strategic position on the salt route and the navigable river. These groups used the marshy lowland that later became the Forum Romanum, as a common market and graveyard. These people lived in thatched huts, two of which (one on the Capitol, one near the House of Augustus on the Palatine) were "preserved" down to late antinquity as houses of Romulus. Terracotta models of them have also been found. By the way - was Greece (whatever that means in the period in question) really "taught by Egypt correct and became a power"? I know that New kingdom Egypt was active in the Mycenaean world and Minoan (so-called) Crete. I am aware that Herodotus visited Egypt and wrote about it. But what precisely are you referring to Rameses? Finally, as to Italy - the Greeks were very active in the south (Campania, Sicily) as shown by their temples at places like Paestum. But is there any evidence that they made their way as far north as the Tiber? I am sure the odd Greek traveller/trader did - but I am speaking of influence as inferred by Rameses. Phil

Do we not have to change our modern perceptions of appearance, in examining Roman, and other ancient, sculpture, coins etc? Symbolism, conventional wisdom, the associations held by certain charcateristics, may have been, and probably were, very different to those which we know. Corpulence today is often mocked, because we today in the west, have a fetish about fitness. Obesity is a bad thing. But in Britain in Victorian times, a "tummy" was a sign of success and status and was called a "corporation" - it spoke of rich diet, money, affluence etc. Look at the differences between say the standards of female beauty in an Elizabethan woman, one of reuben's models and a 1920s flapper. or more widely, how a Japanese woman presented herself in Samurai times. Nero may actually have had a thick neck or double chins, but was he also sending a message through his statues and coinage? Did this speak of a non-military princeps, of prosperity, or artistic sensibilities? I think we might need to examine how certain gods were presented in statues and paintings - Dionysus/ Bacchus was often a fleshy figure wasn't he. Another reference, Nero was a direct descendent of Antonius - and the triumvir's coind show a bull-necked massive head. Was Nero drawing attention to his descent, claiming kinship with a famous leader? I'm not saying I am right, but I think it too easy to jump to anachronistic judgements that Nero was "sloppy" Phil

What a scholar!!

Agrippina the elder was germanicus' wife - they lived near Colonge during the mutinies at Tiberius' accession.

Did i read in the paper today that archaeologists believe that a rock carving found somewhere in America depicts a supernova exploding in 1006 (one of, if not the, brightest event ever seen from earth). This may suggest considerable antiquity in carving in the New World. Phil

I am told that the C is directly related to the S in SPQR and the A is directly related to the R. If that is the case, then here are some off-the-wall suggestions: C= Curia (which I think could be used to mean the Senate as a body, but those more latinate than I will correct me if I am wrong). Isn't it used in that sense for the Papal Curia (ie the Pope's advisory council) today? A = Hadrian, in building the Temple of Venus and Rome played on a latin pun - ROMA et AMOR (ie love/Venus). If the A equates to the R could the whole CPQA thing be a Hadrianic joke? But I still like the CPQA = Colonia Populusque Aquilea idea. In that Colonia would equate to Senate (if colonia is taken to stand for the town council) and the name of the town (so long as it began with "A") would equate exactly to Rome, the city. But basically I have no idea what I am talking about!! Phil

I would still suggest MPC that the surviving remains on the palatine which i mentioned - all dating from Republican times essentially - show no signs of having been burned. the wall paintings are intact. Phil

We know that what are now called the House of Livia and the House of Augustus survived because you can see and visit them. There is no record of the latter and its precious contents being lost. The House of the griffins, under Domitian's "chapel of the Lares" is also republican, I believe. Much of the palace of tiberius - probably Claudian - is under the farnese gardens and has not been excavated extensively, but I recall no mention from the reports i have read, that it showed signs of early destruction. On the other hand, Domitian clearly had room to build his massive palace on the hill which might suggest that 20 years or so after the fire the land was not much occupied. Or maybe he just compulsorarily purchased the site?? My judgement would be - palatine took some damage, but was played up to make it seem that the rich were affected as much as the poor in the Subura and elsewhere. Hyperbole, is probably your answer. Phil

Not quite on topic, but to give a gloss on the theme of British actors playing Romans in movies. I think there were two motives at work here: * some of the 1950s and 60s "epics" were Zionist in sub-text - the "ethnic" vocal break between heroes and villains helped to make the point; * the films were aimed primarily at US audiences, so heroes and characters the producers wanted the audience to identify with, were given familiar American accents, while their enemies and villains were played by actors with intelligible but slightly "alien" accents. Add to this that from before WWII, US audiences had been accustomed to villains being played by British actors - Basil Rathbone (Flynn's Robin Hood, Captain Blood etc); Claude Rains (Robin Hood again; Phantom of the Opera remake; the shift Vichy police chief in Casablanca). C B DeMille in his epics had also tended to use British talent as the evil characters - George Sandars in Samson. I suspect that, as villains are notoriously the more "interesting" characters in drama, with subtle nuances etc, classically trained British theatrical knights and others were seen as better placed to play such parts; while home-grown US "method actors" (not entirely) with a more naturalistic style, were more sympathetic as the hero - Kirk Douglas as Spartacus; Heston as Ben Hur; Mature as Demetrius. Was there also a connection between the imperial Britain that was the world's view to the 60s, and casting. British accents were redolent of authority, tyranny (perhaps) autocracy, aristocracy, government. US accents were connate with revolution (1776 and all that); democracy; populism. Just some thoughts that came to me. Note that I don't think any of this applies today. The Anglophile tendency of the US up to the 50s, which meant that English-sounding/appearing actors and actresses like Liz Taylor, Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn, etc were so often cast (associated with Ivy League east-coast influence and C19th attitudes to class too) has now entirely gone. Brits are now cast, as I see it, because the UK is associated with strong rulers like Margaret Thatcher, and US perspectives see the britsih as tyrants in Ireland - hence brits like Jeremy Irons, Ben Cross, Alan Rickman being cast in thrillers etc so often. The heroes and the admired today would be black, hispanic and ethnic in origin - as it seems is evinced by the new Hannibal movie!! Phil

Perhaps the change, leaving aside the inaccuracies of films, related to changing tactics and even the discipline and training of the legions. Auxiliaries often used their own native weapons, so celts might well have employed a longsword from an early date. But as i understand it, the gladius is most effective when used in close combat as part of a solidly formed and coherent line, pressing forward behind a wall of shields. In those circumstances a longsword is less useful as it has no space to swing and becomes unwieldly to use. But if the training and tactics of the legions evolved into a more open order of fighting, as the empire progressed, then maybe there were experiments in using other weapons and types of weapons. Also the equipment and armour of the legions changed markedly from the lorica segmentata and imperial gallic helmet to other forms by the C3rd and later - so again, perhaps in some areas a more "medieval" weaponry emerged. Only detailed archaeology would tell us, and some painstaking analysis of reliefs etc. But even then, could we ever have more than an impression of the situation? Phil

But there must have been some element of competitiveness viz a viz Britannicus, surely. Britannicus was a Claudian by birth, legitimate heir to his father. Maybe Agrippina also encouraged in Nero a deep calousness and rivalry. Isn't there a story that he resented being referred to as Ahenobarbus after his adoption? He so wanted his step-sibling dead, that when it came to Octavia, Seneca, his mother etc, he was hardened to killing anyone who stood in his way. Do not the Jesuits say, give me a boy at the right age and I will make him mine for life? Phil

The place where Magnus Maximus (the Macsen Wledig of celtic myth) met his end in 388. Phil

Sopunds like one of those statistical analyses that involves a major error in some part of the calculation, or a flaw in the logic. I frankly don't believe it. We know that the ethnic/racial differences/characteristics existed long before either Jesus or King Tut. Surely a more recent common ancestry would have masked or merged those in some way? Phil

I saw one of the first performances in the Olivier Theatre at the National in London in the 80s(?) The play is an elaborate way of saying that the Celts have been buggered by others throughout history - by the Romans, by the saxons and most recently by the brits in NI. But it is quite entertaining. The well-known actor, now dead who played Caesar (I cannot at the moment remember his name) was excellent. One of the very best Caesars I have ever seen on stage or film. I can still recall greg Hicks, not a sympathetic actor, as the young druid who gets abused. Also the scene where the fleeing Romano-Brits "invent" Arthur" to give them hope was amusing. Some guarter century and more on, I still remember the play.. Not a great play, but well staged, and definitely not worth the hype, or required it, then or now. Phil

It is always dangerous to speculate about the psychology of individuals from antiquity, since our information is limited and our sources sometimes suspect, but in the case of Nero, I think it can be justified. Imagine a young man with artistic ability, sensitive, talented but not really to professional standards, intelligent, vulnerable. He grows up amid luxury, almost his every whim catered too. He comes to think of himself as "special" - as being marked out by fate. But he is spoiled, flattered, has no sense of proportion or realistic self-appraisal. He has a tendency to put on weight, is not a good sportsman, lacks courage (though perhaps not a strange sort of self-confidence and assertiveness). Indulged and indulgent, he gorges himself on good things which are freely available and because he feels a frustration at his situation compared to others - a tendency to self-pity? Does that come out as petulance? Comfort eating is a way out. Strangely as I write this, the figure of Dudley from the Harry Potter books leaps to mind!! Add to this - he is sexually abused by an overly possessive and dominating, ambitious mother. He is somewhat confused about sexual roles, easily led - he defers in decision-making to older men like Burrus and Seneca who patronise him. Then, suddenly he finds himself first heir to the imperal throne, and then princeps. But he is without training, and he is denied any access to his power. His mother and the older men work the levers for him - hardly consulting him. They do it well - Nero's first five years are later compared to the best the empire ever knew. Does the reflected glory make Nero think that he has after all got talent - or that fate loves him and anything he touches turns to gold? And when he is encouraged by others he meets to throw off the shackles - to seek revenge on his hated (but loved) mother and can take revenge on Seneca, he finds himself an absolute autocrat. Gaius, in a similar position, with a different background (a glorious military hero as father0 tends to dress up in Alexander's breastplate and do military things, in the bay of Naples, in Germania or on the Channel coast. Nero, by contrast, turns to his "artistic streak" - he sings, he acts, he craves applause as the genius he believes himself to be..... When physically threatened or in danger he lashes out - whether the victim be Piso or Corbulo. Fear drives his hand. And like macbeth, once he has killed his mother he is so deep in blood that more guilt makes no difference - easier to go on, to strike out... I don't think I need go on. But the question that emerges for me is, was Nero ever interested in politics or power except to indulge his own sensual ambitions? Was he a puppet emperor, even after Agrippina and Seneca etc have left the scene? Was it Tigellinus and the other creepy characters we glimpse in Suetonius and Tacitus who pulled his strings? Thanks for the opportunity to think this through. Stimulating posts. Phil

Or simply needed a mother-figure.

Fascinating stuff, and I agree with almost all of it!! I think Nero was probably complex and contradictory, and may have "matured" or changed with time and office. The disposal of his mother was certainly a turning point in my view. He is interesting too - almost exceptional - in seeming to have no taste for military glory; not even a wish for the reflection of it (a la Claudius). Agrippina Minor was, of course, totally familiar with Gaius' court and policies, and if there were (hypothesis only) strand of autrocracy (what I have described elsewhere as an Antonian policy) the she would have known of it and may have supported it strongly. Thus it may directly and strongly have influenced Nero. The sources are so adamantly anti-Nero in tone as to make it even more difficult than for Gaius to like or sympathise with Nero. I have on my shelves a novel I bought many years ago (1987 published date) called "Imperial patient: the memoirs of Nero's doctor" by Alex Comfort. The author wrote much on medical matters in his day. It is a long while since I read the novel, but I have retained it because it is well-researched, and I recall it as having provided the only satisfying and practical sympathetic portrait of nero i have ever read. (Alas, I'd have to re-read it to tell you how and why!!) The blurb on the jacket asks whether Nero in some esoteric sense was Dionysus? And whether his suicide re-enacted the Elusinian mysteries? I cannot comment, other than to say that personifying Dionysus is something some have attributed to Antonius, Nero's direct ancestor. Could there be something in it? To understand it would, of course, entail unravelling the Roman vision of life and the sort of place an "avatar" of a God might hold, the purpose he might serve. It would require us to drop the more logical modern conventions. I simply don't know the answer - but it is a fascinating topic. Thanks for sharing guys. Phil

Thanks for that fascinating link PP. I might add that my family home was situated right over the Praetorium of the legionnary fortress (later the forum of the colonia); and as a schoolboy I helped excavate the east gate of the city, which still preserves the pits in which the timbers of the earlier military gateway had been embedded. The site is still on display although in a scandallously bad state. Phil

My own favorite has always been the Legio IX Hispana, which garrisoned my home town of Lincoln (Lindum Colonia) for a while before c80AD. It was long thought to have been destroyed in Scotland and its Eagle lost (Rosemary Sutcliffe wrote a great novel, "Eagle of the Ninth" about it). But finds in Europe suggest that it survived and was perhaps destroyed in Judaea under Hadrian. I have seen tombstones of its soldiers, and that Legio seems real to me. Hail to them! Phil

I'm glad to see something is being done about the situation. The problem is that Italy just has TOO MUCH history and too many ruins to look after easily. Don't forget that they have a medieval, Renaissance and ecclesiastical heritage to sustain as well. Pompeii and Herculaneum worried me when i was last there 10 years ago, and the recent UK Channel 5 programme reassured me somewhatthat action has been taken. But there is just so much. Even presenting the Forum and the Palatine in an acceptable way is difficult. I wish the New Palace of the Julio-Claudian period (proably Claudius) could be unearthed, but it is below the farnese gardens which have to be preserved because they are of Renaissance and horticultural importance. Much of the palace of Domitian and the Severan extensions were out of bounds when I was last there - I think that may have improved now. But it is not just the sites - the museums too are at risk. I have yet to see the Museum within the baths of Constantine (near Termini station) because it was always "Chiuso per restauro" whenever I was in Rome. I think the position may be different now. And I vividly recall going to see the Museum of roman Civilisation at EUR (a Mussolini inspired suburb of Rome) in the mid-80s and being told by a guard at the door - "It's closed". We thought it was for lunch. But when pressed,it as indefinitely, because the roof leaked!! this is the Museum with all the casts of Trajan's column and the huge model of Rome in c310AD that other posters may have seen pictures of. Again I believe the Museum is now open, but my experience illustrates the problem. Too many places too little money. Phil

How many times has the "Ark" been discovered now?? The intrinsic problem with "Christian archeology organization(s)" such as the Bible Archaeology Search and Exploration (B.A.S.E) Institute, is that they - almost by definition, situate the appraisal rather than appraising the situation. They would not be THERE otherwise. Almost certainly a load of bunkum. Phil