indianasmith

Fascinating stuff, and helpful. My main character, Marcus Quintus Publius, has been sent on a tour of the provinces by Claudius Caesar to make sure things are being run smoothly and to report back on incompetent and abusive governors . . . needless to say, it's going to be a long and complicated errand.

"It's a small world after all . . ."

From what I have seen, the primary sources on Nero are mixed on his contributions and popularity. I'll admit, for the purpose of my storyline, the traditional version of Nero works better - but I want to give him some more humane characteristics as well. I'm still during the reign of Claudius right now.

Thank you so much, gentlemen! That gives me some stuff to chew on.

All the maps I can find in a quick search show the provinces either in Augustus' time or Trajan's reign. Unfortunately, my story is set near the end of Claudius' reign. How many provinces were there around 48-50 AD? It has some bearing on my story, so if someone knows the answer, or a link to a map from that timeframe, I would be most grateful.

Thanks for making this available! I'm going to download it to my home PC.

I may be a bit influenced by Robert Graves' famous novels about him, but I've always rather admired Claudius Caesar - simply staying alive through the reign of mad Caligula was an accomplishment, and despite coming to the throne in an unorthodox fashion, he managed to restore some measure of order and dignity to public life. I'm still not sure what possessed him to make Nero his heir, though. I am currently writing a book that is set during his reign and the early years of Nero. It's challenging trying to bring ancient Rome back to life in a way that is (hopefully) true to reality but still relevant to a modern audience. My second novel was set during the reigns of Tiberius and Augustus, but it centers around the character of Pontius Pilate. It's due out May 19.

I am doing a book signing at a Half Priced Book store today - I'll see if I can spot one of those and add it to my massive stack of "stuff I haven't read yet but intend to get to soon."

Well said, sir! I have always been interested in him, I just haven't found a good, solid biography to sink my teeth into.

I'd forgotten about that one. Caesar complained that Fortuna had deserted him for once! I don't know that breaking a siege is quite the same thing as winning an open field battle, but certainly Pompey gets the credit for that one . . . although Labienus had something to do with it, too. Is it true that Labienus executed all of Caesar's men that he captured? The little bit I've read about him sure makes him seem like a brute.

Thanks Viggen! Let me add this, also - if you order THE TESTIMONIUM directly from my publisher, I make a bigger chunk of the profits and so do they . . . those 35% vendor fees add up! Also, Electio will give you a free copy of the Ebook if you order the paperback. www.electiopublishing.com And I am selling autographed, personalized copies on EBay for $20 plus shipping: www.Ebay.com - search for THE TESTIMONIUM My seller name is indianasmith1. Thanks!

When did Pompey beat Caesar?

My first novel, THE TESTIMONIUM, is set on the Isle of Capri and is about the discovery of some remarkable relics from Tiberius' time, in the ruins of the Villa Jovis. Can I post a link here in case anyone wants to buy it?

I would like to learn more about him - I have never read a really good Alexander biography.

As far as battlefield command, I still give top honors to Gaius Julius Caesar - his ability to inspire loyalty in his men, to consistently defeat forces far greater than his own, and his lightning quick troop movements enabled him to run rings around most of his opponents. As far as overrated generals, I put Gnaeus Pompeiius Magnus in that category. While I have to admire the chutzpah of someone who names himself "the Great" when he is only 19 years old, and then makes it stick, the fact is that he beat some pretty dreadful commanders in the Social Wars. He was thoroughly schooled by Sertorius in Spain and finally got credit for a victory that was more due to his senior commander, Metellius Pius. For the rest of his career made sure that he only fought when he outnumbered the enemy two to one or better. He did have a great talent for organization, and his defeat of the pirates in the Mediterranean and his settlement of the Eastern provinces shows his capacity for military administration. But despite an enormous advantage in numbers, Caesar crushed him at Pharsalus when Pompey had the advantage of terrain and should have won easily. In the end, Pompey bought into his own mythos and it was his undoing.

I'm a noob here and didn't realize this was an old thread. Just a topic I have an interest in. Thanks for the heads up.

Today I graded my World History students' exams over the Roman era. They did very well - the lowest grade was an 85. If nothing else, they have learned a good bit about Rome from me. Mission accomplished! Now on to those other Romans - the Byzantines!

One of my professors used to say that "There are no unbiased historians." That is true now and it was true then. But bias does not necessarily negate accuracy.

A few other questions for the OP here: How do you discount the historical references and manuscript evidence that Christianity already existed before the Flavian dynasty came to power? What would the motivation be for creating the Christian faith and then NOT legalizing it? How do you discount the evidence from several ancient sources that Nero denounced Christianity immediately after the Great Fire of 64 AD? How do you account for the fact that virtually all the early converts to Christianity were from Judea, a region that had no fondness for the Flavians and whose occupants would have been most ideally positioned to reveal such a fraud?

Thank you, sir!

Most of my research and writing (admittedly fiction, but I want to try and be as accurate as I can) focuses on the First Century BC and the first half of the First Century AD. One of the critical primary sources for this era is Seutonius - I've read his sections on Augustus and Tiberius and skimmed the others. Seutonius strikes me as a bit of a tabloid journalist, but I wonder - how much of his stuff is accurate and how much did he make up to sell books? My opinion is that all the stories of the depravities old Tiberius got up to on the Isle of Capri may well be fabricated. The Emperor was notoriously reclusive and tolerated only a small circle of companions on Capri. So how could Seutonius have known, seventy years later, all the lurid details of debauchery and pedophilia? On the other hand, the misdeeds of Caligula and Nero happened in Rome itself, under the eyes of many witnesses. I think it would have been harder to invent details and get away with it - although the stories could have been very selectively chosen to make them look worse than they really were. What do you guys think?

As far as the debate that seems to have taken over this thread, I can see the points of both sides: The FORMS of the Republic were kept in place until the fall of the Western Empire in 476 AD. There was still a Senate, there were still Consuls, there were still elections. SPQR was still the official stamp on all proceedings and monuments. But something profound did change in 31 AD, and that was this: an incredible amount of political power was vested in the hands of one man. He might be a modest, retiring, "hidden hand" ruler like Augustus or a flamboyant autocrat like Nero or Caracalla - but from 31 AD on, there was one person at the top who served for life, who was not voted on by the Assemblies or the Tribes, and who wielded veto power over both Consuls and Senate. That is a substantial change in government, and while you can make the case that "the Republic" technically survived as long as its forms remained in place, the fact is (IMO) that it was NOT the Republic that Cicero and Pompey and Gaius Marius were born into.

I'll admit that the interpretation adopted by Colleen McCullough in her MASTERS OF ROME series has probably colored my thinking a bit, but I think the end of the Republic (if it indeed did end as most conventional histories say it did, in 31 AD with the accession of Augustus) was greatly hastened by none other than its chief "defender", Marcus Porcius Cato. If Cato and his cronies had not set out to destroy Julius Caesar, he would have returned from Gaul, celebrated his well-earned triumphs, served another term as Consul, and then gone off to fight the Parthians. There is no indication that he ever intended to become a dictator for a single, constitutional 6 month term, much less dictator for life. Cato with his paranoid hatred of Caesar became a self-fulfilling prophet: He predicted Caesar would destroy the Republic, then left Caesar with no honorable alternative but to do so. Cato is probably the one person in Roman history that I would go back and take out, if I could. His irrationality brought untold misery on the people of Rome and created a civil war that need not have happened.

Very exciting! This is real-life Indiana Jones stuff! (dodges rocks thrown by professional archeologists at the mention of the dread name)

Thanks Viggen! I appreciate it . .. photo on the way!