phil25

This thread seems to me to follow logically from, and develop themes raised in my two recent threads on looking again at the C1st&2nd AD and the what i have called the "extrovert emperors". Reading popular histories of the period, I sometimes gain the impression that authors believe that somehow "politics" disappeared (at least for lengthy periods) during the period from Augustus onwards. Events are explained in Suetonian terms of pervert (or to cite a recent debater with me) emperors with enormous egos); individual whims and little coherence or rational explanation. To give examples, Gaius and Claudius are both stated to have sought to invade Britain. Gaius is written off as a madman's attempt to seek glory from which he bottled out; Claudius as a desire to acquire military glory to back up his ascension to the purple. Yet the two events took place in a shorter period than the gap between the two US and alliance invasions of Iraq in the last two decades, and would anyone really question that there is some link between the two? major players remain the same or related. The US President in the 1990s version is the father of that in the later; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl and others were actors in both dramas and clearly retained agendas. Even though we cannot always detect the detail or the players, it seems to me to be foolish not to seek similar continuity and equally pragmatic explanations is ancient Rome. We know such things were true in the late republic from one triumvirate apeing its predecessor; to Augustus clearly seeking to avoid his adopted father's mistakes. But what are politics? In my youth someone defined economics to me as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Politics, it followed was the study of how it was decided WHO did the allocating. I would argue that politics very clearly continued after the creation of the principiate, with very little difference to what had gone on before, but with the playing field and some points of reference altered. Key families still vied for power - how else do we understand the persistent Julio/Claudian rivalry in the succession to Augustus? Families like the Domitii Ahenobarbi still played a role; the tragedy of the Junii Silani (a suitable topic for its own thread) stands out; the Calpurnii Pisii last until Nero; the Aemilii Lepidi remain prominent. It is also clear that Augustus was not so cleared sighted nor omnipotent as some seem to think in creating his new constitution. At the very least he had to have two goes to get it right. Syme detected internal coups within the ruling clique - pressure from Agrippa; dismissal for Maecenas. I would go further, and argue that there was no certainty that Augustus' constitution would last a day longer than he lived if that. Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters? When the elder julia's disowning is linked to the untimely death of Iullus Antonius, the triumvirs son, there is surely more going on that sex on the rostra and petting on the Palatine!! Dynastic politics must at least be a theme here, if not the whole story. As I have said in another recent post, I do not think one can ignore those who (though we often cannot identify them by name) surrounded the principes - the secretaries, councillors, captains, advisers, specialists... Does one expect that George Bush or Tony Blair write their own speeches; determine the arguments they will employ in debate; work out the options for action; or weigh the impact of their decisions, ALONE. Nonsense - they have retinues of people who aid them - so must Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius and the rest. We see it clearly under Claudius as the freedmen emerge. Otherwise we note Agrippa and Maecenas, Sejanus, Macro etc. Such advisers and more were needed, because human nature has not changed that much. Sentors must still have nursed ambitions; soldiers a thirst for glory; idealists a new idea of government; the greedy a taste for wealth; the power hungry a desire for aggrandisement. these men surrounded Caesars= so how can we believe that a Gaius did not have to work hard to maintain the loyalty of the Guard (just as Agrippina Minor had to win it before proclaiming the accession of her son) on a daily basis? The Guard may have had a particular loyalty to the son of Germanicus, but do we believe that others did not constantly seek to undermine that loyalty - including its prefects? Did Caesar just say - do this - and it was done? I doubt it. Even autocrats have to define and describe what they want, at least in outline. They will be told of other priorities and have to "negotiate" or make a definite order. those who wanted their favour or agreed with what they were doing, would support them, and provide ideas - but others would seek to alter those plans, if only to ensure some of the profits or funds came their way. Close attention was needed to choosing governors and legates, prefects and procurators. A wrong choice, as to Britannia under Nero could cause rebellion. Did the emperor bear the names and records of every careerist, military and civil in his head? I doubt it, frankly. And how did he follow-up whether all his choices were in fact made good; all his decisions obeyed. we must, I believe, even where the record does not state it, assume a powerful, influential and sensible bureaucracy around the ruler. And that bureaucracy, in earlier times (as diversely as ancient Egypt and Tudor England) was demonstrably hereditary with son following father. Hence, I argue a continuity in policy, both from princeps to princeps; through lines of descent (hence, I believe an Antonian line of policy to be discernable from the 40s BC to the death of Nero, Antonius' direct heir) and among the senatorial opposition. Let us, therefore, discard the Suetonian emphasis on eccentric individualism and enormous egos acting through whim, and start to hunt for the traces of continuity; failed policies and recurring themes in C1st AD Rome. This thread can be read in parallel with my earlier ones, as all inter-connect to some degree. All are for argument's sake, as argument allows us to explore and delve deeper and test our hypotheses in honest discussion with our peers. Please come back to me. Phil

I'll air a topic that has long fascinated me. Hollywood and many writers/TV documentaries strongly suggest that the gladiatorial combats in the arena were bloody and to the death. That makes them ghoulish and ghastly and attracts a certain sort of viewer, I suppose. Gladiators have long been an interest of mine - I have spent quite a lot of time in Naples Museum looking at the superb collection of gear there; and in walking around the two gladiatorial schools in Pompeii (well looking through the gate at one!!); and at the remains of the Ludus Magnus in Rome. It made me think... We know the Romans loved betting We know the Romans put a lot into training gladiators (at places like Capua) We know that gladiatorial TROUPES toured the cities We know - from inscriptions and graffiti that certain gladiators became well-known (Celadus and Crescens at Pompeii) But how long would horse-racing last if all but the three first past the post in any race were slaughtered immediately after the race? How good a standard would any professional sport reach if after any game the loosing team were killed? How would people know how to bet if they were constantly faced with newcomers, new names and untried contestants/players? So I have come to the conclusion that, while there were important exceptions when fights were to the death, in the main Roman gladiatorial contests (perhaps in 80% of cases) both fighters survived. As in modern boxing where a "knockout" can be literal, but also a technical term (ie the fighter does not get up before the end of a count, but remains conscious - perhaps in Roman times, "death" in the arena could be a technical term (and Romans knew the difference). Figures such as Charon with his hammer appeared in the arena - could a "tap" to the head of a defeated gladiator have equated to a technical "death", as distinct from the term "missus" (let go)? All this is pure speculation - and we know that some Roman writers hated the games because they were bloody and cruel. But I do think that logic and commonsense argue for a different approach. I have more i can say on this, but I'd welcome feedback on what I have said so far, and any views, supportive or alternative, from the informed users of this site. Thanks for reading what may just be my ramblings (and my apologies if this has been raised before - I couldn't find a similar thread), Phil

We have several portrayals of Gaius Julius Caesar by actors to compare: Claude Rains (Caesar and Cleopatra) Jeremy Sisto (TV mini-series) Ciaran Hinds (recently in Rome) Rex Harrison (Cleopatra) Kenneth Williams (heaven help us!! - Carry on Cleo) Warren William (1930s Cleopatra - with Claudette Colbert) Louis Calhern ("Brando" Julius Caesar) John Gielgud ("Heston" Julius Caesar) I may have missed some. I wondered which performances other members rated most highly - especially as invocations of the man himself. I like Harrison - he has wit, confidence, command and charm. But was impressed recently by Hinds. What do others think? Phil

As I said in an private message to Augusta before this nonsense erupted, I will be taking an extended break from UNRV anyway - for other reasons. So discuss as you wish - i won't be getting in anyone's way. Ciao, Phil

YOU started the "name calling" in this thread MPC, not me. Nor is my response to you a fallacy of distraction (what a pompous term IMHO). You defamed Sulla, I simply reflected your terminology back onto a figure you admire. I note you have not refuted my points. In this thread I have taken the line of making the case FOR Sulla - your views on him are irrelevant to me, but your fallacious arguments are not. Phil

When Sulla retired, he was a debauched, bitter, evil old man. Moral relativism would only have warmed his black, rotten heart. Couldn't one say much the same for your hero and namesake, MPC? Wasn't cato "debauched" (he was a noted drunkard wasn't he, a toper of wine?) bitter (and how), evil (I've always perceived him as a hating, perfervid, nasty piece of work) though thankfully he never lived to be old. I'm sure moral relativism would only have warmed Cato's black, rotten heart too. Phil

You mean he may have been human, caldrail - inconsistent, capable of mistakes. I never thought otherwise.

If I thought you wrote with sincere conviction, I'd be really ticked off by this rubbish... Good, because at least that would break any complacency and make you argue your case.... I may have exaggerated for effect - it doesn't mean I don't thinkl there is force behind my words. Phil

American imperialism is plain, the American empire has always been concealed in the main. What was "manifest destiny" but imperialism writ large, or the Munro Doctrine but hegemony spelled out? The US - on whatever pretext - has raped Mexico repeatedly, greedily bought Louisiana from the french, occupied the Phillipines, Cuba, Puerto Rico etc at various times. This, of course, all in a state set up by self-seeking aristocrats on false pretexts for their own sends. Quite often the actions are the results of policies decredd by "another crooked president" (see MP Cato's post for the reference, if you missed it!!). Modern US imperialism is economic in nature and they are now exploring the possibilities of being a sole global super-power. Half the world sees their action in Iraq as related to US economic and natural resource ends, rather than about truth, freedom and the American way. Now, let me say that I am actually a life-long Americophile, a supporter of the UK's special relationship - and much of what is said above is "tongue-in-cheek". But not all, and increasingly, I find myself disillusioned. I spent part of the weekend talking to well-read historians and people interested in politics, who are also long-standing lovers of the USA. But they too are beginning to question things. The US and Rome are hardly similar at all, except in the extent that all empires rise and fall and all nations have similar histories. But I think there are lessons to be learned - not only by the US but by the "west" as a whole, from the fall of Rome. I set out those parallels in another post a while back. "Would to God the gift t' gi' us; to see ourselves as others see us" wrote Burns (or something roughly similar). I think the perception of the US from outside - and maybe from minorities inside - is very different from the rather deceptive self-congratulation that often passes for analysis in the States it seems. Would a native American, an Empire Loyalist, an ex-slave, a modern black American necessarily see the same things or reach the same conclusions? I write to ferment debate. Please come back to me - that is why I have written in a flagrantly confrontational way. Phil

One thing I have not seen mentioned in this thread, and which I think is important - forgive me if I have missed something in my unavoidable absence - is that there are two ways of evaluating a man's actions: a) by how successful they were in retrospect (but this is based on hindsight and a viewpoint that the originator could not have had); the man's motives and purposes at the time - and the extent to which we can understand what that person was seeking to do (and at a time when the eventual outcome/result could not be known. In retrospect we know that Sulla's settlement and actions were in many ways short-lived and broadly can be said to have failed. But, without being an expert on the period, it does seem to me that there is a perceptible and arguable consistency in Sulla's actions that reflects his desire to take the Republic back to an earlier state of balance. Whether one agrees with his assessment or with his aim is, of course, up to the individual. But Sulla was a patrician and his motives and views perhaps predicable, if more extreme than others. I don't know incidentally whether it is a coincidence that I write this on the day a somewhat similar individual - Augusto Pinochet - is buried. beloved and mourned by some, cursed and unregretted by others. Sic transit Sulla. Sulla failed in the long-term, but I think he would have replied - had he deigned to reply at all - that at least he TRIED. On a separate point, but reflecting recent posts - much of the logic of the ancient world runs counter to our own - for instance the concept that slaves' evidence could only be accepted if obtained under torture. equally, Romans were expected to make their fortunes from the jobs (even as late as C17th, Samuel Pepys did something similar). Thus themen who gained from the proscriptions may not have been seen as QUITE so reprehensible in their own time, as now. While to modern liberal eyes, and against C21st moral standards, Sulla maybe deemed reprehensible, I remain unconvinced that those who hold such views and conden from that standpoint, will ever UNDERSTAND Sulla. Phil

As usual Caldrail, your view of the world - and clearly your judgement of men - differs from mine. So be it. Phil

Cato - don't be surprised at my not criticising past actions. It is NOT for ME to do so. Sulla was there, made his decisions, so did the triumvirs. Those times were bloodier than ours, violence sometimes closer to the surface. Expectations were different. As an historian I see my part to be to enter into the times as far as I can (in some ways like an historical novelist) and understand what happened. In doing that one has to try to drop anachronistic assumptions and feelings as far as one can. When one comes face to face with political pragmatism one has to face it, cold and frightening though it may be. I personally would never cut anyone's throat or order that done; nor fail to compromise, if that were possible. But sometimes it is not. In 1940, after Dunkirk, Churchill recognised that the slightest compromise with Hitler would have meant defeat - the appeasers would have stopped the war to prevent more useless deaths. So Winston did NOT compromise, but kept the flag flying long enough for others - especially Russia and the US to be brought into the war and defeat Nazism and its fascist partners. In two briliant scholarly books, (Five Days in May and The Duel) Jay Lukaas demonstrates how close the compromisers came to over throwing Churchill, and the import of their failure. So NO, I do not accept that compromise is always or ever a good thing. It may or may not be appropriate as a choice for those who do not know the outcome. Sulla was faced by problems he saw as fatal to the Rome he loved, an ideal which went beyond the mere mechanics of the republic to what he no doubt saw as the mos maiorum. Probably he saw his own survival and interests as bound up in that. I can, I think, glimpse why compromise might not have been that attractive or pragmatic an option to him. Phil

It was certainly a day that we in Europe should be grateful for, as it brought the US into the war. Who knows what might have happened otherwise. As a non-American, I have been interested to read about the event - I have acquired a small library on the subject over the years. It is interesting historiographically to see how the US came to terms with the tragedy and the debacle it represented: the blame placed somewhat unjustly on the two local naval and army commanders Kimmel and Short. But it was a day of great personal heroism too. On a separate point, a favorite film of mine is Tora, Tora, Tora, a relatively accurate and factual (compared to the more recent Ben Affleck "Pearl Harbor"). I think few films of war achieve the faithful telling of BOTH sides of the action in such a non-judgemental way. In a sense the day was a tragedy for the Japanese empire too, because on that day its defeat began. One can forget sometimes that the US is a comparatively young nation. To me, with the Civil War, 7 December 1941 was part of the growing up process, as the Caudine Forks or Cannae were for Rome; or Hastings, Bannockburn or Castillon for the English. Truths get learned and the nation arises stronger and with greater self-knowledge. From the blackness of Pearl Harbor and those sunken ships, arose a super power ever more conscious of her ability, resources and place in the world. But how nearly things might have been more difficult - had the carriers been sunk; if some strange chivalry had not made Hitler support his Axis partner by declaring war on the USA. I'm sorry to hear that fewer Americans now mark the day. I think they should. I bow in homage to those who died. Death came from blue skies and suddenly that day. Phil Edited to remove a disatrous and unintentional "not".

Going back to the original post about an inscription, my understanding was that, in many cases, there was a very standard format, and use of abbreviations, for names and for the record of a man's cursus honorum (under the empire). there were abbreviated forms - like the "f" for filius discussed earlier, which represented voting tribes, first names, times an emperor held the tribunician power or was named imperator by his troops, etc. they are quite easy to learn. I have quite a useful little book (which I bought some years ago) called "Understanding Roman Inscription" by Lawrence Keppie (London 1991). On a separate note - did not the Romans read ALOUD because of the lack of punctuation. I seem to recall reading somewhere that Caesar was unusual in that he could read silently. Indeed, reading aloud was common until late medieval times. Hope this helps, Phil

But Cato, it was the "free competition" that that got the republic into the mess it was in, that Sulla had to repair. All the people involved were aristocrats, patrician or plebian, so Sulla's origins are only of interest to the extent that they particularly shaped his views. I think, personally, his patrician feeling may have been motivation, but not much more. He may have felt that he was chosen by the gods to act, but I doubt it coloured his judgements much. I don't think I characterised any of the three men you mention, MPC, as half-wits. I am unsure of pompeius I must admit - never quite the sum of his parts, maybe a consulate short of a dictatorship (to coin a phrase) - but I was thinking of other men. Someone else mentioned Colleen McCullough's portrait of Sulla. I found the early years quite imaginative and plausible. But I don't think she was comfortable with, or understood, the man after his return from the east. She changes her drawing of him, makes him appear prematurely senile and seems to say "he was an ill man". Interestingly, she does not come close with the older Marius either, in his last consulate. She gives the earlier Marius a very detailed and consistent character, and makes him quite attractive as a personality. But as with her Sulla, cannot seem to grasp the more driven, cranky and vicious older men. So i don't think her Sulla explains much in the end. As I said before, I think some politicians discover a logical development to their vision and aspirations, and follow it no matter where it leads. Caesar, in an opportunitic way, I think did that. Sulla may have done the same. In the end, Augustus may have had a similar approach. Opportunists all - but ones of immense ability and reach. Sulla, as the first, perhaps the most to be admired, since he invented the prototype. Phil

When it all comes out in the wash his influence on the Republic is a great big minus. Is that a bad thing? But was it a minus? The republic was dying - he saw the direction it would go, before others did. Pompeius, Caesar, Octavian all followed his lead in many respects. His war with Marius was conducted in such a politically scorched earth manner that the compromises or reconciliations of past internal conflicts were now fought in a civil war. Sometimes wars have to be fought to be WON. Compromise suggests that you may be wrong, or that you don't care about the outcome. Sulla did. Compromise almost never provides a full loaf either - why settle for anything less than all, if you believe you are right. A man with more political prescience could have worked to diffuse the Republic's internal conflicts with an eye towards future stability once in power. As octavian later did you mean - hardly ANY bloodshed no political changes of consequence everything done by concensus and compromise.... Come off it, Sulla only failed because there wass no one of the same mettle to follow him. The same old Republican half-wits started devouring themselves again. That was why Caesar and Augustus had no alternative but to return to a form of monarchy. Instead he proscribed on a level greater than ever seen before and rejected past reforms. Boldness, not half-measures is sometimes what is required. If you understand that the Augean stables need to be cleansed, with a simple wash-down do? And if he felt past reforms were wrong - why continue them. Sulla did not know what was to come, or how things would turn out. He had no guarentee of success, his life was potentially in danger, and he saw the problems. he also had a vicious, mono-maniac and several dangerous demagogues as opponents. Men who would stop at nothing and had only their own interests at heart. Sulla had the courage to act, come what may. he may not have managed to effect lasting change, but he certainly changed the nature of the "game" - and that was what was needed. The eventual cure for the republic's ills (c30BC) was, IMHO, not far from the remedy prescribed by Sulla. Not likeable as a man, but undoubtedly pro-active. Phil

I thought his head had long been preserved in the church of St Paul Without the Walls (the very one where the excvations are said to have taken place). I don't find the discovery surprising, unexpected or unlikely. The tomb of Peter was clearly known and venerated long on the site of what was the Vatican - though I cannot recall whether his body has been found. St Paul was only slightly less notable in Christian terms - maybe he had the edge up to around 300 when the power/succession requirements of the emerging Papacy put Peter in the stronger position. If St Paul's remains do indeed rest within the coffin then analysis would be fascinating - I wonder whether a missing epistle (or three - perhaps one to the Spanish) could be lurking under his shroud. What might they reveal if so - and what would the catholic church do about publishing such potentially explosive documents? Phil

A few comments on posts subsequent to my own: Were not the fulfillment of personal ambition and the preservation of personal dignitas at the core of "republican" values and the political system of the age? Why are "Democrats" (Ramses) considered so highly? as another poster points out it was "democracy" (actually the Roman system wasn't democratic in any real sense but we'll leave that aside) that allowed Marius to be elected consul multiple times - creating one of the initial problems. I'm also fascinated by the responses for another reason. true we were asked about our opinions of Sulla, and we almost all say we would not have liked him as a man. What relevance that has I am uncertain - I probably would not have liked many of the shapers and movers of history. But for all we know, Sulla may have had great personal charm and we would have fallen for it - who can say. More important is the difficulty I think we face today, in a society that has evolved in certain ways (I am thinking particularly of US and UK posters, but other "westerners" too) in that we find overt ruthlessness, the willingness to turn to violence, a political community of some savagery, difficult to deal with. yet many historical societies - Samurai Japan, early medieval England, the Crusades, pre-Colombus mezo-America, have all been violent and required ruthless men to tame and shape them. I don't except myself when I say that our modern preference for such things as social inclusiveness, moderation, peaceful resolution of conflict, obedience to political rules, modesty etc etc, make it difficult for us truely to understand or judge the motives or actions of men like Sulla. Does that also say something about the way we sift out the less palatable elements of our own political realities. After all, Messrs Bush and Blair have been pretty ruthless in "marching on" Baghdad; in supressing or overcoming those who disagreed. Guantanamo Bay is hardly a creche or a place of gentleness. Yet many would excuse these things or argue that they are "essential". So, no doubt with Sulla. One difference between patrician Sulla and others who came after him was that Sulla cared not one jot what others thought of him. He did what he did with contempt for those who thought otherwise. At least hypocrisy was not one of his apparent vices!! Maybe too he did openly what others do, but try to hide. I think, overall, that Sulla has a strong case in his favour. And anyone who seeks to control or even stamp out the scourge of "democracy" (a myth in any case) cannot be wholly bad IMHO. Phil

On the whole, I think I am FOR Sulla. I think I understand much of his career - at least to my own satisfaction. First, I think Sulla was Sulla, as Caesar was Caesar, a remarkable man in his own right, with outstanding leadership and intellectual abilities who would have had significance at whatever time he had lived. I say that because I also see Sulla - in politics as a machine terms - as the necessary balance to Marius. Marius was the one who first "broke the rules" - seven consulships, the general who became in real and modern (not just titular Roman terms) a dictator. Sulla was the reaction to that, and the man who had to FIGHT the forces that Marius - advertently on inadvertently - had set in motion. Thus Sulla really had little choice but to march on Rome, and in this HE set the precedent for those who came latter - not least Caesar and Octavian. Like caesar later, Sulla COULD have surrendered - no doubt MP Cato (then and on this site) would say both should just have given up. But that could have been his death warrant. Neither Sulla nor Caesar stepped back and I think no politician of the first rank could or would have. As Marius aged and broke down, smaller, opportunists emerged in his shadow. Sulla had to deal with them. And when he had the opportunity, he looked at the decades since the Gracchi and sought to do something about it in constitutional terms. His solution did not work, but at least he tried. At this point one has to factor in Sulla's late emergence into public life and his patrician ancestry and perspective. Clearly these are not things we can make judgements on - but they must have coloured and influenced Sulla's view of the world, of Rome, of politics and of the options open to him. Unlike many public figures we also know something of Sulla's vices and foibles - something that, for instance, we lack for Caesar (his womanising apart). We know that Sulla had a taste for the low life, an attraction to actors and mimes, a coarse streak and (one must use the term carefully and probably anachronistically) that he was bisexual. I see much of this influencing his world view - maybe he was two men and had to play the autocrat consciously and deliberately. My problem with Sulla is in his end - the walking away from power, the sudden convenient death - did he know he was dying or fatally ill, or was he killed? Such timely deaths always make me suspicious. I know it is frowned on by some on UNRV, but I cannot reach a judgement on historical figures without seeking parallels (albeit with differences in the modern world). There are today some politicians who see a philosophical or political path and are driven seemingly by a need to pursue it to its logical conclusion. A very extreme example would be the third reich where racial policies, at least initially with a rational basis (deportation or emmigration for the Jews etc) eventually reached an extreme end in the Holocaust or rightly called FINAL solution. A more moderate example in the UK might be Tony Benn - and i do not for a moment suggest coupling him with the Nazis!! - where as I see it his initially moderate socialism became more radical with age. While his language always remained moderate in interviews, I alsways seemed to perceive a logic behind his words that socialism as he saw it could not be founded in the Uk without a thorough revolution, sweeping away all traces of the co-called british "establishment". Now I see Sulla somewhat in those terms. A man who saw a "right-wing" path and then followed it logically to its conclusion however ruthlessly, and whatever its personal and social consequences. he was ruthless, and maybe there was a cold, even cruel streak in him. Perhaps he even lacked a moral sense - whatever that may have meant in Roman/pagan terms. (I see Caesar as possessing a better balance in that sense.) Sulla, unlike Caesar or Octavian, had no model from which to learn. Undoubtedly he made mistakes, but they were "honest" ones, albeit sometimes brutal. I don't think I would have liked the man, but I infinitely prefer him to Marius. He had ability, but he was not a genius. I think he knew he would be hated, but he had the courage to do what he saw as essential even so. Does my rambling make sense? Phil

The loss of Roman "woodpeckers" at Carrhae doesn't sound quite the same, does it. On the other hand in retrieving them Tiberius could have claimed to have got a "woody" or kept the roman "pecker" up, I suppose!! In shame, for this irresistable post, Phil

Your question seems akin to "are you still beating your spouse" Caldrail. It surely prejudges the answer. I don't accept for a moment that there were ever any young girls, boys or even animals cavorting around the Capraean villas in Tiberius' day. The whole thing does not fit with his character, at least as I see it. There is no evidence from his Rhodes exile that he indulged in such things, or had any sort of sexxual reputation. Neither is there any reason to assume "flakeiness" or any motive for retirement save a fastidious liking for retreat and solitude. Tiberius may have been "odd" but it was in an anti-social way, not a perverse one. he found a way of ruling through Sejanus that suited him and - a reluctant emperor anyway - he retired. He may have been un-nerved somewhat by Sejanus' treachery, but we know comparatively little about that as key passages in Tacitus are lost. But I see no loss of grip or seniliity until perhaps the very end. I think the way that damning comments are thrown around about characters in ancient history is no less reprehensible that similar slanders or libels would be for current or more recent figures. We know sexual invective was a common element of Roman political life and no one seems to have taken it particularly literally. It was like exchanges in the House of Commons between politicians who may respect each other outside the Chamber. Pretty meaningless. So why do we accept what Suetonius says without critical assessment, and why do we repeat it so readily? Are we really that immature that we find it tittilating? Graves perpetuated the stories because he was writing witty, ironic, cleverly researched, FICTION. We should not run the risk of assuming that his portrait, or its depiction by George Baker, is true. I like Andre morell's performance very much, and I think he gets as close as one can to the real man (given changes in culture) but neither is he accurate. Please don't think I am getting at you, Caldrail - but I am concerned that much of the argument for retaining unlikely myths is that without Suetonius we would have less to go on. I think Suetonius is fun, he may have had access to lost sources, but I would regard him as evidence to be used cautiously and only when we have back-up from other sources including inscriptions and archaeology as well as written ones. My view remains that in a vacuum created by Tiberius complete isolation on an island, the Roman wits and his political opponents FABRICATED a story to explain things intended to denigrate and weaken the princeps. The irony - it is still working. So for me no fantasy and no children. Phil

Its just sexual fantasy pretending to be history. Truly awful stuff. Just like Suetonius then!! Please don't apologise Caldrail, you had a source, even if an unreliable one. I have seen the book, though I was not tempted to buy - you know my revisionist tendencies re Gaius. On the elder Nerva - I thought he had an upright reputation. It was that which led people to think him likely to be disapproving of sexual frolics. Perhaps we must disagree on Tiberius. I see no reason to question his Roman uprightness. If it were not for a couple of historians with a KNOWN bias against him, would we infer what they claim? I think not. There is nothing similar alleged at any other period of his life. And if we are going to rar Tiberius with that brush - where are the threads painting Augustus (supplied with virgins by Livia was he not, amongst other things) in the same lurid colours? Or Antonius - accused of homosexuality - but that is brushed off. I see Tiberius as stuck with a "black legend" (rather like Richard III) which continues to stick because some are unprepared to question it, or to drop colourful tales. But I have no more to say on this. I have stated my position and the reasons for it. I rest my case. Phil

Nerva was not the later Emperor (his father, I seem to recall). He was a much respected philosopher who would have been unlikely to condone or participate in anything licentious. Hence his presence makes it unlikely that any such thing was going on. There is no evidence whatsoever for Tiberius having a taste for either children or boys in his earlier life. It all depends on the rumours about his Capri years, and the Roman tendency to assume that, as a man was at his end, so he must have been, latently at least, from his birth. This is patently absurd and would not for a moment be accepted as logical by a modern biographer. Tiberius, in a rhyme, was characterised as being a drunkard, but never so far as i know as a homosexual (as was Caesar) or as a pederast. Astrology was his main area of study, he read philosophy and he enjoyed debate. All quite consistently through his life. He appears to have been fastidious by nature. Where is the need or cause for scandal. Phil

The best "evidence" I can suggest, is to visit the Villa Iovis. I know that there are something like 12 villas on Capri, but Iovis is the one most associated with Tiberius. It is built around two massive cisterms which held water - presumably otherwise not readily available in such a position. There are no swimming pools, no vast halls. The strongest feature of the buildings is a semi-circular "loggia" which looks out over the sea. The surviving rooms otheriwise appear small and routine. There is a summer triclinium (dining room) down a steepish stair set on a terrace on the hillside, again with superb views. I do not know and have never been able to fathom how much of the extant building relates to C1st, or its subsequent use. But it does not look as though it has been the subject of many rebuildings, and is certainly no "pleasure palace" at least as it struck me subjectively. It does however fit with a view of Tiberius as enjoying philosophic discussion while strolling, or sitting reading in cool shade, or consulting Thrasyllus on astrology. If I can get my scanner to work, I might try to post some of my pictures of the site. All MHO of course, Phil

I assume that there is a film "prop" version which companies can hire. It was probably made for "Fall of the Roman Empire" in the early-60s (it appears in the Curia scenes), but possibly for Cleopatra (though I don't recall it there). The "look" of many productions is similar because the same costumes/props are used. In his first scene in I CLAVDIVS, Tiberius wears the Prime Porta cuirass made for Christopher Plummer in "Fall". One can trace other armour through several films if one looks closely. So it isn't necessarily that there is a concensus about the image of the She Wolf, it is just that art directors probably know more about other films than they do about the past. Phil