Explore every episode of the podcast The Partial Historians
Dive into the complete episode list for The Partial Historians. Each episode is cataloged with detailed descriptions, making it easy to find and explore specific topics. Keep track of all episodes from your favorite podcast and never miss a moment of insightful content.
Rows per page:
50
1–50 of 195
Title
Pub. Date
Duration
Cleopatra 1963 - Cleopatra and Caesar
24 Jul 2025
01:31:23
Cleopatra was released in 1963 and has gone on to herald the end of the golden age of the historical epic in Hollywood. Known as one of the most expensive films to ever be made, its troubled production and the on screen connection between Taylor and Burton have both cemented its place in cinematic history.
A Troubled Production
We have a look at some of the issues that led to production delays and there were a lot! From tricky weather conditions, Taylor’s health troubles, to issues with the script, there wasn’t an issue that this film didn’t face in the journey to release. Dr Rad delves into the details of the factors that influenced the production including:
the monetary problems
the challenges into Twentieth Century Fox in this period
the increasing pressure to write and shoot for Mankiewicz
and Taylor’s public aura in the early 1960s
A Foray into Roman and Egyptian History
The historical pedigree of Cleopatra is based on a few different sources including credit given to Plutarch, Appian, and Suetonius! The impetus for the film was also based on the book published in 1957, The Life and Times of Cleopatra by Carlo Maria Franzero. There’s a depth of references throughout the film that have support in the ancient sources. Dr G considers:
the representation of Ptolemy and his advisors
The divided representation of Cleopatra as a savvy politician and a seductress
The burning of the library of Alexandria
The history of where Alexander the Great’s body ends up after death
Things to listen out for
The life and significance of Caesarion
The importance of Mankiewicz in bringing this project to life
Shifting to French hours
What’s up with Mithridates?
Caesar’s winding journey through the Mediterranean
We’re still in the year 394 BCE and we’ve seen Camillus has had a run in with the Falsican Schoolmaster. In this episode we move on further into the action of 394 BCE and look at 393 BCE as well. Is Camillus learning how to keep a low profile? He is praised from his success over the Faliscans and he doesn’t rush for a triumph this time. But the challenge remains, that Camillus’ forgotten vow to Apollo might be about to bite him on the bottom.
A fateful voyage!
Rome is pretty intent on fulfilling Camillus’ forgotten vow to Apollo and this means a boat trip is in order. But sailing to Greece is not for the faint hearted, especially when you have such precious cargo as a golden bowl in tow. Tune in for adventures on the high sea!
War with the Aequians
The Aequians, a thorn in Rome’s side? Yes indeed. Do our sources agree? Of course not. It’s Diodorus Siculus against Livy, duking it out with Siculus having just a mention of trouble, while Livy comes packing details. We take you through the chaotic details. The conflict centres in the town of Verrugo but watch out for mention of Tusculum as well.
New Year, New You?
It’s time for the Roman census! We also see a return of the consulship in 393 BCE! The tussle about moving some of Rome’s population permanently to Veii is back on the agenda. There’s a faction in favour of a move to Veii and a faction against. Our sources seem to position this as a patrician/plebeian divide, but it might be more confusing or complicated than that.
More Aequians on the Horizon…
Somehow, the Aequian forces, that were absolutely devastated in 394 BCE are BACK baby but their appearance seems only a flash in the pan compared to Rome’s troubles at home. There’s tribunes of the plebs to worry about, factional infighting over what to do about Veii, and some trials to contend with as well. It’s an exhausting time to be in Roman politics! Enter scene right: Camillus… How important was the tribune of the plebs right of veto? The question is raised in Livy’s narrative.
Things to listen out for
Special legates - fancy!
Pirates on the Mediterranean Sea!
A fine of 10, 000 asses!
What’s going on the tribune of the plebs and the veto?
A break from the pattern of the gens? Shock and horror
Livy getting confused?
7 iugera to be allocated to every Roman and provision to procreate
396 BCE is finally here! Rome and Veii have been locked in a competition for space and resources for quite some time and it seems like the tide is about to turn. The year 396 BCE is perhaps one of the most significant years for Rome’s history in the early republic. Given the events at play, this episode is considering how the year begins and it might not be quite the thrills you might expect…
Episode 158 – The Fall of Veii – Part I
What’s going on with Rome’s magistrates?
The situation with Roman magistrates in 396 BCE is quite complicated. We spend some time considering some of the challenges we face with the evidence. There seems to have been some problems with the military tribunes which leads to a changing of the guard. There also seems to be great fondness for the plebeian military tribune with consular power, Publius Licinius Calvus Esquilinus, but is he really fit for public duties? We consider the details.
The challenges of our sources
While Livy is providing plenty of narrative material for 396 BCE, every other ancient source seems only interested in some of the big ticket events and not the finer details of family politics in Rome. How can we reconcile these different accounts? We’ll try our best!
Success is not assured…
Rome gets off to a bad start in 396 BCE with a botched Roman ambush led by Genucius and Titinius. After waiting so long with the siege business, it seems a couple of the military tribunes with consular power decide that a little bit of action might be preferable. But things do not go according to plan… it’s only a matter of time for panic to set in among the citizens.
Things to listen out for
The gradual Etrurian retreat from Campania in favour of the north
The emphasis in the annalist tradition on the TEN years of conflict between Rome and Veii and the questions that might be asked about this
The apparent lack of broader support for Veii from Etruscan city-states further north
Rome’s fondness for building up their enemies in their histories and other written evidence
Chronological issues with the source material? Shock! Horror!
Does Livy have a penchant for family histories? Licinius Macer is worth a mention
Periander as Greek inspiration for Calvus?
Homeric parallels!
Igor taking a short break
Our Players for 396 BCEMilitary Tribunes with Consular Power
Lucius Titinius L. f. M’. n. Pansa Saccus
Publius Licinius P. f. P. n. Calvus Esquilinus (Mr Original Plebeian in the role according to Livy)
Publius Maelius Sp. f. C. n. Capitolinus
Quintus Manlius A. f. Cn. n. Vulso Capitolinus? (Pat)
Gnaeus Genucius M. f. M. n. Augurinus
Lucius Atilius L. f. L. n. Priscus
Dictator
Marcus Furius L. f. Sp. n. Camillus (Pat)
Master of the Horse
Publius Cornelius P. f. M. n. Maluginensis (Pat)
Interreges
Lucius Valerius (Potitus) (Pat)
Quintus Servilius Fidenas (Pat)
Marcus Furius Camillus (Pat)
Our Sources
Dr Rad reads Livy, 5.18.2-12
Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus 12.13-16 and 13.1-3; Plutarch Life of Camillus 5-8; Diodorus Siculus 14.90.1; 14.93.2-3; Valerius Maximus 1.5.2; 1.8.3; Pliny Natural History 33.111; Appian Ital. 8; Florus 1.17; Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 17.21; Eutropius 1.20; [Aurelius Victor] De virus illustribus 23; Augustine The City of God 2.17; Orosius 2.19.1-4; Zonaras 7.21
Broughton, T. R. S., Patterson, M. L. 1951. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic Volume 1: 509 B.C. – 100 B.C. (The American Philological Association)
Smith, C. 2019. ‘Furius Camillus and Veii’, in Taboli, J., Cerasuolo, O. (eds.) Veii (University of Texas Press), 219-224.
Sound Credits
Our music is composed by the amazing Bettina Joy de Guzman. Additional sound effects from the BBC Sound Library,
Partial Reconstruction of a Temple at Veii – Photo credit to ArtSupp.
Automated Transcript
Lighted edited for our wonderful Australian accents.
Dr Rad 0:15 Welcome to the Partial Historians.
Dr G 0:19 We explore all the details of ancient Rome.
Dr Rad 0:23 Everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battled wage and when citizens turn against each other. I'm Dr Rad
Dr G 0:33 And I'm Dr G, we consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.
Dr Rad 0:44 Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city. Hello and welcome to a brand new episode of the Partial Historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr Rad
Dr G 1:05 and I am Dr G and I am so excited for this episode, because we are hitting a bonanza of a year. It is 396 BCE and oh boy. After a long time of not a lot happening, except people sitting around in a siege. I think something might be about to happen, Dr Rad.
Dr Rad 1:26 I think you might be right. Dr G, oh, it's been 10 long, wintry years.
Dr G 1:31 Yeah, look, I've grown a whole fur coat in that period of time, and it's not going away.
Dr Rad 1:38 Oh, Dr G, this is a big year. And you know, I was saying to you the other day off mic, that it feels a bit like our podcast journey sometimes oddly mirrors that of ancient Rome, because during the early republic, due to locations of recordings being switched around and issues with microphones, etc, etc, we had some ups and downs in terms of our experimentation with the show, and I feel like we've got it all sorted out just in time for 396 which you could kind of see as one of the most important years in early Republican history, I think.
Dr G 2:16 This is a massive time, so we're building the hype, and I don't think that this is something that we're over hyping at all. This is actually going to be an exceptional time in Rome's history, and the Romans know it as well. Just to put that out there, maybe a little bit too much, they are well aware, and when they write their histories about this time period, there is a great consistency to the sorts of things that they talk about. So I'm looking forward to delving into that. But perhaps we should do a bit of a where are we at recap, before we dive in.
Dr Rad 2:54 You read my mind, I was going to say I know we did talk. I know that every time Veii has come up, we have talked about the relationship between Rome and Veii, but this is the last time that we're probably going to really need to do this, and it is the end of the big conflict, the big feud. So I do think a recap is in order.
Dr G 3:17 Veii? Who are you and why do you exist?
Dr Rad 3:22 Why are you so far south? Why can't you be further north, like all the rest of the Etruscan cities?
Dr G 3:27 Well, the thing about Eturia as a kind of a group of people is that they used to be much further south than they appear to be by the time we get into Roman history proper. So as far as we're aware, there's good evidence for the Villanovan culture, which is the precursor to Etruscan culture. Archeologically, as far down as Campania, which is, you know, the Amalfi Coast, Naples, Positano, Pompeii, Herculaneum…
Dr Rad 3:57 All the gorgeous places to go on holiday.
Dr G 3:59 Exactly. And so Etruria actually extended right through the region where Rome has sort of popped up like a little city state mushroom. And now we're dealing with what is a legacy of kind of a fallout of many centuries of Etruscan retreat out of the south and the more substantial investment that they've had in their northern places of influence, so all the way up to what is now modern Milan, for instance.
Dr Rad 4:30 Yes, this is true, and we have seen some really interesting dynamics between the Etruscans and the Romans over the centuries. If we go back to our beloved regal period, Dr G, although we don't know exactly what was going on with those last few things, with those last few kings.
Dr G 4:48 Oh, those guys
Dr Rad 4:49 Yeah, those guys, those things, yeah, those things, the kings, we certainly know that there's obviously an interesting relationship between Etruria and Rome at that time period. Was it an invasion? Was it a hostile takeover? Did the Romans welcome them with open arms? We'll never know.
Dr G 5:11 But there's certainly lots of parallels in terms of the cultural exchange that seems to have gone on between early Romans and the Etruscans, and the fact that this rivalry between Rome and Veii has taken the shape that it has is mostly to do with their proximity to each other and the competition for local resources. So one of the things that has been a source of conflict is control of the salt pans at Ostia as the river hits the Mediterranean Sea, there's been competition about that they used to control it. Rome eventually seems to have taken over. Veii is pretty unhappy about that. And then we do see increasing violence across the fifth century BCE, where the archeology suggests that there is ongoing raiding across both sides, and a lot of that agricultural land that sits in between these two places, which are a mere few kilometers away from each other, has produced this sort of escalation in violence across the century. And now here we are at the moment of a siege, which has been taking place for years now. Rome's been sitting outside the gates of a being like hand over the keys, and the Etruscans inside. They are like, Not on your life.
Dr Rad 6:33 Well, this is the thing ,Veii is fairly well positioned in terms of the you know, this speaks to the fact that the Romans couldn't just waltz in and take it. And so there's probably no doubt that there was really a lengthy siege between Rome and Veii at this moment. However, was it a neat little 10 years as Livy wants us to think, Dr G?
Dr G 6:57 Well, I think that's debatable. There's obviously a lot of incentive to draw that Trojan War comparison that I think Livy explicitly references as well at some point. So, yeah, good times for the Romans.
Dr Rad 7:13 Yes, exactly. Yeah. So there's some questions about the exact length of this siege, but a lengthy siege, I think would be an order, given how well positioned Veii is, and we have seen conflict throughout the early republic with Veii, Dr G, just a quick reminder of some of the biggest hits.
Dr G 7:33 Yes, please.
Dr Rad 7:34 483 to 474. That's when we had the first conflict between Rome and Veii. And the Romans weren't always beaten, but that was, of course, the time period where there was a fairly significant defeat with the fabulous Fabians, where we had a family that was almost entirely wiped out when they tried to take on they on behalf of Rome.
Dr G 8:00 Yeah, so we get this sense that we've got elite families acting as local war bands in the region, and presumably they is touching on Fabian interests in the area. But Cremera is a sad day for the Fabians. And fabulous or not, they mostly don't make it through.
Dr Rad 8:21 Exactly. So doesn't end that well for Rome on that particular point, because that becomes a pretty infamous moment in Roman history. However, when we get to the 430s we have another conflict with Veii, and this, of course, involves the possession of Fidenae, which is tossed backwards and forwards between Roman ve throughout the years. And this is where we get the murder of those Roman ambassadors at Veii. And then in the conflict that ensued, we see the king of Veii, Lars Tolumnius, slain by Cossus.
Dr G 8:58 Stabbed right through the groin. Yeah, what a time to be alive. So Fidenae, as far as we understand it from the archeological record, seems to also have been a mostly Etruscan populated area. So Rome has this real incentive as a sort of buffer zone, to take Fidenae, try to re populate it with Romans, colonialism, colonialism… and to create that sort of buffer point for themselves so that they can easily move forward towards they so the competition is really hotting up between these two by the time we get to what happens with Fidenae, and then also the devastation of they losing a king. And this feeds into a broader understanding of how are the Etruscans running themselves. And one of the narrative features of Rome's conversation about the Etruscans is that the Etruscans have a group of 12 kings, and that's kind of the leadership circle that runs everything. But it seems like what we can tell from the Etruscans is that there are a loose collection of city states that share some cultural interests. They have different leaders within the particular city states themselves who come together to talk about things. Now, whether that number is precisely 12 or some other number which isn't quite as pretty from a Roman perspective, I don't know.
Dr Rad 10:36 This is the big question. And then, of course, we've got the final conflict, the 10 year – asterix asterix – siege of Veii which is coming to an end in this particular year. Now, the interesting thing is that in this 10 years, we have seen they been continually rebuffed by its Etruscan sister, states, Sister cities. And this is something that the Romans, I think, find a bit puzzling, as well as modern scholars like ourselves. But I think that speaks to what you were just saying. The Etruscan cities are not a country or a nation in the way that we would understand it. In fact, even the way that they are represented in our sources might be a little bit questionable. We have these regular meetings where they all come together and they talk about matters that concern the Etruscan community. And this is where they says, Hey, I think I've got some remnants camped on my doorstep, little help. And the Etruscan saying, No. What some scholars have theorized is that maybe this collection was actually more religious in nature, or something along those lines, but it's been painted as more of a military or political alliance because the Romans maybe wanted to build up the nature of the threat that they were facing in taking on Veii.
Dr G 12:04 Okay. This is a classic Roman literary trope, which, like listeners, need to be aware of, because the Romans will do this at every opportunity. There is nothing more satisfying than winning against a very worthy opponent. So it's not cool to, like, just beat up your neighbors and be like, I did it, and everyone like you're a bully. So it's much better if you can be like, Look, these guys were aggressive. They're a really potent force to have to deal with. They've got lots of friends in the north, but they're not chipping in because they know these guys are on the wrong side of things, and they should just be bowing down to Rome at this point. So it produces a kind of narrative that allows Roman citizens to feel good about the violence that they do to other people. And I suppose if this was a more modern period in history, you might start to think of this as a kind of like military nationalism. This is not how the ancient Romans would have thought about it, but it certainly has that kind of quality to it where it's about justification. It's about being proud of the violence that you're able to do, and that means that the enemy has to be worthy of being conquered in the first place.
Dr Rad 13:25 Absolutely. And what you just highlighted there again is that there have been all these supernatural signs as well that things are about to happen. The game is afoot, Dr. G.
Dr G 13:37 The gods are watching.
Dr Rad 13:40 We've seen in previous years, you know, the Romans needing to consult the Sibylline Books to go to the Delphic Oracle. We've seen the flooding of the Alban lake and the fact that the Romans need to, you know, fulfill a certain act in order to, in order for Veii to fall, you know, they've, we've seen them also trying to get the gods back on side. There's been various things that they've had to do in terms of the spiritual world. And it's possibly that actually what people like the later analysts had to work with, and the analysts of the people that Livy and Dionysus are working from, we presume they might have actually been working from probably your favorite source, Dr G, priestley records, who were keeping track of these big religious moments and developments which supposedly happened at around this time, and that might be part of that important skeleton that they're working from. And then lean into epics a little bit.
Dr G 14:36 Just few details here and there. That's fine,
Dr Rad 14:38 Yeah, just yeah. We'll add in like a massive hero, and I'll throw some Trojan war on top. You know, nothing, nothing too crazy.
Dr G 14:47 Get it all in there. Yeah, let's make this a rousing read as well as an exciting time for the gods.
Dr Rad 14:55 All right, Dr G, so here we are. I think it's time to actually dive in to 396. In the grand tradition of our podcast, please tell me who were the magistrates in this most momentous of years.
Dr G 15:46 Oh, this year is full of names. My God, there are so many. First of all, we've got military tribunes with consular power. Naturally, there's six of them. Chaotic times, Siege of Veii times. This is now pretty standard for them to have so many in the field. First of all, we've gotLucius Titinius Pansa Saccus, previously military tribune with consular power in 400 BCE.
Dr Rad 16:17 Not an accident. I'm going to come back to that.
Dr G 16:22 Look, I put it to you that we've got quite the cohort of plebeians, and this guy is the first of many. He is accompanied by Publius Licinius Calvus Esquilinus, also military tribune with consular power in 400.
Dr Rad 16:42 The first plebeian one apparently.
Dr G 16:46 Apparently, except he serves with a whole bunch of others. Apparently,
Dr Rad 16:51 Shhh, your reality is ruining it.
Dr G 16:54 I'm sorry that Livy got something wrong. I really am.
I think we might have to, though. Okay, well, you can keep that position for now. We also have Publius Maelius Capitolinus, previously military tribune with consular power in 400 also a plebeian. That's three for three.
Dr Rad 17:21 Seeing a pattern here, seeing a pattern here,
Dr G 17:24 Quintus Maelius Vulso Capitolinus, now unfortunately, big brackets, patrician, then we have –
Dr Rad 17:33 There's bound to be at least one.
Dr G 17:35 You know, they can't help themselves, can they?
Dr Rad 17:36 Yeah.
Dr G 17:37 Gnaeus Genucius Augurinus, previously, military tribune with consular power in 399. Also notably a plebeian. And finally, last, but definitely not least, Lucius Atilius Priscus, also previously military tribune with consular power in 399. Also plebeian. So that's five of the six plebeians.
Dr Rad 18:06 But there are so many question marks we're going to get into this. But there are a lot of question marks about these names and who these guys are.
Dr G 18:12 And also like, does it matter if it's also the year where you get a dictator?
Dr Rad 18:17 Yes, let's roll him out. Dr G, who is our dictator for this year?
Dr G 18:23 Hold your breath, everybody. This is going to come as a massive surprise. Our dictator this year is a guy called Marcus Furius Camillus. Wow.
Dr Rad 18:32 The crowd goes wild! Now you know what? Our listeners might not be super excited to hear his name. Dr G, because whilst he's been around for a little while now, he has always kind of just been there, you know.
Dr G 18:47 Just hanging about, not, not hugely distinguishing himself, although he's done some things previously, military tribune with consular power in 401, and 398, so he's had a couple of rounds in The top gig, but now he's being given like a really special job dictator. And boy, we'll see how that goes for him. And he is joined by the master of the horse. So what happens when a dictator gets selected? The Senate usually decides that things have gotten out of hand in really particular ways. It might be a religious way. It might be a military way. There is a problem that needs to be solved. They require a dictator, somebody to take up all of the reins of power for a really finite period of time to solve this particular issue, whatever it is. And when that person is decided upon, and they accept the position and be like, Sure, I'll be dictator. Usually, the first thing that they do is select an offsider to be like their kind of like other person to be in charge of stuff. Now, the role of the master of the horse is something that I think we should definitely devote an episode to in the future, because there's some complexity there. But for now, it's sounds like a guy with a horse, very exciting. And this year we have Publius Cornelius Maguginensis.
Dr Rad 20:11 A mouthful.
Dr G 20:13 So he says. Previously, military tribune with consular power in 397. So everybody in these sort of top gigs has been around traps recently, but we also have some intereges. Oh, so finally, we're on to the last magistrates of this year.
Dr Rad 20:34 Are you sick of all this Latin?
Dr G 20:36 It's a lot, it's a lot, and they're all names. And you think to yourself, and after a while, you're like,Lucius this Marcus that? And it's like, look, we put them in here because we know the names. And apparently there's lists of these names, and you'll be surprised how little they're referred to in any of the actual source material. So it is kind of incredible, but we have three interreges which means that we've got a situation where at some point the cohort of magistrates that we have in power have to come out of power. And it seems to be not just related to the dictatorship, it may be related to other things as well. And there needs to be a new set of people decided upon. So you've got to have some interim people to look after that situation. And the interreges are those people. And we have Lucius Valerius, possibly Potitus brackets. We also have Quintus Servilius Fidenas, and also stepping into a second role for the year, Marcus Furius Camillus.
Dr Rad 21:38 Hmm.
Dr G 21:39 Hmm. What could it all mean?
Dr Rad 21:41 Curioser and curioser. Well, Dr G, I think I can clear up some of your questions around these magistrates. Oh, please allow me to use Livy,
Dr G 21:52 Please. I mean, that's the one source I haven't read.
Dr Rad 21:54 All right. So in order to understand why we have so many magistrates, and some of the details about these magistrates, we do need to backtrack a little bit to what I told you at the end of last episode, so you might remember that. Well, I'm going to call him, I guess, can I call him Calvus? Publius Licinius?
Dr G 22:15 You could. You know this, this very moderate plebeian who's completely okay for the patricians because he's such a mediocre individual.
Dr Rad 22:26 Exactly, yes, I feel like Calvus is a name that kind of distinguishes him. So that guy, the guy that was the first official military tribune with consular power in 400 BCE, the end of last episode, when they were organizing the elections for the next year. He was brought in even though he wasn't running for the position, because the Romans looked around and thought, You know what? We need someone moderate right now, things are a little tense in the city, between patricians and plebeians. This whole situation with they there's been that whole lake issue. We need someone moderate who's going to calm everything down. You know what? We'll bring him back, and we'll get the band back together, military tribunes with consular power, 400 BC, it's your time to rock and roll.
Dr G 23:18 It's retro.
Dr Rad 23:19 Only one slight problem with that, Dr, G, and you already highlighted it in your list of magistrates.
Dr G 23:25 And what is that problem?
Dr Rad 23:27 That they're not all from 400 BCE.
Well, this is the issue. Livy tells us that this is what happened that he was brought in. And they were like, yep, we'll bring back his whole little gang, because that worked really well. Let's go with a tried and true recipe here. But the names do not match. Some of them do, sure, but not all of them.
Dr G 23:55 These people
Dr Rad 23:56 Problem number one. Now the interreges come into the story because, of course, they were holding power because, you might recall, there was an issue with the previous set of military tribunes with consular power, so they were holding power until the next elections were organized, and that's why we have some interreges listed.
Dr G 24:16 Oh, okay, so they're actually related to whatever happened in 397
Dr Rad 24:21 Yes, this is probably something we should probably mention quickly. The Roman year doesn't function in the same way that our current calendar year works, where we say we begin in January and end in December. Technically speaking, Dr G and I have been misleading you somewhat. Listen in that there's always kind of two of our years that make up a Roman year because they end at a different time. So it might be September, for example, that the Roman year ends in terms of when new magistrates are coming in. And the Romans, of course, date their years by the magistrates. They don't know who Jesus is; they don't care at this moment in time, and so they just don't have the same system that we have. So yes, basically, as far as we can tell, there was an issue where the previous group of military tribunes with consular power, there was some problem with the way that they were inaugurated. I'm going to say
Dr G 25:19 yep
Dr Rad 25:20 And as a result, they had to have some interreges, and they had to organize a new set coming through. And this is where we had Calvus being mentioned as being someone who would be good for the job. So look, that is where we are at.
Dr G 25:33 Safe pair of hands. Get him in there.
Dr Rad 25:36 Exactly. Now, Calvus himself is pretty chuffed, as you can imagine, to have been brought up as the leader of this dream team. We are Dream Girls. Yeah, we'll make you happy. Yeah, yeah. However, there's a problem, there's a problem, yeah, there is a problem, yeah, in spite of the exhilarating soundtrack to this year, Calvus is getting on in years. You might remember when we first talked about him as military tribune with consular power in 400 we talked about the fact that he'd apparently served in the Senate for like yonks, and we were shocked that he'd just been in the Senate. This little plebeian guy never heard of-
Dr G 26:19 Just hanging out there-
Dr Rad 26:19 Yeah, he is the one. So he seems to be an elderly man by this point in time, okay? And he doesn't feel like he's actually physically up to the job. He actually details all the different ways that he's not up for the job. He's got issues with his sight, his hearing is worse. I sympathize. And just generally, physically, he's just about for he even says his memory is bad. I mean, I think we're dealing with Joe Biden here.
Dr G 26:52 It's a tough time. Yeah, look, look, put that guy in charge. You know, the one with the white hairover there. It'll be great.
Dr Rad 27:00 Well, it would make sense as a senator, given where we think that word comes from, something to do with old men. However, he has a plan, because he doesn't want to let this opportunity slip through his fingers. And after all, he knows why he's being singled out, and he doesn't want to ruin that for Rome, given that everyone seems to be on board. So he suggests, Hey, did you know I have a kid, Calvus 2.0 I like to call him the new and improved model. He has exactly the same values as me because I raised him. And as we all know, in ancient Rome, anybody has children, their children turn out to be exactly the same as them. That's why all their families have exactly the same characteristics. It doesn't even matter if you're talking about the grandfather or the son, they'll basically be the same person.
Dr G 27:54 Yes, so this is a way in which Roman families work very differently from the way we think of modern families. So the politics of the ancient Roman family seems to be really grounded in upholding familial tradition. So you gotta toe the line. If you don't, you're just not gonna progress with your career in any particular way, like your family won't put you forward for things. We start to see this really particularly later on in the Republic. But I suppose what Livy might be suggesting here is that there's some retrojection of those sort of ideas. Those ideas come from somewhere, and the natural sort of conservatism of the Roman family structure is on full display here.
Dr Rad 28:42 It is. And what is even more shocking than the fact that this guy was chosen for this highly contested office without putting himself forward and seemingly being on his last legs, everyone agrees that, yeah, we'll just take the sun. That's fine. We'll take the discount model we want. We want him. We want a bit of that interesting. Okay, yes, now this is where I do have to highlight a possible problem with Livy's source material, and it pains me to say it, Dr G.
Dr G 29:14 Well, I'm glad you're confessing to it, because it sounds like a problem to me as well, and I was going to mention as such. So please. What's the problem here?
Dr Rad 29:25 I shall atone for him. Shame. So Livy is drawing on, obviously, a bunch of earlier sources, which we unfortunately don't often have, or if we do have any of them, it's very fragmentary, hard to put together. We do know, though, that one of his sources that he switches around between is from a family chronicler called Licinus Macer or Macer, depending on how you like your C's. Now the name says it all, Dr G, these two guys that we're talking about, if I give them their full name, they are, of course, the Publius Licinius Calvus Esquilinus – that's the dad Publius Licinius Calvus Esquilinus – Licinius, it's right there. It seems like maybe one of Livy's sources might have been trying to add a little bit of pixie dust to his family history, perhaps.
Dr G 30:19 Ah yes. So Licnius Macer is obviously part of the broader Licinius gens, and there's a real incentive in terms of Roman family politics, to build the gens history up in various ways. So we are caught in a pretty tricky position, because we know that there is incentive in our source material to put together a certain perspective for us.
Dr Rad 30:48 absolutely it is the curated Instagram of ancient Rome, these family histories which have snuck into our source material.
Dr G 30:57 Well
Dr Rad 30:57 Dodgy.
Dr G 30:58 What else did Livy have to work with? I mean, this is the real trouble.
Dr Rad 31:01 Well, yes. I mean, if we look at the Fasti and we look at other sources, they all list the father as the magistrate for this particular year. So it's interesting that we do have this embellishment where the Romans are like, yeah, cool, just flip your son in, yeah, you're basically the same person because you're related, right?
Dr G 31:20 Yes. So the Fasti Capitolini was produced quite a bit later, as far as we assume. But yes, they do mention the father holding the position for the second time.
Dr Rad 31:32 Yes
Dr G 31:32 Not the son, which would be distinguished with a different sort of ligature.
Dr Rad 31:38 Yeah. So obviously, there are huge issues with the lists of names for this year, given that Livy's telling us, oh yeah, they got all the guys from 400 and then the father was like, No, take my son. And everyone was like, yeah, cool, sure. And none of this seems to be reflected in the records of names that we have. The names do not match up with the narrative that Livy is giving us. Now it is possible that they're trying to perhaps imitate another story from Greece, with this whole father son dynamic, that of Periander, who was the second tyrant of Corinth and ruled from around 627, to around 587 BCE, there was a whole shindig with him possibly stepping aside for a son, didn't really work out that well, but it might be that they're trying to draw on other examples here. We don't know what's going on, but this is what academics have noticed in terms of the way that the source material is developing and the kind of narrative that might be being laid over the bare bones that they would have had to work with.
Dr G 32:45 Look to me, all of this is really fascinating, because, as you know, I don't have a lot of Dionysus, of Halicarnassus right now, who was-
Dr Rad 32:54 What? This is brand new information.
Dr G 32:58 I've got a little bit, but I don't have him in the fulsome way that I would really like to be able to offer a counter narrative to what Livy is doing. But because this year is so significant, I actually have heaps of sources for this year. But you know what? None of them care about anything to do with these military tribunes, fathers, sons or otherwise, it is not on their radar. It is not the centerpiece for this year at all. And so I'm really grateful that Livy is providing a little bit of embellishment and detail, because this is making up for a more fulsome story, which I had no idea existed because I didn't have to read Livy in order to prepare for this episode.
Dr Rad 33:39 This is why you have to read all the primary source material, children.
Dr G 33:44 Let this be a lesson to you all. Now, as a good ancient historian, I would if I was studying this period for real, not within the context of this podcast, which is also studying for it, for real in another way,
Dr Rad 33:56 I was going to say – what? This isn't for real? Am I in The Matrix?
Dr G 34:00 But let's say, If I was writing an academic paper, obviously I would have also read Livy
Dr Rad 34:04 Sure
Dr G 34:04 But because that's not what we're doing here, because we're reading different
Dr Rad 34:08 We have a schtick
Dr G 34:09 Yeah, we're reading different primary source material. That's part of the process with this. So it creates these really interesting gaps for me at times, and this is definitely one of them, like I had all of this list of names that I got from Broughton. Love Broughton always thankful for the work that Broughton has done here, compiling these massive lists of magistrates for every year throughout all of the Republic. And I had this list, and then I had the source material. And look, I have excerpts from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Valerius Maximus Pliny the Elder, Appian, Florus, Aulus Gellius, Eutropius, the anonymous but pseudo Aurelius Victor, Augustine, Orosius, and Zonaras. I have. All of these sources. And you know what? None of them mention this controversy with father and son as military tribunes with consular power.
Dr Rad 35:07 Well, quite frankly, you just look lazy, now.
Dr G 35:12 What are they not telling me?
Dr Rad 35:13 I do appreciate all that different source material, because I have read… Livy.
Dr G 35:18 The suppression of information here is profound.
Dr Rad 35:24 Now let's get on to some action, because I think this is what your sources want us to get to. So Titus and Genucius some of our military tribunes with consular power, they are sent to deal with the allies of Veii. Now I know I just said that the Etruscans were later-dazing the people of They, however, not all Etruscans turned their backs on the people of Veii. We do have people from nearby cities, the Faliscans and the Capenantes, who decided that, oh, I guess if Veii falls,that means that we're probably next on Rome's plans of expansion. So we probably should help them out. So they do have some allies from up north, Titanius and Genucius are very keen to wipe the floor with these guys. However, their enthusiasm might have led them astray, Dr G.
Dr G 36:19 Oh, no, what have they done?
Dr Rad 36:21 They didn't spend quite enough time planning everything out, and they decide that they're going to launch straight into an ambush without following all the possibilities through. Now what ends up happening is that Genucius dies fighting bravely at the front of this battle. In fact, he dies in front of the standards, Dr. G.
Dr G 36:48 Oh, that's terrible news. Okay, of all of the places to die, that is from a sort of divine perspective, the worst.
Dr Rad 36:58 However, it is kind of admirable in the sense of it shows his bravery. So even though the Romans are going to be really irritated by the fact that they just launch in without much forethought, they forgive him because he's dead.
Dr G 37:15 Ah, okay, because he led from the front, so presumably his wounds are also at the front.
Dr Rad 37:22 Hell yes, they are. Actually, it doesn't specifically say, but I would presume so definitely, the point is being made here that he was brave and he was trying to do the right thing, even though completely missed that.
Dr G 37:34 And the kind of commander that is willing to put themselves at risk in the front line is you could view this as being, like, quite silly, because obviously the army needs its commander, and if you lose the commander, the army will probably fall apart, because they won't know what to do anymore. Because you need somebody strategic maybe. But from a Roman perspective, this is a huge courage as well. Like, this is the sort of thing where it's like, you can really rally the troops if you lead from the front and get them into it, if they weren't really sure about what was going on and be like, run in.
Dr Rad 37:34 Yeah, just try not to die in the process.
Dr G 38:08 Yeah.
Dr Rad 38:08 That tends to be a downer.
Dr G 38:09 Don't do a Genucius, because it's risky if you die.
Dr Rad 38:15 And there are some questions again, about the nature of this death, because there is another conucius from 362 BCE, who dies in a suspiciously similar fashion, Dr G.
Dr G 38:28 So, looking forward, in another sort of 40 years, we're going to have a similar moment. Okay.
Dr Rad 38:35 We might, we might.
Dr G 38:37 I sense problems with the chronology.
Dr Rad 38:40 Yes. Now Titinius, of course, is still alive, but the men all around him are thrown into chaos. Things are unraveling fairly quickly in this scenario, not ideal, so Titinius decides to gather all the men around, and he says, You know what? I feel like it's too much of a risk to fight our enemy on level ground. So I would imagine like some sort of open plain where everyone can see everybody. It's open season.
Dr G 39:10 There's nowhere to hide.
Dr Rad 39:11 It's wabbit season. Yeah, so things are not going particularly well, and the Romans do not feel great about this, and Titinius is going to cop all of the flat, because he is the one that's left alive after this defeat. Very disgraceful. The Romans back in the city as well are panicking, as we see so often, because rumor of what is going down has reached them, which, again, sort of shows you just how close these things must be happening. Even though they sound very grand, they're obviously not that far away, in that rumour can get back to the city pretty quickly in time enough for people to start tearing out their hair.
Dr G 39:55 All right. So, yeah, Rome's not in a great way. They're not feeling the vibe. They're having a bit of a panic. Okay, goodo.
Dr Rad 40:00 Now even worse, perhaps, there is, of course, the military encampment before they where the Romans are besieging the city. They also hear that there's been a pretty catastrophic defeat, and one of the Roman magistrates has been killed again. Not a morale booster. No, not what you want to hear in 396 BCE,
Dr G 40:03 No, not after you've been at this siege for so long.
Dr Rad 40:05 No. So they've heard that the Capenantes and Faliscans have won, killed the commanders and slaughtered the whole army, and that the remnants of their enemies are now coming for them, backed by all the men of Etruria.
Dr G 40:45 Oh, okay, well, that's a real turnaround for the books, because last I heard, Etruria was not coming.
Dr Rad 40:52 Look, it's another good lesson for our listeners, Dr G, in that rumors can get out of hand really quickly. Yeah. So in Rome, they've heard that all of the same things. So they've heard all of that, plus they've heard that the encampment before they of their fellow Romans is also being assaulted, and that, you know, there are going to be more people sent from their enemy towards the city itself. Okay, so their camp is under siege. They're going to be attacked next and again, not far away. So time is a ticking.
Dr G 41:28 It seems like the panic is really setting in, and it's becoming a bit contagious, isn't it? And everybody's story is worse than the last story, and people are believing everything that they hear regardless.
Dr Rad 41:40 It does seem that so we have this scene in Livy where the Roman citizens are racing to the walls. The women of Rome are running to the temples to pray for the protection from the gods, and they want instead for the gods to back Rome. Trash Veii. What is with this? What is with this turning of tables? Not appreciated gods of Rome. Thank you very much.
Dr G 42:03 We started this violence. We need to win to end it, not lose.
Dr Rad 42:08 Exactly. And they're like, look, we'll make sure that all the sacred rites are fully renewed. We'll make sure that all the signs are dealt with. We'll deal with all the stuff you want us to deal with. Just please, please, make sure our city stays strong and our enemies are defeated.
Dr G 42:29 Okay, that's, it's a big call.
Dr Rad 42:30 Now if this is ringing any bells it should. Once again, we have a bit of Homeric additions being inserted here. This is potentially meant to remind readers of what happened when Hector went out to battle. So it's meant to be drawing on the Iliad basically.
Dr G 42:53 Interesting.
Dr Rad 42:54 Yeah. So panic in the city, women in temples. You know? Prayer happening? People at the walls.
Dr G 43:02 Yeah, everything's getting to its sort of climactic moment, isn't it?
Dr Rad 43:08 It really is, yes. So this is perhaps the moment to pause and just talk a little bit about what Livy's actually drawing on here. So we've already talked about the priestly records, the family chroniclers, maybe drawing on later incidents in Roman history to make sense of the bare bones, and not Livy directly, perhaps also obviously his sources, the earlier analysts and that sort of thing. But we may also even have other sources, like Ennius, who I know you've spoken about a little bit before.
Dr G 43:40 Yes, so Ennius writes an epic of Rome's foundation and early history, and his text becomes the preeminent school text for many centuries. So it's only really displaced by Virgil's Aeneid, and that takes a while. So there's a good couple of 100 years where Ennius is the go to text, to learn, to study poetry, but also to learn about Rome's history. So it would make sense for Livy to be drawing upon it, for sure.
Dr Rad 44:19 Yeah, and this is exactly it we so we've got Licinius Macer. He's probably also drawing on someone called Valerius Antius, again, someone we don't have much of, but we know was a major source of Livy. But he is also drawing on these epic traditions, which would come from ennius, would come from Homer. And this passage, apparently was also then later copied by other Greco-Roman writers because they found it, you know, very inspirational scene. I think it would be like them seeing a really intense part of a movie, you know, a scene that really resonates with them and gives them a strong visual. And so they go back to it as a reference point. And they're doing their own version of something later on. So that particular passage is actually meant to be kind of iconic, I suppose.
Dr G 45:08 Mmm0mmm. Ah interesting. So, yeah, we're getting more into like, what is history and is it just literature in another form.
Dr Rad 45:19 Indeed, indeed. Now, of course, the Romans need to make sure that their relationship is square with the gods if they want to see any success against Veii, and want to make sure they escape this terrible fate which seems to await them right now, enemies of the gate, although they're not really in this rumored so water obviously had to be drawn off the Alban lake. And we know that potentially, this actually did happen, because we've got those remnants that we've talked about before, of, you know, the tunneling and that sort of thing. We don't know exactly when that happened. Does it line up with these accounts? But there's some sort of record there which is interesting, giving some archeological backing to our literary accounts. There does seem to have also been some issues with games, or some sort of festival that the Romans were meant to have held at this point in time, which would be again, connected with the gods. It sounds like, Oh, what a great moment to kick up your feet and have a great time, but that's not, obviously what it's about. And you would know more about this than I would with its religious connections, things like games and festivals.
Dr G 46:24 Well, sure, if it had cropped up in any of my sources, I would be able to tell you something about it. I mean in general terms, I assume this is going to be a reference and correct me if I'm wrong to one of the sort of Pan Latin get togethers, where people of a Latin background gather in certain locations to do some shared ritual stuff. So you have to send people out of the city, which obviously, in this at this point in time, sounds like it would be quite dangerous. Maybe it's not the time to have a festival where you send some delegates.
Dr Rad 47:01 The Festivus for the rest of us.
Dr G 47:02 Yeah, look, everybody's running around like chickens with their heads cut off. Is now the time other people would definitely argue, within the context of the city, that it is more important than ever to send a delegation to something that might be a collective kind of festival, precisely because everything seems to be in a very delicate balance, not in favor of Rome.
Dr Rad 47:28 Yes, and this is exactly why they're like, Oh, crap. We really should have dealt with that water situation on the Alban lake before all of this went down. And they talk about games and a Latin festival. So I think you're 100% on the money. Part of the issue, apparently, is that, from later sources, standpoints, they tend to use terms like Ludi and Feriae. I don't know how to say that actually properly. And that, now that I read, now that I'm saying it out loud, I've just been reading it all this time, they are both things that involve people having holidays in ancient Rome, but they're not necessarily, obviously, exactly the same thing that happened at exactly the same time. When we talk about Ludi or games later on, we are talking more about public games. You know, by the time we get into the period that's better documented. But that's not necessarily what's happening at this moment in time. We don't necessarily see games being attached to festivals this early, from my understanding, so there might be a bit of confusion there, but certainly there's some sort of, you know, festival connected with the gods that the Romans realized. Well, we better hold them again, because the gods are clearly not on our side right now, not with enemies at the gate. No, thank you. And so they're dealing with basically everything they possibly can. They're trying to put out all the fires to make sure that they are protected.
Dr G 48:53 Yep, fair enough. Send the delegation. Do the games? Do the festivals? Go to the sweet locations and do some sacrifices.
Dr Rad 49:01 Yes, and now that this is all taken care of, that the Romans think very smugly to themselves, it is time for Veii to die. Mwahahahahaha.
Dr G 49:14 Oooo boy. Okay? Well, in that case, I think as as horrifying as it's going to sound, I think this might be the moment to pause and to wrap up this episode, because I leave it on this cliffhanger, because things are about to happen and wow, what a build up.
Dr Rad 49:35 Absolutely. I mean, it shows that 396 didn't necessarily start off that well for the Romanshowever, trust us, listeners, we're building to a climax.
Dr G 49:49 Ooh, boy
Dr Rad 49:50 yeah, fun is us here with us. All right. Dr, G, well, that means it is time for the Partial Pick.
Dr G 49:58
(bird noises)
Dr Rad 50:01 Tell us how the Partial Pick works, Dr G.
Dr G 50:03 Well, we are raiding Rome against its own sort of measures of success. Now, I don't, I don't anticipate Rome's gonna do great right now, but let's give it a whirl and see. So we've got five categories, and within each category there are 10 Golden Eagles up for grabs. So the golden eagles are like the fancy things that might sit on top of your standard and
Dr Rad 50:34 Before you die in front of it.
Dr G 50:35 Before you die in front of it, yeah, or before you lose it, you know, all of those kinds of positive things. So the first category is military clout.
Dr Rad 50:45 Right. Well, so far in 396 the Romans have had a disastrous defeat.
Dr G 50:51 Yeah, they've gone for what an unplanned ambush that has led to the death of one of the military tribunes with consular power, and then the other one copping all of the blame for whatever happened next, which doesn't seem great.
Dr Rad 51:08 And the Romans themselves don't even seem to really know what is going on, because there's such chaos amongst his forces. So, yeah, not looking good.
Dr G 51:17 Look, I feel like we can't give them much of a score. It's probably I, I'd be inclined to maybe give them a one for the fact that they're still holding out at the siege area of Veii
Dr Rad 51:29 sure, yeah, well that's the thing. They haven't actually lost any territory or anything. They just were trying to take care of the allies of Veii It did not work.
Dr G 51:40 Yeah, yeah, they've suffered some military defeats, but we haven't heard anything particularly negative about what has happened outside the gates of Veii. I mean, there's been some sort of panic stations in Rome, but it sounds like they're operating on rumor rather than fact. So I'm willing to give Rome one.
Dr Rad 51:58 Fair enough, that is one.
Dr G 52:00 One point. So far so good. Our second category is diplomacy.
Dr Rad 52:08 I feel like there is not much diplomacy going on, given that they're trying to ambush their enemies. It sounds like there is no diplomacy going on. That's a zero from me.
Dr G 52:20 All right? Expansion.
Dr Rad 52:23 No, not yet. Not yet. We're tiptoeing closer, ever closer.
Dr G 52:31 Foreshadowing. Okay, so that's a zero. Virtus?
Dr Rad 52:37 Okay, now, as disastrous as this whole plan was, I feel like maybe is dying at the front of his forces is an example of virtus, and that's why the Romans are like, Well, you're a bit of an idiot, but we love you, buddy.
Dr G 52:56 It's sad and tragic, but thanks for doing it the right way.
Dr Rad 53:01 Exactly if you're gonna go out, glad you went out in style.
Dr G 53:04 Yeah. So this is where, like Roman value systems are really quite different from anything that we would be accustomed to. Because when I hear about somebody leading from the front, I think very foolish, but I think the Romans think, Wow. What a man.
Dr Rad 53:23 They do. They hear that Salt'n'Pepa, and they're like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dr G 53:29 And look, if he'd come back alive, that would have been chef's kiss from a Roman perspective.
Dr Rad 53:36 Yes, exactly, leading from the front. Glorious win.
Dr G 53:41 Yeah.
Dr Rad 53:41 All would have been good.
Dr G 53:42 You can't beat anything like that. He would have been a star player for years to come as a result of that. It's just a real tragedy that he went and died instead.
Dr Rad 53:51 Yep, and left his teammate out there, going, what am I going to do now?
Dr G 53:57 Yeah, like guys, I thought we were a team, but you've left me all by myself.
Dr Rad 54:06 Poor Titinius.
Dr G 54:08 Indeed. So the last category is the citizen score. Was this a good time to be a citizen of Rome?
Dr Rad 54:17 Sounds pretty panicky. Sounds pretty sweaty.
Dr G 54:19 It sounds like everybody's scared and rushing to the temples, doing some prayers, rushing to the walls, being like is the enemy at the gate. Oh God!
Dr Rad 54:31 They're keeping eagle eyes out. They're definitely feeling paranoid and not unjustifiably, whilst we're laughing at the fact that this rumors got completely out of hand. You can understand why they would think that if the Romans have just had a catastrophic defeat, it's not out of the question that the remnants of the Faliscans and Capenantes will eventually make their way there. I mean, why wouldn't they, in some senses?
Dr G 54:57 Well, exactly. So there is a justifiable fear that the army that has just won over the Romans on the field will proceed to then March on Rome. And really, Romans sort of set themselves up for something like that, because if you've been besieging one of your neighbors for the last decade, maybe you've given your neighbors some ideas about how they could treat you.
Dr Rad 55:25 So look, it might be mythologized. Maybe the Romans were actually in the bath with a cup of tea and a scented candle burning, and they weren't panicked at all. But even if we strip away the Homeric elements, I think it would make sense for the Romans to be feeling the pinch right about now.
Dr G 55:43 Definitely. So, in this sense, and particularly when we also have to account for the facts that people who had died on the battlefield also very likely to have been Roman citizens of some kind, then this is not great, not great news at all.
Dr Rad 55:59 So is that a zero?
Dr G 56:00 I think so.
Dr Rad 56:02 Wow. We really built up this episode, and now the Romans are here with just one out of 50 Golden Eagle.
Dr G 56:07 We are not done with 396.
Dr Rad 56:10 No, I was gonna say, I feel like we should maybe add that one eagle to the other eagles that they may or may not win for themselves down the track.
Dr G 56:22 Ooo that is, that's a big call. I think we can argue about that one when we get there.
Dr Rad 56:26 All right, all right. I look forward to it, Dr G.
Dr G 56:30 Likewise. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Partial Historians. You can find our sources sound credits and transcript in our show notes. Over at partialhistorians.com – We offer a huge thank you to you, if you're one of our illustrious Patreon supporters, if you enjoy the show, we'd love your support in a way that works for you. Leaving a nice review really makes our day. We're on Ko-Fi for one or four ongoing donations or Patreon, of course. Our latest book, ‘Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire', is published through Ulysses Press. It is full of stories that the Romans probably don't want you to know about them. This book is packed with some of our favorite tales of the colorful history of ancient Rome. Treat yourself or an open minded friend to Rome's glories, embarrassments and most salacious claims with ‘Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire'.
There are many groups that are often overlooked in both ancient and modern societies. One of those are people with disabilities, and we were fortunate to talk to expert Dr Debby Sneed about her work on impairment in antiquity. Dr Sneed has examined a range of sources about this topic, including human remains, temples and textual evidence.
Her focus has mostly been on physical impairments that leave a trace in human remains. Sneed's focus is ancient Greece, but we couldn’t resist bringing Rome into the conversation every now and then!
In order to make this episode as accessible as possible, a full transcript will be provided for this episode.
Special Episode – Disability in Ancient Greece with Dr Debby Sneed
What's up for discussion?
In this conversation we delve into a number of questions, including:
How do you classify a disability in this line of research?
How many people in the ancient world would have had a disability?
What kinds of sources are available for studying disability in the ancient world?
What would life have been like for people with disabilities in the ancient world?
Topics that come up in the conversation:
Artistic representations of disability in Greece and Rome
Welfare systems in ancient Athens, as highlighted by Lysias 24, For The Disabled Man.
If you enjoyed this episode, be sure to check out some of the suggested readings. This is a huge topic, and we did not get the chance to discuss issues that leave less of a physical trace, such as blindness or muteness, nor did we touch on disabilities that might have arisen from disease or mental illness.
This vase by the ‘Clinic Painter' is one of Dr Debby Sneed's favourites. It may show two men in a courtship pose, but this is still debated by scholars. One of the men is a dwarf or little person. Photograph by Maria Daniels, courtesy of the Musée du Louvre, January 1992.
Transcript
[00:00:00]
Dr Rad
Hello, there! You are in for a treat and you're going to be hearing a special episode from The Partial Historians. Today we're going to be talking to Dr. Debby Sneed. Dr. Debby Sneed is a lecturer in Classics at California State University. She has a PhD in Archaeology from UCLA. And a MA in Classics from the University of Colorado, at Boulder, as well as a BA in English and History from the University of Wyoming. She has worked on archaeological projects in Greece, Italy, Ethiopia, and the American Southwest.
[00:00:46] And she's currently working on a monograph about disability accommodations in ancient Greece. She's got some publications that are also forthcoming. So keep your eyes peeled for that. But in the meantime, here is our episode with Dr. Debby Sneed.
[00:01:09]
Welcome to a special edition of The Partial Historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr. Rad.
Dr G
And I'm Dr. G. And we are super excited today to be sitting down with Dr. Debby Sneed. And we're going to be looking at disability in ancient Greece, and potentially also, as a side note, a little bit of ancient Rome coming from us.
[00:01:31]
Dr Rad
Absolutely. You know, we can't resist that and I must admit, this is a topic that, I'm going to admit full disclosure. I apologize to both of you. I have never really thought that much about disability in the ancient world, which is actually doubly shameful because, on a personal note, I'm just going to throw it out there. I actually have a condition which means that I'm gradually losing my hearing. And I've actually lost quite a lot. I wear hearing aids now. And so, I suppose, I have a very mild disability, which, I'm really lucky, it doesn't affect my life too much at this point in time. But it's something that I suppose has been coming more and more into my life as I lose more hearing.
[00:02:08] So I'm really fascinated to get talking about disability in the ancient world and what that entails.
Dr G
Yeah, so it's fantastic to have you here, Debby, thank you so much for joining us.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, thank you for having me. I'm glad to be here to talk about this.
Dr Rad
So like dive straight in with, uh, with one of our first questions, which is exactly how do you define or classify a disability in your research?
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:02:30] This is a really difficult question for a lot of reasons. And one of them has to do with a lot of the attitudes that people bring to the topic of disability in the modern period. Um, but for me, in my research, I focus specifically on physical disabilities. My work is primarily interdisciplinary, which means I look at material and evidence from a lot of different fields and reconcile them in various ways.
[00:02:52] So I look at not just literary evidence and artistic evidence, but also physical remains. So I studied human remains as well. And so in [00:03:00] order to do this correctly, I tried to look at things that could potentially be archaeologically recovered, uh, in that is specifically physical disabilities. So I look at things like cleft palate, missing limbs, short stature, stuff like that.
Dr Rad
[00:03:16] Maybe just building on that. Can you tell us a little bit about this, the sites that you've looked at in your research when you've been looking at the human remains or do you, or do they – the human remains – come to you?
Dr Debby Sneed
Well, the human remains come to me. I am not a bio-archaeologist, so I rely on the work and the reports that are filed by people who are skeletal archaeologists, osteoarchaeologist, bio-archaeologists.
[00:03:38] And so I am beholden to who's doing work where. And so I have used things like, uh, there's a lot of great work done from cemeteries in Northern Greece, specifically Pydna, for example, Amphipolis, um, a lot of great work being done from cemeteries and deposits in Athens. But also in places like, Thebes.
[00:03:58] Um, and so it just sort [00:04:00] of depends on what's available and who's doing the analysis. And if they're asking the kinds of questions that will help me in identifying who is potentially disabled and what we can say about it.
Dr Rad
Absolutely. And so roughly how many people do you think would have been classified as disabled in the ancient world?
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:04:20] It's kind of an impossible question for a lot of reasons. Uh, first of all, there's not really a category of the disabled in ancient Greece. So now we have sort of legal definitions as included, as well as societal definitions of what is disability, who is disabled, but that just didn't exist in the ancient world.
[00:04:38] So even if the ancient Greeks did keep, sort of records of things like this, they wouldn't have used disability as a category for keeping track of the population. Second of all, disability is, it's really fluid as a concept, right? So you can be disabled for a period of time and then become cured or well, or something like that.
[00:04:57] Um, you could also be non-disabled for most of [00:05:00] your life and then become disabled. You could be involved in a battle, for example, where you become injured and it leads to a permanent disability, old age leads to disability. So right now, the World Health Organization estimates that about 15% of the world's population is disabled.
In the United States [00:05:18] the estimates are somewhere between 20 to 25% of the population. Uh, it's actually the largest minority group in the United States. So these are modern statistics and it's not possible to sort of import those to the ancient world. The reasons that people are disabled, how people become disabled, and how we classify disability would have been quite different.
[00:05:37] But we can probably guess, based on a variety of evidence, that a great number of people in the ancient world either lived with a disability from birth or became disabled or interacted on a very close basis, either as a family member or a close community member with somebody who was disabled.
Dr Rad
Yeah, it's actually something that I suddenly realized how horrifying it [00:06:00] really was. [00:06:00] How many people must have had to live in discomfort or just with constant inconvenience in the ancient world. Because when you think about it, when I was looking at the research, I really liked this idea that, you could really only classify someone as having a disability, if the society they live in doesn't really help them out anyway. [00:06:20] And it doesn't meet their needs in some ways. So for example, I wouldn't classify myself as having a disability per se, because I have access to hearing aids because I live in a society and I have a job where I can afford them. But in a different context, I might be, I might be classified that way because I wouldn't have access to an aid, which allows me to do my work.
[00:06:39] And when you think about the lack of technology and all that kind of stuff available in the ancient world, it is really quite staggering, isn't it?
Dr Debby Sneed
So, what you're describing there is actually called the social model of disability. So people who are engaged in studies of disability in the past and present, people involved in disability activism, operate – at least tend to operate – according to different models of disability. [00:07:00] And the social model of disability is one that is very prevalent in disability studies, but it’s specifically organized against what's called the medical model of disability.
The medical model is something that situates the problem of disability in the body of the disabled person. It says you are the problem. [00:07:17] And in order to overcome your disability, you need to overcome your own body, right? And so this is where treatments and cures and rehabilitation specifically focus on correcting the person with the disability so that they can function in a quote unquote, “normal” society. Right.
The social model of disability is kind of the opposite of that, right? [00:07:37] So what the social model of disability does is, sort of like what early feminist scholarship did with sex and gender where sex is considered sort of a biological fact and gender was something that was imposed on to sex, right? So the social model of disability does something like that with impairment and disability.
[00:07:56] Impairment being so the biological reality of a body [00:08:00], so missing limbs, loss of hearing, deafness, uh, vision impairments, things like that. And disability is something that's imposed externally on the impaired body. So disability is then a problem of society and not a problem of the individual and correcting disability means disability accommodations.
[00:08:19] It means creating an environment that allows the impaired people to survive. Not just survive, but exist and thrive and participate in society.
Dr G
If we're thinking about ancient Greece and how these models might be playing out, because obviously even though ancient Greek people themselves might not be thinking in terms of these models, they might still be useful ways of looking and thinking about the evidence that's left behind.
[00:08:45] How would you say that you see these kinds of models present in the evidence from the ancient world?
Dr Debby Sneed
Well, some of these models are in my own research, keeping in mind that, for example, the social model of disability is not without its problems. So there's [00:09:00] some really great work done by, for example, Tom Shakespeare, on the problems of the social model of disability, talking about how it kind of treats the impairment as if it's irrelevant, right? [00:09:08] Um, but that's actually not the reality for a lot of people with disabilities; that, while there are problems that are created by society, impairment in and of itself is not neutral, right? It is something that they live with. It is something that affects their experience of the world, their interactions with people.
[00:09:25] And so, um, there's a lot of movement away from the social model, not just to amend the social model, but actually to take a completely different approach. One of the things that I really like about the social model of disability is its emphasis on contingency. And what that means is that, um, what is considered disabling, what impairments are considered disabling is going to change depending on the context.
[00:09:47] And so what I do in my research is I try to look at accommodations for disability, so ways that I can see that society changed to account for the fact of impairment, um, and [00:10:00] use that as a kind of metric for understanding how the ancient Greeks thought about people with disabilities. So, um, not just looking at the instances in myth or in tragedy, for example, where we might have comments about people who are disabled, but looking instead at the structures of society to see how they changed or didn't change depending on the needs of the population.
[00:10:20] It's specifically focused on, um, things that were intended or could have benefited people with disabilities.
Dr Rad
It's been really fascinating actually, to look at some of your work. I believe that you've done quite a lot of study on the use of, uh, ramps to try and help people access temples or sanctuaries and that sort of thing [00:10:39] in ancient Greece, if they had some sort of mobility impairment.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, definitely. So this is an article that, that I wrote on ramps specifically, focused on ramps and healing sanctuaries in ancient Greece. So ramps are a kind of feature that we're really familiar with, especially in a type of Greek architecture called Doric architecture, [00:11:00] which we primarily situated in the Peloponnese, even though it's not completely confined to the Peloponnese.
[00:11:06] So we don't really see a lot of ramps. I think a recent study of – a sort of catalogue of ramps in the ancient Greek world – found fewer than twenty, like total ramps on temple buildings, specifically in the Greek world. So that is not a lot of ramps or a lot more temples than twenty. And so when I was looking at the distribution, however, of those ramps, um, and looking at not just temple buildings, but also secondary and subsidiary buildings at sanctuaries, the healing sanctuary of Asclepius at Epidaurus has eleven built ramps.
[00:11:37] So if I consider the fact –
Dr G
Oh wow
Dr Debby Sneed
– yeah. If you consider that most sanctuaries have no ramps or one ramp, the fact that this one sanctuary has eleven ramps needs to be explained in some way. And so I moved to then to think, okay, how could we explain this?
So the traditional explanations for ramps are having to do with animals. [00:11:57] You know, that this would be an easier way, uh, [00:12:00] for animals to enter the buildings. Except that animals didn't enter the buildings. And so that doesn't really work as an explanation. Animals that were sacrificed were sacrificed outside of the temple. And you can't really imagine bringing a bowl, for example, into a temple with all of this, the furniture, all of the dedications that were housed in there.
[00:12:19] Uh, other explanations, um, include, uh, sort of wheeling dedications in and out. So if you imagine people dedicate stone statues, for example, or marble statues, those are very heavy. So maybe you would want to use a ramp so that you could wheel it in and out.
However, there are specific treasury buildings in ancient Greek sanctuaries. [00:12:38] We can think of the treasuries at Delphi, for example, or at Olympia. And the explicit function of these very small buildings was to house really expensive and heavy dedications. And these buildings never have ramps. And so if ramps facilitated the movement of these heavy dedications, we would expect them to be on buildings whose only job was to hold these dedications.
Dr G
[00:13:00] Yeah, the last thing you'd want to do is, like, wheel something in there and then make it really easy for somebody to wheel it back out again.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, exactly. So possibly they had sort of temporary ramps for those purposes. I have no idea. And so when you look at the fact that most of the explanations that have been [00:13:17] put forth for ramps at sanctuaries just don't work, right. And then also look at how many ramps there are at healing sanctuaries, which were specifically marketed to people with disabilities. It just sort of fits together into this really great picture of a sort of intentional purpose, an intentional building of these ramps to assist the pilgrims who came to the healing sanctuaries in search of healing.
Dr Rad
[00:13:40] So I’m really curious to ask, exactly what do you think – from your studies – life would have been like for people with the kind of disabilities that you study in the ancient world? because, I mean, I know that's a massive question because there's just a huge amount, as you mentioned before, of conditions and just, you know, [00:14:00] factors like age that could be what's causing someone to have some sort of mobility impairment. But can you tell us anything about what you think life would've been like from what you've looked at?
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:14:10] Yeah, sure. I don't think that it's, it's another kind of impossible question. Um, life in the ancient world for anybody disabled or not disabled was difficult, right? So we tend to think about ancient Greek life, we think about philosophers, Aristotle and Plato. We think about generals. Uh, we think about the names of people that we can think of. [00:14:31] And, uh, those were not the typical people who are living in ancient Greece. These are very privileged, very elite men. And so, for the most part, people are engaged in subsistence agriculture, right? They're sort of living harvest to harvest. Life was just difficult in general. People worked all the time. They were constantly engaged in all sorts of things.
[00:14:51] Um, so this idea of a sort of easy life in the ancient world is based on a very small segment of the population. But even when you're thinking about that, [00:15:00] we have evidence for people with disabilities in both classes of people. So among elite men, as well as among the more general population.
And it's impossible to say what life was like. [00:15:09] It really depended on somebody's status on their gender, on their wealth, et cetera. But we have evidence for disabled slaves. We have evidence for disabled generals. We have evidence for disabled Kings, disabled women, women who sort of gave birth to Kings, right? Who were themselves, the women were themselves disabled.
[00:15:28] So you can't really pinpoint a specific thing because there's something that Martha Rose has talked a lot. She's a big, big person in the study of disability in ancient Greece. One of the things that she's really emphasized is what she calls the community model of disability. Where it didn't really depend on the sort of functional limitations of your body, but instead on your functional ability within the community. [00:15:49] And so everything was negotiated on a sort of individual basis. What could you do? What couldn't you do? Could that be accommodated? Who are you? Are you expected to be contributing in one way and you [00:16:00] can't et cetera? It just depends on so many different factors that, um, it's really not possible to say what life would have been like in the generic sense for somebody with a disability.
Dr G
[00:16:10] And that's really interesting as well, if we're thinking about just how many ramps are associated with that sanctuary to Asclepius as well, because it seems like that feeds into a bigger idea about, well, how do we go about looking after the people in our community who potentially are suffering from disabilities? [00:16:30] How do we negotiate that and how do we come together as a community to try and solve that problem?
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, this is one of the, there was a lot of interesting feedback that I got about that article. And a lot of it was just incredulity at the idea that the ancient Greeks would have given conscious thought to people with disabilities.
[00:16:48] But I find that to be a very surprising reaction. Ancient Greeks had a God of healing. It's not objectively true that every society will have a God of healing. So the Greeks [00:17:00] had a God, Asclepius, who was dedicated to healing other gods focused on healing as well, okay. So it's not, it's not a given that they'll have a God of healing.
[00:17:07] It's then not a given that they will build elaborate sanctuaries to that God. Okay, so this is another step of sort of cultural or societal choice that they're making. And once you make the choice that you want to have a sanctuary, that people who are ill, people who are disabled, people who are injured, that they can come here to seek healing. [00:17:28] Once you've made that decision, it's not a big leap to assume that the ancient Greeks would have considered what would make that effective to that purpose.
So in much the same way that the sanctuary of Zeus at Olympia, which hosted these huge athletic games every four years – and sort of original Olympics – had athletic facilities, right? [00:17:45] So it had gyms. It had places for people to stay who came for the games. It had all sorts of athletic facilities because they hosted the athletic games. Sanctuaries where they did ritual dining, where dining was a really important function of your ritual practice [00:18:00], they had dining rooms. Sanctuaries where water played an important element, were built near water sources, right?
[00:18:07] It's not, it's not sort of radical to think that if they built a sanctuary specifically intended to serve people with disabilities, that they would consider what would actually be effective for that purpose. It's more of a practical decision, um, than an ideological one.
So we tend to think about disability accommodations, ideologically, that we are this progressive society, that we care about people who are vulnerable, et cetera. [00:18:32] So we gray up to the privilege of accommodation, but for the Greeks, I think it was really just a practical choice.
Dr Rad
Yeah. I think looking at the literature and thinking about, as we said before, how, how much people must have either experienced disability themselves in varying ways, or have had close contact with someone who had a disability. [00:18:54] It seems that they – people with disabilities – must have been fairly [00:19:00] integrated into society. It's not like they were necessarily, you know, shunned or anything like that. And, as you say, I mean, you look at Philip the Second of Macedon, you look at the emperor Claudius, there were people of high status as well who had, um, various impairments. [00:19:13] Although we can't always be sure with Claudius exactly what the, you know, what was going on there. But yeah, there's definitely a level of integration and practicality to the fact that these people, they are still working and they are getting married and they still have families. Some of them need families in order to have someone to help look after them and to help them maneuver the world.
Dr G
[00:19:34] And this seems to run counter to, like, one of the big sort of assumptions that people make about ancient Greece, which is that they just abandoned children on the side of the road. And this is something that gets repeated a lot. And, and the assumption being that children who were born, who didn't fit the criteria of normalcy in ancient Greece would have been left to die. [00:19:56] And this would have reduced the percentage of people potentially with disability [00:20:00] in society at large.
I'm wondering if you could speak to that a little bit.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, I definitely can. I have an article coming out on this topic this year, actually in the journal Hesperia. Yeah. So it's interesting because if you open any textbook, if you Google the topic, you'll see very confidently stated that the ancient Greeks killed infants who were born with, [00:20:20] uh, noticeable physical deformities or disabilities. And this is based on, like almost no evidence, which is really interesting. It's, it's a myth, right?
So I present this in my article that I think that this is just a false, a false thing. And not only do the evidence that people put forth, does it not work to support this argument, but we also have a lot of evidence that argues against this, right? [00:20:43] That demonstrates people giving extraordinary care to infants who had more needs than other infants. So infants already require a great deal of care, right? So this is already, they need a lot of attention. They already need more care than an adult does, for example.
And [00:21:00] so. Um, you know, this is one of the things to keep in mind, right, this idea of sort of an intersectional approach to disability, that how old someone is really affects how they're regarded in terms of disability, right? So we don't expect adults to require a lot of care. And so somebody who does require a lot of care, deviates more from what's expected or what's typical, than an infant who already requires a lot of care and a disabled infant who might require a little bit more care.
[00:21:27] The gap between those things is much smaller than it would necessarily be for an adult, for example. Um, and so the evidence that people have for this practice of infanticide is, uh, primarily Plutarch, and Plutarch is a Roman author. And he says that the Spartan King Lycurgus instituted a law where parents brought their infants to a council of elders who evaluated the children and decided which ones should be raised and which ones should be killed.
[00:21:56] And it specifically mentioned that infants who are disabled are deformed as [00:22:00] specifically the word should be put out or exposed. Um, there's no other evidence for this practice. So we have a bunch of other sources closer to the time of Lycurgus, if he was even real. People like Xenaphon, who were talking about the Spartans, were discussing Spartan law who were specifically talking about Lycurgus and no one else mentions this law.
[00:22:20] So Plutarch is the only one. It’s very weak evidence, especially because Plutarch's starts his, his sort of biography of Lycurgus by saying, uh, something like concerning Lycurgus the law-giver there is, it's not possible to say something that is undisputed, right? And so, um, it's pretty shaky evidence to use.
[00:22:41] And then we also have a couple of prescriptions by Plato and Aristotle, the fourth century BCE philosophers, where they say that, um, they have these sort of utopian texts and they outline what their ideal society would look like. And both of them specifically mentioned disabled infants and about how they should either be sort of hidden away [00:23:00] or exposed.
[00:23:01] But these are utopian texts, right? Utopia is not real life. And so it just doesn't really work to use that. So, there's a modern philosopher named Peter Singer, who is probably one of the most famous philosophers and who is hated among the disability community, because he is similarly eugenicist in his thoughts, right.
[00:23:20] This idea that, um, we should just like, sort of erase disability if we could. Um, it would be like taking Peter Singer and using him as evidence for modern sort of American society, right. And saying like, “Oh look, this very famous philosopher thinks that this should happen. Therefore it was happening,” right. [00:23:38] When we know in reality, it's not happening.
Dr G
And indeed there's a lot of systems in place in order to facilitate the support of people, uh, who have a disability or an impairment of some kind. And so the idea that somehow to erase that out of existence, um, it's almost offensive at that point.
Dr Rad
And I think also looking at the [00:24:00] evidence, um, from the Roman world as well as the Greek world. And I think you kind of mentioned this as well, uh, in some of your other responses, uh, some of the disabilities that people suffered from were things that they didn't necessarily have at birth. So obviously, as you say, life was really tough in the ancient world. And so people developed forms of disability because they didn't have enough nutrition as children, or because they were forced to perform heavy labour from a very young age.
[00:24:29] People also get injured. People get hurt in battle. People age and, therefore, just develop disabilities. I mean, there, there are certain things that you couldn't erase, even if you wanted to at birth. You know, lots of these children were probably born healthy and then became disabled or impaired later on.
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:24:48] Yeah, definitely. And we have plenty of evidence even for disabled infants. So there are medical texts, there's one Hippocratic treatise, uh, data to the late fifth or fourth century BCE, it's called On Joints. [00:25:00] And that author talks about a few things. He talks, for example, about infants who were born with clubfoot and, uh, this is a very common. [00:25:07] Very common. It's not an uncommon disability or impairment, sort of congenital impairment in the modern period. Um, and he has lengthy treatments that he outlines for how to, and he says, you know, it's not a problem, right. And he outlines the treatment for clubfoot, how you can sort of correct it. And regardless he says, there are special shoes that people with this can use that provide additional support to that foot.
[00:25:30] He talks about infants who were born with what he calls a weasel arms. Um, so I don't know if you've seen a weasel, they'd have very short arms relative to their body size. And so this is infants who are born with something like a shrunken arm. It could be any number of conditions, right. And he says, it's no problem.
[00:25:46] He said, he lists the tools that these people can use when they grow older. Um, he says they perform equally well sometimes. Almost as well with their sort of affected arm as they do with their unaffected arm. He [00:26:00] explicitly says, this is no problem whatsoever for people who are born with this congenital deformity.
[00:26:06] Um, we have things like these feeding models from the ancient Greek world. There are these really cute little cups that are sort of small. They’re kind of globular with a handle on one side and then a really narrow spout coming out of it. And there's a lot of, um, a lot of speculation about what these cups are used for.
[00:26:23] And, in my article, I discuss what I think is convincingly that these cups were used to assist infants who were born with things like cleft palate, other oral facial deformities, um, or were just who were just so sick, um, or weak that they couldn't suckle, right, at the breast. And so these are active accommodations for infants who required additional care.
Breastfeeding was the norm. [00:26:49] And so I think that these cups provided additional levels of support for infants who needed it, right.
Dr Rad
Yeah. Well, I think it's, I think it is just so fascinating that [00:27:00] once you start looking, you just, you just find all these pieces of evidence that I had no idea until I started thinking about it, just how much there actually was.
[00:27:10] And, um, I was looking at some evidence for Rome about some four skeletons that were found near the Via Collatina. And the fact that these, uh, you know, three out of the four people in this particular burial site had had the care of a burial, and like not a flash one, and you know, it wasn't amazing, but some of these people had extraordinary issues to deal with, you know, some spine curvatures.
And one of the skeletons [00:27:36] was a woman who only had one tooth. And she must have had someone helping her or looking after her in some way. And then someone who saw to her burial. Um, and so it's just, it's just so fascinating that when you start looking for the evidence, these various pieces come out of the woodwork.
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:27:52] Yeah, it's an interesting phenomenon, uh, even in the modern period. So I think it's very difficult to find, for example, a novel, any [00:28:00] novel, just pick up something and read it and not find disability in there, right? So a lot of people, if you challenge them, they say, you know, well, disability just doesn't show up in things.
[00:28:10] If you challenge them to think about their favourite movie or their favourite book, right, it starts to become apparent that there's disability everywhere. And the same is true in the ancient world. I don't think that I have come across a single genre of literature where disability does not feature – sometimes quite prominently – in the ancient world.
[00:28:27] There's even a type of poetry that is disabled in the sense that, um, it's called choliambic verse, and that's a “limping” verse. So the word “choliambic” comes from the word χωλός in Greek, which means “lame” or “limping”. So where that's often applied to Hephaestus, for example. And so it has to do with the type of meter.
[00:28:47] And it was actually referred to in the ancient world as this kind of “limping meter” because of the way that it was so heavy across the page, right. And so you see it everywhere and it's in the archaeological evidence, it's in the literary evidence, it’s in the iconographical evidence. It's everywhere.
[00:29:01] And so, the next question becomes, well, if the evidence is everywhere, why hasn't other – why haven’t other people – talked about this, right? And I think that that has to do with, just sort of the, the modern makeup of the field. So who are scholars? What is acceptable to study in the ancient world?
This is why, sort of, as a part of sort of an adjunct of my work [00:29:23], um, I tried to get more people with disabilities involved in the study of classics, in the study of archaeology. And part of that is doing things like this podcast, right? Trying to tell people: this is a thing. You're allowed to study it. You're allowed to ask questions about it. You're allowed to look for evidence for it.
[00:29:40] Um, this is a perfectly acceptable field of study because, you're right, the evidence is everywhere.
Dr G
Yeah, and I think from the reading that I've been doing around this subject, in the lead up to this conversation, um, it seems that, like, part of what has been a real boon to this kind of study is the ability for us to use [00:30:00] searchable databases and being able to do keyword searches and [00:30:05] trying to draw out, um, the way in which ancient languages talk about disability and impairment, and then trying to filter that through the systems that we now have for being able to look at evidence. Because one of the things that tends to happen to students when you're going through the standard model for being taught classics and ancient history is you're given a text and you have to read it quite closely.
[00:30:29] But actually what we're looking for is really broad – and maybe really quite slim – mentions of things about everyday life, which, for a lot of people, they're not reading the right texts or they're coming into contact with myth and higher literature, but they're not coming into contact with things that might give them a sense of the every day.
[00:30:48] And, I think that element of the way that we study history is actually changing the nature of the sorts of things that we can get out of it as well.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, definitely. But even [00:31:00] that has limitations, right? So when you form a database, I think specifically, for example, if the Beasley Archive – the pottery database that you can find online and sort of search the corpus of Greek vase painting – one of the things that's really difficult is the search terms that are available are the ones that the creators of the database decided were relevant.
[00:31:19] So, for example, you can't search for crutches. “Crutch” is not an acceptable search term. And so you have to think of synonyms that other people might have used in order to categorize these objects. And so it makes it really difficult sometimes to use those databases because they're created by people and it depends on what they thought was relevant in their creation of that database.
Dr Rad
[00:31:43] I actually think that's quite interesting. Just thinking about the, as you said, the vase painting and the artistic representations, because when I was doing a bit of reading about Greece and Rome, it seems that that might be one of the areas of difference with these two societies. In that, whilst the Romans do certainly have, [00:32:00] obviously, you know, you can look at the bodies from Pompeii and Herculaneum and you know, there are skeletons, and you can also look at textual references to various types of impairments. [00:32:09] Uh, when it comes to artistic representation, the Romans tend to be quite realistic with someone's face, but then have quite idealized bodies. Whereas, I believe, if you look at the Greek record, there are, I think it's a bit more common to have artistic representations of disabilities due to the kind that you study with like the lower limbs and that kind of thing.
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:32:31] Um, I think it depends. So, um, there's some really great studies on this. So Lisa Trentin, for example, has a book on hunchbacks and Hellenistic and Roman art. It's really interesting. There is Véronique Dasen, who has a book on dwarves in Egypt and Greece, but she talks a little bit about what would be sort of more Hellenistic depictions of dwarves.
[00:32:51] And I guess you're right.. But the Greeks have their own idealizations. So if you look at Greek statues, we have a very, idealized version. And a [00:33:00] lot of vase painting, um, is similarly idealized, but I think you're right that the vase painting as a specific medium offers opportunities for visualization, that we just don't see in Rome. [00:33:11] Um, so we do see a lot of depictions of things like that.
One of my favourites is, uh, this little vase by what's called the Clinic Painter. So I actually had a reproduction of this vase made when I finished my PhD –
Dr Rad
Oh amazing!
Dr Debby Sneed
– Uh, yeah, it was in the ancient Corinth, there was an artist in who does sort of reproductions. [00:33:29] And so I commissioned him to make one. It shows what's traditionally interpreted as a doctor's clinic, which is why this artist is called the Clinic Painter, and it has a bunch of men on it. Some of them are being, uh, sort of, you know, given treatments by a doctor who’s seated. But then there's also this really weird scene of a man, an adult man, he's bearded, he's standing, he's clothed, he's leaning on his staff and he's in a sort of romantic pose with another figure [00:33:54] who's a dwarf, a little person. He was also an adult man, and it's in a sort of [00:34:00] courtship pose. But we have some issues. I don't know how to interpret this vase at all. I just like looking at it because it just is so interesting the way that this gets depicted as a sort of courtship scene in this otherwise doctor's office, right. [00:34:13] It's just sort of a really weird scene.
Dr Rad
That does sound very interesting and confusing.
Dr G
It sounds like it's got a lot of potential for interpretation. This might drive your research until you can find a way into what is the interpretation of the scene.
Dr Rad
And well it actually, has actually raised one of my, one of my other questions that came up when I was looking at some research.
[00:34:33] So I know that in some of the Roman depictions that we do have of people with disabilities, it seems as though – although we can obviously never be sure with artistic representation – it seems as though some of the artwork we do have, which shows people with the kinds of impairments that might be intended to shock or even make people laugh.
[00:34:55] And certainly one of the most famous texts about someone with very well-known [00:35:00] disabilities is, of course, Seneca's work about the emperor. Claudius. And how he's made fun of when he tries to join the rest of the gods after his death. Can you speak at all to the way that people might be treated cruelly or might be made the butt of jokes [00:35:15] if they have some sort of impairment in the ancient world?
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, definitely. And you will definitely see more of that in Rome. So the way that disability in Greece versus Rome is treated is very different. And I don't think, um, I personally don't think that it's useful to discuss them together except comparatively. In Rome you see a lot of what I would call fetishization of disability.
[00:35:36] So it is treated, uh, with shock with awe, uh, I mean that sexually as well. So it was sort of sexual fetishization as well. Um, we have stories about, uh, Uh, what is it called? Like a monster market, right? Where slaves with physical disabilities would bring a higher price. Right, so we have all of this in Rome in a way that I just find, [00:36:00] so, um, I don't know how to word it. So different than what we see in Greece.
So in Greece, people get made fun of for things all the time, right. But disability doesn't seem to be a category. So an individual might be made fun of, for aspects of his physical appearance. We can think of all this sympotic poetry where people are, uh, making fun of each other for being ugly or, you know, having sort of non-ideal bodies, et cetera.
[00:36:24] But in Rome, it's just a completely different beast, where it's just something that ends up being the focus. And then other things are sort of put on top of that, right. So the sort of physical disability is used in a way to explain other aspects of somebody's personality or character, which is what I think you have going on in things like Seneca. That the disability is used almost metaphorically to refer to other aspects. This is why Claudius so difficult is because it's hard to separate what is the real – whatever is actually real – um, with the sort of metaphoric uses of disability in Roman literature.
Dr Rad
[00:36:59] Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. There is an element, uh, that seems to be coming through, um, philosophical works like from the Stoics where you wouldn't necessarily make fun of someone just because they have an impairment. But if that impairment is the result of “bad choices” and a “disreputable lifestyle”, then it's open season.
[00:37:20] And Claudius, of course, with his wives and freedmen and his love of drink and food and all that kind of stuff. It's his lifestyle, which they seem to be having a problem with. And so he's kind of fair game.
Dr G
But it's certainly the case that in ancient Rome, they sort of see an intimate connection between the physicality of the person and the character of the person.
Dr Rad
[00:37:40] Definitely.
Dr G
And that, and it sounds to me, Debby, that what you're saying is that this union is less the case when we're looking at ancient Greek evidence.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, of course it's not absent entirely, but it is very different the way that disability is treated. We see a lot of different ways. So, you know, it's not irrelevant that one of the twelve Olympian [00:38:00] gods, Hephaestus, is disabled in ancient Greece, so that when he gets to Rome, when he's Vulcan, his disability is almost entirely erased.
[00:38:07] You know, I think Greece has just a very different situation. They're treating things differently. Their culture is different, right. This is that sort of contingency of disability. And this is, this is why – so a lot of people will think about disability in the past, and they just sort of lump everything in the pre-modern period together. [00:38:22] That life was hard, therefore, it must've been harder for people with disabilities. There's this kind of – we think that people with disabilities don't have any inherent value. And that they're only given value in a modern society, where we’re rich enough to afford, and we've got these high moral values that will grant, you know, rights to people with disabilities.
[00:38:42] So we just assume that if you were to rewind the clock, that that wouldn't be the case in the past, but in fact, it's not necessarily, not the case. It's not necessarily the case. It's just a different situation and deserves its own treatment. And so some of our earliest studies of disability in the ancient period in the ancient [00:39:00] Mediterranean sort of looked at sort of the Greco-Roman understanding of disability.
[00:39:04] But I think that if you were to distinguish them, I think it would be an excellent case study for how exactly the Greeks Romans are different. It would be a great way of explaining the differences in the cultures so that people stopped just eliding them into the same thing.
Dr Rad
That's true. I mean, I actually hadn't, again, I'd never really stopped to think about this before, but the Roman naming system where they got, you know, the, the three barrel name, at least, sometimes more.
[00:39:28] I never stopped to think about the fact, even though we often talk about the meaning of some of those names, um, how many of them actually refer to some sort of physical defect. Apparently 44% of Roman cognominia refer to physical defects of some kind, which is just amazing. And it's built right into, you know, their naming system.
[00:39:49] It just blew my mind when I saw exactly how high that was.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah. It's really just such an interesting part of the Roman conception of disability, how it's just sort of there [00:40:00] and ever present and can be used in this way. It's one of the reasons that I actually really struggle to talk about disability in Rome is because I feel like [00:40:09], uh, it just requires such an intimate knowledge of Roman society. One that I just don't have coming from the Greek, like studying the Greek world. That even though I know a lot about disability and how to study disability, um, just looking at statistics like that, looking at the stories that we have, looking at figures like Claudius, it just makes it so difficult to understand, unless you can situate it appropriately in the context of Roman history.
[00:40:34] I don't think that the same person can do both, if that makes sense.
Dr Rad
No, I completely hear you in terms of the level of expertise that must be required. So let's bring it back to ancient Greece as we move towards the end. Just before we finish up, I'd love to hear about some of the particular bodies or cases that you have looked at in your career.
[00:40:53] Can you tell us about some of the most interesting cases that you've come across?
Dr Debby Sneed
Definitely. The one that I love. You know, I [00:41:00] don't have answers for a lot of these figures that I'd bring up. I'm still struggling with exactly how to situate them. But one of my favourites is the speaker. We don't have his name, but he's a speaker and a law court speech by the orator Lysius. Lysius is a very well-known logographer, I guess, from the fourth century BCE, he wrote speeches for people.
[00:41:20] He was a metic, so he was a sort of a resident of Athens, but not a citizen. And, so he wrote speeches for other people. And in one of them, it is for a man who has been accused of welfare fraud, essentially. So Athens had a pension system for people with disabilities. And what's interesting about this pension system is that it wasn't just for people with disabilities.
[00:41:44] It was for people who were so disabled that they couldn't work, which does a couple of things. First of all, it presumes that there are people with disabilities who could work, right? Who could. Perform and, you know, perform within the sort of labour market bringing enough money.
[00:42:00] And so we have this guy who has been accused of receiving it fraudulently. And so this speech is his defense and what's interesting is that he's disabled. He talks about how he walks with two crutches. And so the argument isn't that he's not disabled, it's that he's lying about his financial need. And so, you just get this really great characterization of somebody, sort of in his own words, quote unquote, it was written by Lysias, right.
[00:42:26] So it's kind of hard to say whose words we have here. And there are a lot of open questions about this speech. But you get this great characterization of somebody who is disabled and we get a great understanding of what disability might have meant. He talks about how, you know, yes, he owns a shop.
[00:42:43] So he doesn't tell us what kind of business this shop is, which is one of the big questions, right? It seems a little shady that he's not telling us what his business is. But he says, you know, but it's not enough money to bring anyone in. He says, I don't have a slave to help me with my work. I don't have children who can care for me in my old age.
[00:42:59] And I'm just getting older. So my disabilities are compounding. And he talks about all of this. He talks about how, you know, he has to borrow other people's horses to get around. So when his distances are too great for his crutches to take him there, you know, he has to take a sort of equine transport in order to do it.
[00:43:16] Um, so it's just this really great speech. And I think that it is Lysias 24, if anyone wants to read it. It's such a great way to start thinking about this topic of disability in ancient Greece, because this is probably the closest that we get hearing the words of somebody who identifies as disabled.
Dr G
[00:43:34] Mmm, I think this is a fascinating piece of evidence actually. And the fact that we can glean from this, that there is, uh, a system set up of support, uh, for people who fall within a particular category of disability as well, I think is fascinating. And speaks to something really particular about the structure of ancient Greek society that, perhaps a lot of people coming to the ancient world [00:44:00] and haven't considered at all.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, and I mean, this is specifically Athens, right. We can't say what anyone else would have thought about this exactly. And we have it in other evidence. So we know that at least this man was eligible for it. Uh, he has some sort of mobility impairment.
[00:44:14] We have another speech, um, by, I forget who right now, but we have another speech where somebody is blind. And receives the payments, right? So he's an older man who is blind and the payment is also listed in The Athenian Constitution that sort of pseudo-Aristotelian text, uh, sometimes referred to as the AthPol, it's a abbreviation, a reference to this pension.
[00:44:38] So it's pretty secure, right, that this is a real thing, uh, that at least in the fourth century, there was this pension system. Not charity exactly. I mean, there's some really great work by Matthew Dillon on this, I think, where he talks about how, you know, it's not specifically, uh, it's not charity, right. It's an attempt to avoid patronage in Athens, [00:45:00] right. To prevent people with disabilities who couldn't work from relying on the financial support of an individual and therefore developing a sort of allegiance to that individual instead feeling allied to the state.
Dr Rad
Absolutely. So we're getting towards the end of our time. [00:45:15] But before we finish up, I thought I would like to give you a chance to talk a little bit about some of the difficulties of this area of study. Obviously, I'm sure you face the usual problems, so, you know, not having enough source material, you know, you obviously love to have more always from the ancient world. But I imagine that looking at this particular area, there's also issues with, um, you know, sensitive language and that sort of thing as well.
[00:45:40] So would you care to speak to some of the difficulties that you've encountered in this particular area?
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, definitely. So, uh, in terms of source material, I actually think that there's a lot. Especially relative to some of the other, uh, topics that you can study in the ancient world. I think that there's a lot of evidence for disability. I, in fact, I find it almost too much to grapple with, and I hope that [00:46:00], sort of, future directions of this study, um, I sort of try to grapple with all of it together and try to reconcile the different pictures that we get from different kinds of evidence. Um, but what I would like is, what I prefer is, if people who are specialized in these different areas, in ancient warfare, in ancient children and childhood, et cetera, actually looked at disability in a theoretically engaged way, so that we have specialists [00:46:24] on these different topics, actually looking at the topic in a sensitive way.
The use of language is a difficult one. Um, you know, even if you just look at my dissertation, two recent articles to the way I discuss now, right. My terminology has changed. And part of that is, as I learned more, but part of it is also just that language is constantly developing.
[00:46:45] So “able-bodied” was a term that I think was preferred, you know, even a few years ago, but now the term for somebody who is not disabled, the preferred term is “non-disabled”, right. And so, you know, you do want to be sensitive? Uh, you'll find plenty of evidence in the [00:47:00] scholarship of people not being sensitive to terminology.
[00:47:03] So it can actually be very difficult to read some of the work on disability in the ancient Greek world. Um, because you could read a lot of, sort of ableist bias into the way that people discuss it. Um, but one of the most difficult things that I find about this subject has nothing to do with the ancient world, but actually all to do with the modern world.
[00:47:20] I get a lot of pushback on this topic. A lot of skepticism. And what's interesting about it is that the skepticism that I receive is not based in evidence, it's based on people's impressions. They just don't believe that people with disabilities in ancient Greece could have been treated with anything except disgust or disdain or pity.
[00:47:41] And so it's really difficult to convince people even based directly in the evidence that that is not the case. So when people bring up Sparta, for example, and about how, you know, Spartans had no place in their society for somebody who is disabled. And I say, well, we have this fourth century BCE [00:48:00] King Agesilaus, the Second, who is disabled.
[00:48:03] And they just excuse that example. I'm like, okay, well, I mean, there's a Spartan who was disabled, so, okay. And so the more that you bring up examples, they all get explained away as opposed to, uh, just sort of reconciling them and accepting that this is a feature and then questioning from there, what that means.
[00:48:23] So a good example is the ramps. You know, there are eleven at this healing sanctuary, whether it's a regional phenomenon is irrelevant. You still have to explain why there are eleven ramps at this one sanctuary when other ones have no ramps or just one ramp.
So you have to explain these things, but I find it really difficult to [00:48:44], sort of, get over people's initial inclination to reject the idea.
Dr Rad
Yeah, no, look, I must admit doing reading for this, I'm very grateful to have had you on the show. Not just because you've been wonderful to talk to, but it encouraged me to do reading that I wouldn't have [00:49:00] otherwise done. And a lot of the time I was looking at material that I've encountered before, like looking at the remains from Pompeii and Herculaneum, thinking about people like Claudius, thinking about, you know, philosophers like Seneca, looking at people like, you know, Philip of Macedon, and even the Twelve Tables.
[00:49:17] We've actually just done an episode on the Twelve Tables, where we had mentioned the fact that they built into that law code in Rome, the fact that if people couldn't physically get to the court, there had to be provision for them to be carried there. And I'd never stopped to think about it. And I've never really stopped to think about just how much evidence there really was in this world for people who had a variety of conditions [00:49:41], which would have made life different for them in some way.
So I am so grateful to have had you on the show to discuss this topic.
Dr G
And I think it's very revealing as well in terms of – just to jump in with a little piece of evidence that I quite like that I've encountered through this. Because one of the areas that I'm very interested in is the [00:50:00] rise of Augustus.
[00:50:00] And he institutes this law of the three children and we get a whole commentary from Ulpian on this, about what constitutes “the three children”. And it seems that at law, the decision is made that – even if the child is considered “monstrous”, and so we're not sure to what extent that means in terms of disability, but it seems like there's some sort of birth deformity at play [00:50:25] – that the mother is not to be held responsible for this and the child still counts towards the three in the eyes of the law. And that's just a little aspect of a much bigger part of history that is part of my studies that I am now thinking about because of these kinds of discussions that are happening.
[00:50:44] So I think the work that you're doing, Debby, is really important and significant for the way we approach evidence in the ancient world, across the board.
Dr Rad
And of course, Dr. G, is a Vestal fanatic. And of course, to be a Vestal at this time –
Dr G
Oh yes!
Dr Rad
as well, you [00:51:00] also have to have –
Dr G
You have to have no speech impediment to be a Vestal Virgin.
[00:51:04] That is one of the core tenants. Um, young women would not get chosen for the role if they had a speech impediment.
Dr Debby Sneed
Yeah, definitely, right. So religious ritual is all about repeating things in the exact appropriate way. Uh, so this is something that, um, it's not really surprising, I guess, about the Vestal Virgins and the Ulpian thing is really interesting.
[00:51:22] One of the things that is great, and that makes it difficult to study this, especially – I'm a non-disabled person, uh, which is a really important thing to bring up and I should have brought it up sooner, um, because I'm studying this as a non-disabled person.
Um, and I would like it if I was not the one, right [00:51:41], who was sort of doing this work. You know, I hope that we can get more people with disabilities involved in research, doing this research, asking these questions because, um, you know, we've known about the ramps. So back to the ramps. We've known about these forever, right?
However long we could have known that there were ramps. We've known [00:52:00] that there were ramps at some of these sanctuaries. But I think that non-disabled people, so, which includes many archaeologists, right, we sort of take for granted aspects of mobility. We don't ask how people get into buildings because we never consciously think about it. We just walk into them.
[00:52:16] Whatever's there we use. If there are stairs, we use stairs. If there is a ramp, we use a ramp. If the stairs are really tall, we just use them, right. So we just don't really think about it. And I think that if we had had more people with disabilities involved in some of these studies, I think that the question would have been asked a lot sooner.
[00:52:34] And, um, just because, you know, it's just something that people with mobility impairments are consciously aware of. And so even if disability is not the answer, it's worth asking the question and it's just something that we don't get, right. When you have only one type of person asking questions.
And this is one of – there's this really great interpretation of Oedipus.
[00:52:56] So Oedpius, the King of Thebes. So, you know, very [00:53:00] famously killed his father and married his mother. And he also solves the riddle of the Sphinx. And the riddle of the Sphinx is, you know, “what walks on four legs in the morning, two legs at midday and three legs in the evening?” And it's of course humans.
[00:53:15] So, you know, crawling as an infant, walking on two legs and then when you're an adult, and then using three legs, so two legs, plus a crutch or a cane, in old age. And there's one really interesting suggestion by David Mitchell and Sharon Snyder, who are both disability studies scholars, that Oedipus is able to answer this question because he has a mobility impairment, because when his parents sort of exposed him at birth in order to avoid his fulfillment of this prophecy, that they actually intentionally mutilated him.
[00:53:46] So they had his heels, sort of, clipped or something like that. And that, because he has this mobility impairment, when he reaches the riddle of the Sphinx, this riddle that nobody before had ever been able to answer, right. That he was uniquely [00:54:00] situated to answer that question because he was uniquely positioned to think about mobility constantly.
[00:54:06] And so, I think that this is a really important thing, is, based on, not just my non-disabled status, but based on all other aspects of my identity, I individually have limited in the kinds of things that I can come up with. The questions that I can ask the interpretations that I can come up with.
And so, one of the challenges that I have is that there just aren't people asking these questions. And so, uh, we just need a lot more people asking them and thinking about them and offering solutions, not just disabled people, right. So they don't have, it's not like these are their ancestors or something like that, but they just have this other perspective that just hasn't really been sort of appreciated in an academic context.
Dr Rad
[00:54:35] No, I think you're absolutely right. As I say, my experience is extremely limited. And as I say, I consider myself to be an extremely fortunate human being, but certainly the way that I interact with the world and things that I'm aware of, that other people aren't aware of, because I've become extremely hard of hearing.
It's really changed particularly over the last ten years. Yet, you know, just things like going out to restaurants and also I'm a teacher. [00:55:00] The kinds of rooms that I can teach in effectively. I become much more aware of sound qualities and various things like that than other people are just because I struggled so much more to understand people, even with hearing aids.
[00:55:13] Um, and it does, it does allow me to say a little bit of what you're talking about, in that, unless you've got that lived experience, you sometimes won't think of certain angles of investigations.
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:55:25] And this is true of other things as well. I don't know if this is true, but I read something about, sort of this, uh, neolithic or paleolithic find that somebody found a bone and it had notches on it.
[00:55:38] So something like twenty-eight notches on it. And there were all of these interpretations about what these notches meant: why twenty-eight, you know, et cetera, et cetera. And it was a bunch of men asking the question. And that none of them had considered, of course, menstrual cycles, right, and whether that could be a relevant interpretation, because why would they think of menstruation being twenty-eight days?
[00:56:00] And so it's just demonstrates like the importance of being like, well, here's a suggestion, right? From somebody who has a lived experience of something it's not going to mean, it's not that a man could never have come up with that. It's just, it's not going to be at the forefront of their mind.
[00:56:18] And it's going to take a lot more work for them to consciously think about something. Whereas for a woman, you might more naturally think of this interpretation.
Dr G
On that note, I'm wondering if there are any scholars that you're aware of who are working in this field, who are bringing their disability to their study of the ancient world, [00:56:39] we might also consider and consult. And when we're thinking about this topic in the future.
Dr Debby Sneed
[00:56:44] I don't personally, so. There are some, right. A lot of graduate students. For example, I have a [00:56:50] colleague Mason Schrader, who's currently a graduate student at Texas Tech, who is disabled and he's working in classical archaeology.
[00:56:56] Um, and I have an article co-authored with him that will be coming out hopefully next year about disability and archaeology and how to make our field schools more accessible. And there's this really great group called Crip Antiquity. You can look them up on Twitter, but also they have a website, and it is a collective of people with disabilities and also allies of people with disabilities working in classical antiquity.
[00:57:20] And so if you're specifically looking for somebody, that's what I would recommend that you start is with the group Crip Antiquity. To look at the work that they're doing, the advocacy that they're doing, and suggestions that they have specifically for this. But, you know, there are some great books. Um, I just, I don't know, for example, so you're looking for a book length study on this Martha L Roses, The Staff of Oedipus: Transforming Disability in ancient Greece is where I would start.
[00:57:44] You know, I have my dissertation, but if you're looking for an actual book, The Staff of Oedipus is where I would start. I think it's a very sensitive, it's a theoretically engaged study of the subject. She looks at a very limited range of disabilities. She looks at, uh, stuttering, deafness [00:58:00], muteness, and blindness, I think is what she limits her study to, you know. But I think it's a really fantastic place to start. [00:58:08] Her bibliography is really solid. Um, but then there are a lot of article length treatments of this subject as well. Of course my article on ramps, my article soon coming out this year on disability and infanticide. And hopefully, uh, whenever I finish my book, I will recommend that one.
Dr Rad
Oh, we'll have to have you back on once you have finished your book. [00:58:27] Because I mean, as I say, you've just opened my mind to all these things, which I've seen before. I mean, Everything from Tutankhamun to the stories of Jesus healing, people in the Bible. I'm just like, “Oh my god, I can't believe I've never thought about this before!” So you've definitely opened up our mind to, to looking at the sources in a completely different way.
[00:58:42] Um, if people do want to access your work, what's the best way to follow you and what you're, what you're up to?
Dr Debby Sneed
Probably on Twitter. Yeah, so I have a Twitter. I, you know, I don't know if I'll have it forever, but right now that's a great place to find me. I'm @debscavator D E B S C A V A T O R.
A great way to follow me is on Twitter. [00:59:02] I post about the work that I'm doing, but anyone who's looking to study this topic in addition to Crip Antiquity, there's also Christian Laes. I think that's how you say his last name. He actually maintains a bibliography on disability history in the ancient world, which is limited, uh, which has sort of 3000 BCE to 700 CE and the ancient world confined mostly to the Mediterranean, but broadly [00:59:27] defined within the ancient Mediterranean. So looking at disability in the Bible, disability and Judaic and Islamic, early Islamic context, right; in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. And I think at present, it is seventy-one pages long of articles and books, uh, just, and you can find that online, if you just Google the website is Disability History and the Ancient World.
[00:59:52] Um, and you'll find this entire bibliography that he updates on a regular basis is constantly taking suggestions for it. Um, so anybody looking to study this, this is a great place to start. Even if the bibliography is kind of difficultly organized.
Dr G
Oh, fantastic. Well, thank you so much for coming and chatting with us. [01:00:12] We really appreciate it.
Dr Debby Sneed
[01:00:14] No this has been really great. You know, I'm always happy to talk about this work. So thank you for having me and giving me the opportunity to sort of spread the idea of disability and lead ancient world questions that people can be asking and hopefully to encourage people to consider these in their own studies, to return to familiar things that they've read from the ancient world or vases that they've seen or [01:00:31] Sites that they've visited and consider what they might have overlooked.
Dr Rad
[01:00:54] Thank you for listening to this special episode of The Partial Historians. And of course, if you're one of our patrons and you've got to listen to it a little bit before everyone else. If you're keen to also get early access to all of our bonus content, then please subscribe and become a Patreon. We really value your support. It helps keep the show going.
Philip II of Macedon had his right eye surgically removed after sustaining an injury. This artwork imagines what he may have looked like after the injury. Image courtesy of panaiotis.deviantart.com
Our Sources
Below are materials recommended by Dr Sneed during the episode or sources that we consulted in preparation for the interview.
Dasen, V. Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Dillon, M. ‘Legal (and Customary?) Approaches to the Disabled in Ancient Greece.’ In Disability in Antiquity, ed. Christian Laes, 167-181. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Fischer, J. ‘Behinderung und Gesellschaft im klassischen Athen. Bemerkungen zur 24. Rede des Lysias.’ In ed. Rupert Breitwieser, Behinderungen und Beeintraechtigungen/Disability and Impairment in Antiquity. British Archaeological Reports, 2012.
Gaveart, B. ‘Perfect Roman bodies.’ In Disability in Antiquity, ed. Christian Laes, 213-221. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Laes, C. Disabilities and the disabled in the Roman world: a social and cultural history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Mitchell, D. T.; Snyder, S. L. Narrative Prosthesis: Disability and the Dependencies of Discourse. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000
Pudsey, A. ‘Disability and infirmitas in the ancient world.’ In Disability in Antiquity, ed. Christian Laes, 22-34. New York: Routledge, 2017.
Rose, M. L. The Staff of Oedipus: Transforming Disability in Ancient Greece. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003
Sneed, D. ‘The architecture of access: ramps at ancient Greek healing sanctuaries.’ Antiquity 94, 376 (2020), 1015-1029.
Trentin, L. The hunchback in Hellenistic and Roman art. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015
Trentin, L. ‘The ‘other’ Romans.’ In Disability in Antiquity, ed. Christian Laes, 233-247. New York: Routledge, 2017.
If you are interested in exploring this topic in greater depth, you may want to consult this bibliography on disability in antiquity that is primarily curated by Christian Laes
It's our second episode in The Partial Recap series. This is a short, sharp, scripted overview of all the big events that defined the 450s BCE. If you're inspired to delve into more details, all the episodes from this decade can be found in our Foundation of Rome series.
Let's jump into the refresher! It's the Partial Recap of the 450s BCE!
The Partial Recap – the 450s BCE
A view to the East over the Roman Forum with the Temple of Saturn on the left and the Palatine Hill on the right, showing the Temple of Castor and Pollux, the Arch of Titus, Santa Francesca Romana, and the Colosseum. Detail from the photograph by Nicholas Hartmann, June 1976. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons. Used under license.
TranscriptIntroduction
FR – Welcome to the Partial Recap for the 450s BC!
PG – I’m Dr G
FR – and I’m Dr Rad
PG – and this is our highlights edition of the 450s in Rome. We’ll take you through from 459 to 450 in an epitome of our normal episodes.
FR – Perfect for those mornings when you don’t want some lengthy rhetoric with your coffee
PG – Get ready for a recappuccino.
459 BCE
In 459 BCE, the consuls were Lucius Cornelius Maluginensus Uritnus and Quinctus Fabius Vibulanus, an old-hand in his third consulship.
Rome is picking up the pieces after the recent invasion. A census is carried out. Rome has 117 319 citizens. Lustral sacrifices are needed to cleanse the city.
Livy and Dionysius don’t really agree on the exact course of events. Perhaps Rome is trying to restore its rep after the military humiliation of the previous year?
What seems clear from both accounts is that the Volscians and Aequians are up to something and the Romans set off to deal with it.
They are particularly keen to help out the Tusculans who are under attack from the Aequains – or is this just a method for the Romans to restore their reputation after the invasion.
Under Fabius, the Romans defeat the Aequians decisively.
The consuls meet up and target the lands of both the Volscians and the Aequians.
Antium, in Volscian territory, is a particular hotspot. It seems like there is a revolt going on in this territory, only recently captured by the Romans. After a messy battle, Antium is retaken and some locals and colonists are publicly scourged and beheaded. Now there’s an example no one will want to follow.
Back at home, there is agitation for the law about the laws, but the Prefect of the City, Lucius Lucretius Tricipitinus, says that nothing can take place when consuls are away.
The quaestors, Aulus Cornelius & Quintus Servilius, try to pursue Volscius for the charge of committing perjury about Caeso Quinctius being responsible for his brother’s murder – and it seems like they have a genuine case. The tribunes hold them off – after all, the consuls are away, right?
Once the consuls return, it’s triumph time! Almost as though the invasion of 460 never happened…
458 BCE
In 458 BCE, the consuls were Lucius Minucius Esquilinus Augurinus and Caius Nautius was consul for the second time.
Rome is facing war on many fronts, so both of the consuls are need out in the field.
Ex-consul, Quinctius Fabius Vibulanus, is made Prefect of the City – probably to keep an eye on the tribunes as well as the enemies of Rome.
The exact order of events is different in Livy and Dionysius, but external wars constitute the main events of the year.
The Aequians are back in action in spite of making peace the year before. The Aequians feel that they are not violating the deal as they are attacking the Latins – Rome’s allies, not Rome itself.
The Romans send an embassy to talk to the Aequian’s leader, Cloelius Gracchus, Quinctius Fabius Vibulanus, Publius Volumnius Amintinus Gallus and Aulus Postumius Albus Regillensis
Cloelius tells the distinguished ROmans to talk to the tree, because he ain’t listening
And it’s on like Donkey Kong
Minucius does not take a bold approach against the Aequian forces, which gives them confidence. Nautius has to be sent for as back-up.
The tribunes pull their classic move of trying to prevent the levy of forces, and they almost won, but the Sabines then attack ROman territory, terrifying everyone.
Nautius enjoys success against the Sabines, before being summoned by Minucius.
However, they are going to need more help. What they need is a silver fox with enough virtus to choke an elephant. They need a dictator and they need Cincinnatus, father of the exiled Caeso.
At least, the patricians do – they plebs aren’t thrilled at first.
Cincinnatus whips the citizens into action and devises a strategy that wins the day against the Aequians. Cincinnatus demands the city of Corbio and Gracchus is brought to him in chains – YOU talk to the tree, smart-ass!
Cincinnatus is now free to rescue the Tusculans.
Minunius steps down from the consulship but remains in Cincinnatus’ service – he’s just so amazing! The army is in the best shape ever and all because of him. He is awarded an elaborate gift and a triumph.
Because he is Cincinnatus, he is prepared to give up his power now that the external threat has passed…. But only after he finishes the case against his son’s accuser, the tribune Volscius.
Between Cincinnatus and the Quaestors Marcus Valerius Volusi Maximus and Titus Quintius Capitolinus Barbatus, Volscius is found guilty and exiled.
Cincinnatus can now return to his life as a private citizen on his farm.
457 BCE
In 457 BCE, the consuls were Quintus Minucius Esquilinus and Marcus Horatius Pulvilius in his second consulship.
In this year, the Sabines become a problem once more, attacking ROman territory.
The tribunes are undeterred, demanding the codification of the laws. Give us the law!
The consuls want to ignore this issue and conduct the levy.
Cincinnatus shames people into enlisting by making appeals to ROman masculinity and pride – if no one fights, the ROmans will lose their empire! The patricians will fight – but will the plebs?
An assembly is called, and the consul Horatius openly admits that the patricians will not give up their privileges. He brings out the old patricians to shame the plebeians and again questions their masculinity.
The tribune Verginius counters as he can see the crowd is being affected by these theatrics. No one is betraying anyone here – they just want some concessions.
Horatius will entertain any reasonable requests, so the tribunes ask for their number to be doubled.
Cincinnatus and Claudius are in favour of making this deal – more tribunes means a greater possibility for them to be divided into factions.
The tribune election takes place immediately – the plebs know they need to get the money up front now!
The levy can now proceed and Minucius is sent to deal with the Sabines, who retreat and allow their lands to be pillaged.
Horatius defeats the Aequians and razes Corbio to the ground.
456 BCE
In 456 BCE, the consuls were Marcus Valerius Volusi Maxumus Lactuca and Spurius Verginius Tricosus Caeliomontanus.
The tribunes for the year were Lucius Icilius and Lucius Alienus.
Icilius is keen to meet with consuls, but they are ghosting him. When he tries to force the issue, Icilius’ attendants are driven away by the consuls’ lictors.
In retaliation, the tribunes seize one of the lictors and decide to throw him off the Tarpeain Rock.
The consuls are distressed, but helpless to fight off the tribunes. Luckily for them, the tribunes decide to release the hapless lictor.
Icilius instead pursues a law about the use of public land. This law would mean that land that has been taken by force or fraud would be given over to the populace, the occupiers reimbursed and the rest to be divided up amongst the public
The Senate agreed, except for Gaius Claudius, and this law was unusually named after Icilius.
455 BCE
In 455 BCE, the consuls were Titus Romilius Rocus Vaticanus and Gaius Veturius Cicurinus.
Once again, two of the tribunes were Lucius Icilius and Lucius Alienus.
This is a tricky year, as the accounts of Livy and Dionysius diverged.
In Livy, the tribunes were all feeling very ashamed as they felt they had not accomplished much – especially with ten of them working for the people. They are pushing hard to get the law about the laws through.
Unfortunately for them, the Aequians were on the loose and attacking the Tusculans. No Roman can resist an adorable Tusculan in distress!
The consuls were despatched and killed 7000 Aequians in battle. The remainder of the Aequians fled, leaving lots of booty behind for the Romans. The consuls decided to sell the spoils as the treasury needed to be replenished.
The army is furious and the tribunes see their opportunity to impeach the consuls once they are out of office.
In Dionysius, the consuls decide on war as they need to distract people from the law about the laws. Some of the people are reluctant to enlist, so the consuls start arresting the culprits.
The tribunes denounce the consuls, especially as they are arresting people who are appealing to their protection. The tribunes claim that they are able to release people from the levy, and when that didn’t work, they try to physically stop the levy.
A fight breaks out between the young patricians and the tribunes and their supporters. The patricians win the day, but the tribunes put out the call for more plebeians to join them, and soon the patricians were outnumbered.
The tribunes demand that the consuls join their assembly and they don’t show up, the tribunes head to the senate. They confront the consuls about their behaviour, but the consuls think the tribunes are the problem. The Senate reaches no decision about how to act.
The tribunes call a meeting and propose that the plebs secede, but not everyone is ready for this dramatic a step. It doesn’t help that some of the tribunes have been won over the senate!
After much discussion, the tribunes decide to fine the consuls.
They call an assembly and tell the people that they are going to fight for land allotment and equality before the law. It’s time to get more than just part of the Aventine Hill. The tribunes call on plebs in the audience to come forward and speak about their experiences.
The crowd goes wild, but they haven’t seen anything yet. Lucius Siccius Dentatus steps up the rostra. He is an eloquent solider with extensive military experience and too many honours to name. Who deserves land more Siccius? How can someone who has given so much have so little?
Everyone goes nuts for Siccius, but Icilius says they need to hear from others.
The consuls are desperate to block the tribune’s plans, so they make sure that they stake out the forum early. When people arrive to speak, they make their approval or disapproval known.
The tension rises between the tribunes and consuls.
When it is time for the vote to take place regarding the law, the patricians disrupt the process and push people off the bridge they need to cross to cast their vote. Needless to say the law does not get passed, largely thanks to the work of three patrician families – the Postumii, the Cloelii and the Sempronii.
The tribunes will not take this offence lying down. They decide to go after the patrician families responsible – after all, this is an offence against the gods.
The patrician estates are confiscated and dedicated to Ceres – except that their friends buy their estates back for them. At least the tribunes made some money out of the deal!
It is at this point that the Tusculans arrive with news of an Aequian attack, and both consuls are sent to the rescue – very unusual, but that is how special the Tusculans are.
Although the tribunes object to the levy, the consuls have a secret weapon – an appeal to the gods. They declare that those who sign up for the campaign will please the gods – and you know what will happen to those who don’t. Most people are too scared to refuse.
Siccius, always one to do his duty, arrives with his own legion of veterans.
When the Romans engage with the Aequains in battle. Limited progress is made because both armies are so evenly matched.
Romilius devises a plan for Siccius and his men to try and attack the Aequians from behind whilst the attacks from the front. Siccius knows that this is a suicide mission, but Romilius refuses to back down.
No one gets rid of Siccius that easily. He comes up with a cunning plan to find a different path to reach the Aequians. His men capture a local farmer and he informs them that there is just such a path.
The Aequains are defeated and Siccius’ men love him more than ever for saving their lives whilst securing a victory.
Now it’s time for revenge on Romilius. Siccius and his men destroy all the spoils in the Aequian camp before marching directly to Rome and telling everyone that the consuls forced him to do this.
The consuls are in serious trouble – no triumphs for you!
454 BCE
In 454 BCE, the consuls were Spurius Tarpeius Montanus and Aulus Terminius or Aternius Varus Fontinalis.
Once more, there was quite a lot of difference between Livy and Dionysius.
Dionysius is still following the career of the Roman Achilles – Siccius.
Lucius Siccius Dentatus, now a tribune, pursued a trial against Romilius for injuring the state.
Siccius brought out numerous witnesses about Romilius’ callous attitude to himself and his men. The tears shed by the audience don’t bode well for Romilius.
Romilius remained a haughty patrician to the last, claiming that he did what he had to do as commander. Every tribe voted to condemn him and Romilius was fined 10 000 asses.
Meanwhile, former tribune and now Aedile of the plebs, Lucius Alienus, prosecuted the other former consul, Veturius, and he was fined 15 000 asses.
With this unpleasantness out of the way, once again the law about the laws comes up for discussion.
Romilius surprisingly was in support of the codification. Although he was a staunch patrician and had always despised the plebs, his recent trial taught him a valuable lesson. The patricians were not powerful enough to protect him and all those other persecuted patricians (cough cough) like Caeso, so something needed to change.
Romilius suggested seeking advice from other states that are running smoothly – like somewhere in Greece! This connection to Greece has been seen as an attempt to associate Rome with the fame of Athens and the law code of Solon. After all, if the Romans wanted to learn about Greek laws, they could have have just headed south.
The consuls supported Romilius’ proposal and Siccius praised him for placing the public good first. In tribute to Romilius, Siccius suggested cancelling the fine.
All of this information about the fines issued to the ex-consuls seems to be related to the Lex Aternia Tarpeia, which set a maximum penalty on the fines that could be applied for offences involving illegal attempts to gain authority and disrespect.
In Livy, the trip to Athens comes up after the tribunes pursue the law about the laws with the new consuls. The tribunes assure the consuls that they are prepared to be reasonable.
They suggest that patricians and plebeians should just get together and chat about their priorities and how to devise a law code. They agree, but only if the chat is patricians only – no plebs allowed!
The tribunes just want some progress, so they agree. It is after this that the educational foray to Greece is planned.
453 BCE
In 453 BCE, the consuls were Publius Curiatus Fistus Trigeminius and Sextus Quinctilius
The suffect consul Spurius Furius Medullinus Fusus
This was one of the lowest points of the decade. A terrible pestilence broke out and caused a huge amount of suffering and death in all social classes and even the animals.
We cannot be sure of the numbers, but it seems that half of the citizen population were wiped out and most of the slaves.
One of the consuls was struck down, and tragically, so was his replacement – Spurius Furius.
So many people were affected that the fields were neglected and famine ensued, adding to the misery of the Romans.
The Aequians considered taking advantage of Rome’s weakness, but they became infected by the pestilence when they tried to attack and had to retreat.
452 BCE
In 452 BCE, the consuls were Menenius Agrippa (his praenomen could have been Gaius, Lucius, or Titus) and Publius Sestius
The pestilence has passed, but there are still food shortages in Rome and the consuls need to buy corn to address the grain crisis.
The delegation that had been sent to Athens to study the laws of Solon return, full of ideas for the Roman law code.
The Romans are getting serious about the codification of their laws and start to discuss the best way to proceed.
The idea for a decemvirate, a group of ten magistrates, is suggested. These men would take the place of all the normal offices and there would be no right of appeal. This could not take place immediately, as there were already consuls in office who needed to serve their full term.
Whilst having a mixture of plebeian and patrician magistrates is discussed, the patricians are quick to squash those dreams – it will be patricians only or nothing.
This sends up some red flags for the plebeians, who are only willing to agree to this system if they are assured that the tribunes and land allocation on the Aventine will be protected and restored once the decemvirate is over.
A slight hitch is that there are already some consul-designates who have been chosen to serve in 451 – Titus Genucius and Appius Claudius.
Appius addresses the senate about the importance of the law code and volunteers to give up his chance to be consul so that the decemvirate can go ahead. What a guy! No wonder he is chosen to serve as decemvir.
451 BCE
The first decemvirate begins, and it is a big success.
The decemvirs get along remarkably well and they aren’t flaunting their power or status.
They produce the Ten Tables, which are approved after consultation with the populace.
Confusingly, the laws do not seem to address many issues that have been concerning the plebeians, but they do provide some insight into life in Rome at this time.
Whilst everyone is satisfied, there is general agreement that a few more laws are needed and it is decided that the Romans need a second decemvirate.
Elections are set, and Appius Claudius campaigns hard. He is determined to hang on to his position, so he starts getting friendly with the plebs and tribunes – even badmouthing the patricians.
His colleagues are suspicious of his behaviour but they refrain from calling him out on his behaviour.
Appius manages to get re-elected, along with some of his friends.
Unusually, some plebeians seem to be chosen as well. What is going on?
450 BCE
As soon as he has secured his position, Appius reveals his true self. He becomes cruel and arrogant, and encourages his other decemvirs to aim for tyranny.
They start meeting in secret and vow never to give up their power.
Each man has his own fasces and is attended by lictors in public.
Everyone, patrician and plebeian, is dismayed by their behaviour, but their power is absolute and there seems to be little that anyone can do.
The decemvirs add two tables to the law code, making it The Twelve Tables, including a controversial ban on intermarriage between the plebeians and patricians.
True to their secret evil plan, the decemvirs remain in office, even though their business is seemingly now complete.
As we slide into the 440s, the situation in Rome continues to deteriorate. The decemvirs start using the young patricians to bully the populace. Citizens are scourged with rods, their property can be confiscated and some are even murdered.
Conclusion
FR – And that was the 450s in Ancient Rome… or was it?
PG – Remember, this has just been the highlights from the ancient sources, so if you want to delve into the complexities of the different evidence from this period, check out our narrative episodes.
FR – Thanks for joining us for this Partial Recap!
The Second Decemvirate is hotting up and it's not surprising to learn that Appius Claudius is somehow at the centre of things. We trace Rome through a precarious time, one that our sources have trouble dating – is it one year, two, three? It's c. 437 BCE; the magistracies are in disarray and the decemvirs hold sway. The situation takes a turn as Rome's neighbours sense an opportunity to invade…
Episode 111 – Decemvirs in the Senate
The Meeting of the Senate
It is perhaps a measure of how the Second Decemvirate is going that we're not sure how much time has passed before the decemvirs seek a meeting with the senate. There's a haziness around dates that indicates we could be looking at up to three years of decemvirate rule!
Appius Claudius speaks first in the Senate ostensibly to discuss how Rome will navigate the threats to her territory. But the Senate, having finally been called together under the rule of the decemvirs, have a lot of things they'd like to talk about! And boy do they have criticism to level. One very important point is that the decemvirs are operating outside the terms of their special magistracy and they are by consequence corrupting the nature of the republic.
The real thorn in Appius' side while in the senate meeting is the presence of his uncle, Gaius Claudius. The patriarchal structures dictate that Appius show respect for Gaius' opinion and this opens the way for some power speechifying.
Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus differ in their accounts of how this moment unfolds, but the significance of a familial connection in the senate is retained by both writers. We'll explore the similarities and differences of these sources.
There's some explosive details with Gaius Claudius touching on everything from what makes an honourable patrician, to his personal take on Appius' character flaws, to a savage endictment as to what can happen when you ignore relatives.
The Distraction Factor
Livy shifts from speeches to explore the politicking in the senate including a possible interregum and calls for the decemvirs to give up office by the Ides of May. Meanwhile Dionysius of Halicarnassus continues to explore the rhetorical potential of a large-scale senatorial debate!
Things to Come
A patrician call for a tribune to represent them and protect them from the decemvirate!
The accusation that the decemvirs are the ‘Ten Tarquins' – ouch!
Intimidation in the senate!
Appius Claudius faces some heated criticism from his uncle Gaius…
Concerns about how Rome will raise an army
Has Rome been abandoned by her citizens?
Gaius Claudius offers Appius a way to salvage his reputation with the people
The possibility of an interrex
A Sabine defection!
Our PlayersThe Decemvirs (named in this episode)
Appius Claudius
Quintus Fabius Vibulanus (cos. 467, 465, 459 BCE)
Marcus Cornelius – f. Ser. n. Maluginensis
The Senators
Lucius Valerius Potitus
Marcus Horatius Barbatus
Lucius Cornelius – f. Ser. n. Maluginensis (brother of the decemvir Marcus)
Lucius Quintius Cincinnatus
Titus Quinctius Capitolinus
Lucius Lucretius
Appius Claudius' Family
Gaius Claudius (Appius' uncle)
Our Sources
Dr Rad reads Livy Ab Urbe Condita 3.39-40
Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman History 11.4-15
Sound Credits
Additional music and sound in this episode includes:
Cleopatra looms large in the imagination, but her legacy is often overshadowed by the western cultural tradition. It turns out that there are many ways to understand the last Pharaoh of Egypt.
Special Episode – The Reception of Cleopatra with Yentl Love
We were thrilled to sit down with Yentl Love to discuss the Islamic reception of Cleopatra. Love is known for her work in making ancient history and classics accessible through her blog the The Queer Classicist. Love has been studying Ancient History and Classics for a number of years and is now bringing the ancient world to life for readers across the globe.
Egypt's last pharaoh has a rather negative reputation in the western tradition. A classic example is the characterisation of her as a poisoner. Alexander Cabanel, Cleopatra Testing Poisons on Condemned Prisoners, between circa 1845 and circa 1887. Wikimedia Commons
Rethinking Cleopatra
Cleopatra VII was the last Pharaoh to rule Egypt. She was part of the Ptolemaic dynasty, descendants of one of Alexander the Great’s generals. She experienced her fair share of family drama. One of her sisters was executed for seizing the throne from their father! It may not have been a relaxing childhood, but it did prepare her for a political career when she became pharaoh at just eighteen, alongside her younger brother, Ptolemy XIII.
In this episode, we discuss Cleopatra’s journey and her encounters with some of the most famous Romans in history, including Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and Octavian (later Augustus!), and how these relationships would impact the way she was represented in the surviving sources.
There are many Greco-Roman sources that refer to Cleopatra, and these include histories, biographies, poems and letters. One factor that they have in common is the negative portrayal of the Egyptian Pharaoh. This is in contrast to the archaeological record, such as coins, statues and buildings.
One of the most arresting portraits is by Artemisia Gentileschi, Death of Cleopatra, 1613 or 1621-1622. Here we see a woman in middle age, stripped bare of all the insignia of power in her final moment of defiance.
Cleopatra the Scholar
We explore some of the reasons behind the differing portraits that have survived of Cleopatra, before delving into the Islamic source tradition. Produced much later than the Greco-Roman sources or the archaeological material, the Islamic sources provide a distinct portrayal of Egypt's last queen; one that is not bound up in her relationships with men or her appearance.
Cleopatra the scholar?Elizabeth Taylor in the title role of the 1963 film with writing implement in hand! Image courtesy of www.mediafactory.com.au
Join us for this episode about the historiography of Egypt's last pharaoh; a woman whose fame deserves to include more than just her Roman lovers.
Select Bibliography
Ashton, S. Cleopatra and Egypt. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
El-Daly, O. Egyptology: The Missing Millenium: Ancient Egypt in Medieval Arabic Writings. London & New York: Routledge, 2016.
Gillett, M. “Goddess, Whore, Queen and Scholar.” Teaching History 51, no. 1 (March 2017): 19-23.
Hughes-Hallet, L. Cleopatra: histories, dreams and distortions. London: Pimlico, 1997.
Welch, K. “Cleopatra as Pharaoh?” Teaching History 53, no. 1 (March 2019): 10-15.
The First Decemvirate was a big success, so much so that Rome opts for a Second Decemvirate!
The decemvirs were popular figures in Rome and during 451 BCE they produced the Ten Tables. This initial set of law codes was positively received by the population, but there was something missing… MORE LAWS!
But it isn't too long before some red flags appear…
Episode 110 – The Mask Comes Off
Wait a Second… Decemvirate
Appius Claudius campaigns hard to get himself re-elected, along with some of his patrician buddies. There are also some new and unusual names that appear in the list for the Second Decemvirate – we might have some plebeian magistrates on the team. Gasp!
As soon as they are confirmed in their positions, the charismatic, approachable and charming Appius reveals his true self and his real intentions. Tyranny!
Life in Rome quickly becomes extremely unpleasant for everyone as the decemvirs and their thugs flex their muscles, but it's especially tough if you are one of the less privileged persons in the populace. This a dark time for Rome. Join us to find out how they deal with the infamous Second Decemvirate!
The Cancelleria relief, frieze B. This piece is a relief from the rule of Domitian so far ahead of where we are in the narrative, but it does include a lictor carries the fasces with the axe. The first complete figure from the right is a lictor holding the fasces in his left hand.
Our PlayersThe Second Decemvirate
Appius Claudius. Ap. f. M. n. Crassus Inregillensis Sabinus Pat – Cos. 471, 451
Marcus Cornelius – f. Ser. n. Maluginenesis Pat
Marcus? Sergius Esquilinus Pat
Lucius Minucius P. f. M. n. Esquilinus Augurinus Pat – Cos. 458
Quintus Fabius M. f. M. n. Vibulanus Pat – Cos. 467, 465, 459
Quintus Poetelius Libo Visolus
Titus Antonius Merenda
Caeso Duillius Longus?
Spurius. Oppius Cornicen
Manius Rabuleius
Our Sources
Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome
Eder, W. 2005. ‘The Political Significance of the Codification of Law in Archaic Societies: An Unconventional Hypothesis’ in K. Raaflaub (ed) Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders
Forsythe, G. 2005. A Critical History of Early Rome
Momigliano, A. 2005. ‘The Rise of the Plebs in the Archaic Age of Rome’ in K. Raaflaub (ed) Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders
Perello, C. F. A. 2020. ‘The Twelve Tables and the leges regiae; A Problem of Validity’ in S. W. Bell & P. J. du Pleissis (eds) Roman Law Before the Twelve Tables: An Interdisciplinary Approach
Raaflaub, K. 2005. ‘From Protection and Defense to Offense and Participation: Stages in the Conflict of the Orders’ in K. Raaflaub (ed) Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders
Scullard, H. H. 1935. A History of the Roman World 753-146 BC
The Twelve Tables are a landmark moment of early Republican Roman history. The lex duodecim tabularum see the codification of Rome's laws!
The name ‘The Twelve Tables' is derived from the idea that these laws were inscribed on to twelve oak tablets. We happen to know quite a lot about the content of the tables, even though they have not survived in epigraphic form. The evidence for the tables comes from extant literature.
Special Episode – The Twelve Tables
The main literary sources that we're reading at the moment, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, place the landmark moment of the codification around 450 BCE. The process is not a smooth one from their perspective! Normal magistracies are suspended in favour of a specially selected cohort of ten men who are granted authority to put together the law code.
Believe us when we tell you that the drama associated with the decemvirate has only just begun to be revealed in Episode 109.
The End of Long Struggle?
According to our literary sources, both of whom are writing hundreds of years after the events they describe, the Twelve Tables are the result of the Struggle of the Orders.
This ongoing rift between sections of the Roman population is contentious in its own ways, so it is worth considering the content of the Tables as a point of comparison. The difference between what we might expect of a law code that is the result of a class struggle and the laws themselves is quite something.
So that's just what we're going to do in this special mini-episode! Join as we dip into the details of the law code and some of the fascinating details we learn from this document 😊
Roman civilians examining the Twelve Tables after they were first implemented. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Looking to explore the Twelve Tables in more detail? You can read them all here!
This shows the forum in ruins, but it is in this space that the Twelve Tables would have been present to the populace. Image curtesy of Wikimedia Commons, by Kimberlym21
The history of Rome is complex, even in the early Republic. Sometimes it's hard to keep all the details straight so we thought it might be a good time to try something new.
The Partial Recap series will be a scripted overview of each decade of Roman history. First cab off the rank is the decade of the 460s BCE. This is the last complete decade we've covered in our Foundation of Rome series, and we'll be working through the previous decades over the next few months.
Part of the benefit of these episodes will be to help refresh the memory of the key events of each year. We're also trying out a scripted style that easy allows us to share a transcript, which is a good step forward in terms of accessibility for our podcast. As technology progresses, we're hoping to automate accurate transcripts for our conversational episodes.
Join us for a Partial Recap of the 460s BCE!
The Partial Recap – The 460s BCE
“A view to the East over the Roman Forum with the Temple of Saturn on the left and the Palatine Hill on the right, showing the Temple of Castor and Pollux, the Arch of Titus, Santa Francesca Romana, and the Colosseum.” Detail from the photograph by Nicholas Hartmann, June 1976. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons. Used under license.
TranscriptInroduction
FR – Welcome to the Partial Recap for the 460s BC!
PG – I’m Dr G
FR – and I’m Dr Rad
PG – and this is our highlights edition of the 460s in Rome. We’ll take you through from 469 to 460 in an epitome of our normal episodes.
FR – Perfect for those mornings when you don’t want some lengthy rhetoric with your coffee
PG – Get ready for a recappuccino.
469 BCE
In 469, the consuls were Titus Numicus Priscus and Aulus Verginius Caelimontanus.
There were some domestic issues that surfaced as the plebeians were pushing for progress with the agrarian law – looking for a fairer share of the land.
They were quickly distracted by issues with the Volscians. The Volscians start making incursions into Roman territory and the consuls journey forward to meet the threat.
Numicius heads off to the belly of the beast – Volscian territory – and his forces pillage and capture coastal settlements as they go. Antium, a major Volscian city, is in their sights.
Verginius goes to deal with Aequians in the east. The Aequians are enemies of Rome and allies of the Volscians. After a bit of a rocky start, he defeats them in combat. He then turns around to deal with the Sabines. Turns out Rome is surrounded by enemies!
Meanwhile, back in Rome, the plebeians decide not to vote in the annual elections. They are tired of the lack of progress on the agrarian law, so what is even the point anymore? The agrarian reform the plebeians have been pushing for would mean a fairer distribution of public land for all Roman citizens. The elite patricians have been stalling, knowing it’ll mean a loss for them.
468 BCE
In 468 BCE, the consuls were Titus Quintius Capitolinus Barbatus (consul for the second time) and Quintus Servilius Priscus.
Unrest between Rome and their neighbours continues. Rome is facing issues with the Sabines to the north east, and the Volscian-Aequian alliance which stretches from the south to the east.
Servilius is off campaigning against the Sabines. They stay well protected behind their walls as the Romans destroy their lands.
Quintius takes on the Volscian-Aequian alliance and meets them on the battlefield. It’s tough, but with some quick thinking (and lying) on his part, as well as charging into battle on foot himself, the Romans pull through on the first day.
The fighting continues the next day and the Romans are massively outnumbered. But one again, the generalship of Quintius saves the day. The Romans seize the enemy camp and the city of Antium!
These amazing deeds secure a triumph for Quintius.
In 467 BCE, the consuls were Titus Aemilius Mamercus (cos. From 470 BCE) and Quintus Fabius Vibulanus.
Fun fact: the consul Quintus Fabius is the sole survivor of his family from the infamous battle of Cremera in c. 477 BCE. Long live the Fabii!
Aemilius Mamercus is drawing some heat from his fellow patricians because he seems open minded when it comes to the issue of agrarian reform and land allotment. The plebeian mood is one of optimism.
However, the patricians as a whole are still resistant. Fabius has a cunning plan to settle the dispute. He suggests they use the new land they have captured near Antium to appease the plebeians.
This suggestion is well-received as three past consuls are ushered in as triumvirs for assigning land to the people (triumviri agro dando). The lucky gentlemen are: Titus Quintius Capitolinus (cos. 471), Aulus Verginius (cos. 469) and Publius Furius (cos. 472).
The plebeians aren’t in a hurry to leave Rome and don’t appreciate being banished from Rome, so the Senate allows Rome’s allies (the Latins and Hernicians) and some Volscians (who have been suitably cowed) to sign up for some land
The consuls have other fish to fry. Aemilius attempts to fight the Sabines. Again they aren’t interested in engaging in open battle and they watch as their territory is ravaged by the Romans
Fabius ventures into Aequian territory only to find that they are very willing to strike a deal with the Romans, perhaps a little too willing….
466 BCE
In 466 BCE, the consuls were Spurius Postumius Albinus Regillensis and Quintus Servilius Priscus (Structus), who had previously been consul in 468 BCE.
It’s a bit confusing but it seems there are some issues with the newly acquired territory and the Latin allies who have moved south aren’t happy about it. Could it be that Rome has offered her allies a bum deal?
Quintus Fabius is no longer consul, but he’s pretty invested in the whole southern territory thing because it was his suggestion, so he heads down to chat to the Aequians to find out whether they are actually violating the new treaty or not.
He soon realises from the suspicious behaviour of the Aequians that he is in trouble and that these guys are up to something
The Romans dispatch the fetiales (deploy the war priests!)and declare unless those responsible for the wrongdoing are expelled from Antium there shall be a just war waged upon them by Rome with the full support of the Roman gods.
The Aequians prefer war – although combat is delayed by a plague that strikes the Roman forces (awkward divine sign?)
Once the Romans can get out of bed (this might take until the following year, sources disagree), both the consuls are sent to deal with the faithless Aequians. After a tough battle, the Romans win the day, leaving some very disgruntled Aequians behind.
The Romans round out the year with a temple dedication to Dius Fidius (sometimes known as Sanctus) – a mysterious god that may have been Sabine in origin.
In 465 BCE, the consuls were Titus Quintius Capitolinus (who was on his third consulship!) and Quintus Fabius Vibulanus (consul for the second time). Quintius Servilius serves as the Prefect of the City.
The Romans are all a-flutter as the Aequians are already back in action and raiding nearby territory!
Titus Quintius Capitolinus heads out and rebukes his men for being so scared, quickly setting up patrols of the borderlands – unfortunately he keeps missing the enemy
Meanwhile Fabius is enjoying a lot of success against the Aequians and captures some booty
With that settled, the courts can re-open back in Rome and it’s time for a census. Livy records 104 714 citizens, not including orphans and widows.
464 BCE
In 464 BCE, the consuls were Aulus Postumius Albus Regillensis and Spurius Furius Medullinus Fusus.
There are ongoing issues with the Aequians and the new territory in Antium – some problems relating to offering land to people you just took it away from perhaps…
Rome’s allies, the Hernicians, bring word that all is not well in the new colony
Trouble seems to rapidly accelerate! Martial law is declared and Postumius is given dictatorial powers
Fighting breaks out unexpectedly in the middle of the night when the Aequians launch an attack on Antium and things are looking very dicey for the Romans. Spurius Furius gets injured in the battle.
Fortunately, Titus Quintius Capitolinus (just off the back of his third consuldhip) turns up with the flower of the Roman youth and the allies just in time. The year finishes in a bit of a stalemate with a lot of loss on both sides.
In 463 BCE, the consuls were Lucius Aebutius Helva and Publius Servilius Priscus.
The year does not begin auspiciously. There are some bad omens which has everyone concerned.
Soon, a serious plague breaks out in Rome and the surrounding areas
It wipes out almost all livestock and a quarter of the senators died – including both the consuls, meaning we see the use of some interregna as a result
The Aequians and the Volscians decide to take advantage of this weakness to attack Roman territory
Whether it was due to the enhancement of natural defences or supernatural forces, the Aequians and Volscians decide not to go through with the assault on the city, and with the help of their allies, Rome lives to fight another day.
As the year wraps up, the plague starts to pass – almost a little too neatly. Was this just a year without enough military action and so the annalists got creative?
In 462 BCE, the consuls were Lucius Lucretius Tricipitinus and Titus Veturius Geminus Cicurinus.
Rome’s allies, the Hernicians need help as they have Volscians and Aequians camped on their border. Hernician territory is south-east of Rome and lies between the Aequians in the east and the Volscians in the south, so it’s not surprising they find themselves in a tight spot!
The plebeian tribunes aren’t interested in foreign diplomacy and are busy pursuing domestic issues. The tribune Sextius Titus is trying to reignite support for the land allotment bill – but the populace want to wait for a better time for agrarian reform as it looks like Rome will have to go to war.
The Senate find no problems signing people up for this new war
The Romans keep one army at home with Quintus Fabius (cos. 465), send one against the Volscians, and send another to help their allies. That’s three armies.
Nothing much happens out in enemy territory but…
The Volscian-Aequian forces manage to get around the Roman forces, causing a bit of panic in the city. Fabius is quick to calm everyone down and the bandits aren’t brave enough to attack the city itself
On their way home, the Volscians-Aequian force run into Lucretius and are severely defeated – the Volscians are reportedly wiped out
Veturius is awarded an ovatio and Lucretius a triumph, but this celebration is delayed due to some new trouble at home
As we slide from 462 into 461, the tribunes are trying to take advantage of the absence of the consuls. Gaius Terentilius Harsa in particular pushes for reform. He believes that Rome needs to move away from the informal legal system that they have been using. The informal system relies on tradition and only a few (elite) people understand how things work. What Harsa wants is a system that is more transparent and where case law is written down. On top of that, Harsa also lobbies to place a limit on the amount of power that a person can hold.
Harsa suggests putting together a college of 5 men to write down some laws and limit the imperium of the consuls.
The patricians are completely freaked out. The Prefect of the City, Quintus Fabius, steps in and violently opposes Harsa’s ideas. How dare Harsa stir up trouble with the consuls out of town and a war going on? Fabius paints the tribunes as enemies of the state, and Harsa’s colleagues back off.
As things calm down, Lucretius can safely return to have his triumph.
He organised a large lost and found with all of the booty that he recaptured during his campaign out on the Campus Martius.
In 461, the consuls were Publius Volumnius and Servius Sulpicius.
The plebeian tribune Harsa’s proposals from 462 have struck a chord with the people. And the new tribunes continue to push for legal reform, particularly Aulus Verginius.
However, disaster clearly lies ahead, as all sorts of prodigies take place – spectres, earthquakes, a talking cow and a rain of flesh that doesn’t smell or rot. Even the soothsayers were stumped.
There’s only one thing to do in such a situation: consult The Sibylline Books, a collection of ancient wisdom. The wise message: The Romans are warned to be wary of foreigners that might enslave the Romans and to avoid factionalism
The tribunes aren’t deterred by this “wisdom” and accuse the patricians of trying to buy time.
Rome’s allies, the Hernicians show up to warn the Romans that the Volscians are preparing for another war. The Senate wants to levy troops, but the tribunes call foul – seeing this as just another stalling tactic.
The tribunes take matters into their own hands, call an assembly of the people to put forward ideas for their approval. The most Important proposal – to have a group of 10 men elected by the people to draft a set of public and private laws. These laws would be publicly accessible and everyone would be bound by them.
The consuls are provoked by this situation and go on the offensive, attacking the tribunes and pointing out that it is not their job to propose new laws. The consuls accuse the tribunes of just being after more power for themselves.
The consuls attempt to hold a levy to build up the armed forces, but the tribunes arrive and to prevent it from proceeding. Things get violent pretty quickly.
And the senators repay the favour – physically preventing the tribunes from holding a vote on the law about the laws
The senators are keen to drive home the point that the tribunes have no authority beyond helping the poor. As far as the senate is concerned, the tribunes have no legal or sacral basis to propose new laws.
The consuls and older patricians start to take a step back from getting physically involved, but the young patricians are prepared to do no such thing, particularly the feisty Caeso Qunctius.
Caeso a gift from the gods – physically strong, a distinguished soldier, rhetorically gifted and known for getting aggressive with the tribunes.
The tribunes find Caeso an intimidating prospect, except for Aulus Verginius, who brings Caeso up on capital charges.
Caeso has lots of supporters who come forward to try and save him, including his dad, Cincinnatus, who asks for clemency based on his own deeds for the Republic.
However, Marcus Volscius Fictor, another tribune, comes forward and reveals that Caeso was responsible for the murder of his brother. The crowd is so angered by this tale, that Verginius considers putting Caeso in gaol just to keep him safe.
The patricians manage to strike a deal instead – Caeso is released in return for a large sum of money that will be forfeit if he fails to show for his trial.
Caeso promptly disappears, leaving his dad behind to pay the money that was pledged.
In 460 BCE, the consuls were Publius Valerius (a previous consul from 475 BCE and friend to the people) and Gaius Claudius, a die-hard patrician. This is one of the most complex years in the Early Republic!
Marcus Volscius Fictor and Aulus Verginius return as tribunes, and they are pretty pleased that Caeso is out of the way.
The rest of the young patricians start to use a new strategy against the tribunes – moderation all the way unless the law about the laws comes up – then the aggression hits 11
The tribunes decide to devise a conspiracy, forging threatening letters to themselves, supposedly from Caeso, who has taken refuge with the Volscians and Aequians. The tribunes read out these letters in front of the Senate and beg for protection.
The consul Gaius Claudius is quick to see through the tribunes and sends them packing. He then berates the senate for creating the tribunate and allowing such people to falsely accuse an excellent young man like Caeso of murder.
The tribune Verginius takes his grievances about the threats to the people and manages to secure some support from them
With the tribunes and plebeians in a suitably paranoid state, an unexpected attack comes from Appius Herdonius – a noble Sabine – and his band of either slaves, exiles, clients or a mixture of them all
Herdonius & Co sneak into Rome by night and capture the Capitol and citadel. Herdonius invites the plebs and slaves to join him – looks like the Sibylline books were right after all!
The consuls are concerned that this is the beginning of a civil conflict. But the city is in danger, so they take a chance and arm the plebs as they need forces and they needed them right away
The tribunes, on the other hand, are crying “fake news” and urging the plebs not to fight until they secure their rights in return.
Claudius is furious with the plebeians and makes no secret of it, but the consul Valerius manages to talk them into joining the fray with promises that the Senate will look into the law about the laws, just as soon as they have all saved the city – priorities people!
The Romans get ready for a lengthy siege, and get some unexpected help from Lucius Mamilius, the dictator of Tusculum. Mamilius noticed the Sabine ships and rushed on over to help. What a man!
The fighting is fierce, and in the final push, Valerius is tragically killed. But at least the Sabines are defeated. The Sabine leader Herdonius dies a heroic death.
In the aftermath, the plebeians give some of their own money towards the funeral of the great Valerius.
But the tribunes aren’t going to let the issue of the law drop
The remaining consul, Gaius Claudius, uses some delaying tactics to stall them, most notably the fact that he has no colleague
The patricians eventually bring in a man who is capable of dealing with these meddlesome tribunes – Cincinnatus!
Cincinnatus is brought in from his humble farm and promptly lectures the Senate for letting the tribunes get out of control
A stand-off quickly ensues between Cincinnatus and the tribunes as they each try to push their own agendas through
Cincinnatus scores points with everyone in Rome for his strict but fair attitude. He’s sure that the only way to really whip Rome back into shape is to bring in a dictator – those tribunes are out of control
In the short term, a deal is struck in which the consuls agree not to make the plebeians go on campaign and the tribunes let the codification of the laws drop… for the time being
However, the senate also tries to limit the amount of time a magistrate could hold office. But the tribunes are not willing to bend on this issue. The tribunes Verginius and Volscius are quickly reinstated – again
The patricians want to follow suit and bring Cincinnatus back for a second consulship but he refuses to stoop to the level of the plebs.
There’s a lot going on in 460 and to really come to the grips with the detail takes some doing. Tune into the following episodes for all the details:
FR – And that was the 460s in Ancient Rome… or was it?
PG – Remember, this has just been the highlights from the ancient sources, so if you want to delve into the complexities of the different evidence from this period, check out our narrative episodes.
FR – Thanks for joining us for this Partial Recap!
The Roman republic is in full swing and it's time for the first decemvirate! The growing discontent amongst the population is reaching breaking point according to our narrative sources.
Episode 109 – The First Decemvirate
This conflict is often referred to as the Struggle of the Orders. It's predicated on the idea that there is an ongoing tension between the patricians and the plebeians, two groups of Roman citizens at odds with each other. The patricians are the ‘haves' and the plebeians are the ‘have nots', but there are plenty of reasons to be wary of this division, since we're not quite sure what qualities firmly exclude someone from patrician status in this early period.
While modern scholars tend to see this division of the Roman population as a retrojection of our narrative and annalistic sources, this is nevertheless the lens through which Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus are navigating the early history of the republic. And where they lead, we shall follow.
In terms of chronology, it's 452 BCE, which means Rome is now over 300 years old! From here we begin to delve into the details of how the first decemvirate emerged.
Ten Men!
To alleviate the concerns of the people, we see the rise of the decemvirs. The decemviri consulari imperio legibus scribundis ‘the ten men with consular imperium for the writing down of the laws' have a very specific task. It is considered of such importance that normal governance is suspended while the decemvirs do their things. The task is to put down the best laws of Rome and Greece into a document that can be placed in public for use in perpetuity.
There are some concerns about what this decemvirate is designed to achieve from the out set. Livy suggests that there may have been legitimate concerns about this being a grab for power by the privileged patricians.
This is supported by the requests for the Icilian law and the land allotment on the Aventine that it provided to be kept in place (Interested in the details of the Lex Icilia de Aventino Publicndo? We explore all the details in Episode 104 – Aventine, Aventine).
There are also concerns that the decemvirate may attempt to dissolve the tribune of plebs, a magistracy that was hard won and often a thorn in the side of the patrician senate.
Appius “Building Unity” Claudius
When the consul for 452 BCE Menenius falls ill and is unable to fulfil his duties as consul, Appius Claudius (consul designate for 451 BCE) offers to support the remaining consul, Publius Sestius, by organising the decemvirate which is due to begin the next year.
He works closely with the tribunes and other inserted senators and seems very invested in harmony, peace, and ensuring the unity of the state as they embark upon the codification of the laws.
Things to listen out for:
The way the decemvirs share power
A day in the life of the decemvirs
The charisma of Appius Claudius
The Ten Tables!
Ager publicus (or the absence thereof)
Suppression of tribunician power
Our PlayersConsuls of 452 BCE
Publius Sestius Q. f. Vibi n. Capitolinus(?) Vaticanus (Pat)
Lucius / Titus Menenius Agripp. f. Agripp. n. Lanatus (Pat)
The First Decemvirate of 451 BCE
Meet your decemvirs!
The decemvirs are led by the consul designates for the year 451 BCE
Appius Claudius Ap. f. M. n. Crassus Inrigillensis Sabinus
Titus Genucius L. f. L. n. Augurinus
They are joined by
Publius Sestius
Lucius Veturius (Livy) / Titus Veturius (Dionysius of Halicarnassus)
Gaius Iulius
Aulus Manlius
Publius Sulpicius (Livy) / Servius Sulpicius (Dionysius of Halicarnassus)
Publius Curiatius (Livy) / Publius Horatius (Dionysius of Halicarnassus)
Titus Romilius
Spurius Postumius
The Second Decemvirate of 450 BCE
This episode also features an introduction to the second decemvirate! Welcome back to our Appius with the mostest:
Appius Claudius Ap. f. M. n. Crassus Inrigillensis Sabinus
This time joined by
Quintus Fabius Vibulanus M. f. M. n. (Pat) (cos. 467, 565, 459 BCE)
Marcus Cornelius – f. Ser. n. Maluginensis (Pat)
Marcus Sergius – f. – n, Esquilinus (Pat)
Lucius Minucius P. f. M. n. Esquilinus Augurinus (Pat) (cos. 458 BCE)
Titus Antonius – f. – n. Merenda (Pat)
Manius Rabuleius – f. – n. (Pat, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, but thought now to be a plebeian name)
Quintus Poetelius – f. – n. Lino Visolus (plebeian)
Additional sound effects: BBC Sound Effects (Beta)
A day in ancient Rome; being a revision of Lohr's “Aus dem alten Rom”, with numerous illustrations, by Edgar S. Shumway (1885). Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Special Episode – The Year of the Four Emperors with Dr Rob Cromarty
17 Dec 2020
00:55:55
We are thrilled to be joined by Dr Rob Cromarty, better known as Doc Crom, for this special episode on the Year of the Four Emperors. Doc Crom, is a teacher, author, and fellow fan of #PhallusThursdays and #FannyFriday over on twitter and we recommend you follow him for his excellent tweets about Latin literature and ancient artefacts.
In this very special episode we talk about his journey into Classics and his take on the personalities and power struggles involved in the aftermath of the death of the Emperor Nero.
Special Episode – The Year of the Four Emperors with Dr Rob Cromarty
What is ‘The Year of the Four Emperors’?
The Emperor Nero made several mistakes in the last few years of his reign. Following the brutal suppression of a serious conspiracy against him, Nero left Rome in the hands of his freedmen so that he could compete in the Olympic Games.
Back in Rome, the people were dealing with low grain supplies. The aristocracy had been alienated for years, and the increasing use of delatores (informers) only made matters worse. The army was also on edge after the execution of talented generals like Corbulo. The situation in early 68 CE was tense.
The extent of Roman power in the crucial years of 68 and 69 CE. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
That's Revolting
The Year of the Four Emperors really kicks off with rebellion. In March, Caius Julius Vindex, then stationed in Gaul, revolted in protest against Nero’s tax policy. Some problems never change. Servius Sulpicius Galba, an old associate of some of the Julio-Claudians, was stationed in Spain and decided to throw his lot in with Vindex.
Vindex’s rebellion was put down by Lucius Verginius Rufus, and Galba was declared a public enemy. But that did not last long. The Praetorian Prefect, Nymphidius Sabinus, promised the guard a hefty donative to transfer their allegiance from Nero to Galba, and before long the Senate had made Nero himself a public enemy.
The First of the Four
Galba became emperor in June 68 CE after the suicide of Nero. As a stern, experienced candidate, he must have seemed like a promising choice. However, he soon acquired something of a reputation. According to sources, his assumption of power involved the death of many, and he was stingy with money. Most importantly, he did not provide soldiers with the bonuses they had been promised in exchange for their support. As Tacitus (Hist. 1.49.6) remarked, “…no one would have doubted his ability to reign had he never been emperor.”
Galba was also 73 years old and had no children. This didn’t bode well for stability, and so he decided to focus on improving his position in this area by adopting Lucius Calpurnius Piso in January of 69 CE, a deliberate snub to one of his most prominent supporters – Otho.
A portrait bust of the Roman emperor Galba. This piece is held in the Antiquities Museum in the Royal Palace, Stockholm. Photo credit to Wolfgang Sauber via Wikimedia Commons.
The Year of the Four Emperors, Take Two
To say that Otho was displeased is an understatement. He bribed the Praetorians to back his cause; after all, they weren’t getting bonuses from Galba! On the 15th of January 69 CE, Piso and Galba were assassinated in the forum. Otho thus became the first emperor to unequivocally acquire power by killing the previous emperor. Otho was well known as he had been a prominent member of Nero’s court; indeed, Nero’s most beloved wife, Poppaea Sabina, had once been married to Otho. Unlike Galba, who sought to distance himself from Nero and condemn his reputation, Otho played on the connection.
However, he faced challenges from the outset. Otho became emperor on 15th January 69 CE and took control of the city of Rome, but another would-be emperor had already taken initiative. The soldiers in Germania Inferior refused to swear loyalty to Galba on the 1st January 69 CE, soon to be followed by the troops of Germania Superior. Vitellius had been stationed in Germania Inferior by Galba, and he began to organise his bid for power. Otho had a lot of support, but his forces were not close by, and he was defeated by Vitellius’ forces at the First Battle of Cremona and driven back to Bedriacum. Rather than prolong the civil war, Otho committed suicide on 16th April 69 CE. But his death would not bring the conflict to an end.
Silver Denarius of Otho, Rome mint. His bare head right, IMP M OTHO CAESAR AVG TR P around / Securitas standing left holding wreath and scepter, SECURITAS P R. RIC 8. BMCRE 17. Sear RCV 2162. Source: accla.org
Of all the emperors to reign in this period, Vitellius probably has the worst reputation (thank you, Flavians?). He had a good relationship with parts of the army and was a well-known figure from the Julio-Claudian period, but the sources record that he was also a glutton, and associated with actors, chariot-drivers and freedmen.
As Vitellius’ popularity started to decline, another emperor was proclaimed in the east on 1st July 69 CE. A man from a modest background, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, had become a trusted military commander. He was supported by the Prefect of Egypt, Tiberius Julius Alexander, and gradually others joined his cause, including the governor of Upper Pannonia (Primus) and the governor of Syria (Mucianus).
A second Battle of Cremona ensued in September 69 CE between the Vitellians and some of Vespasian’s supporters. By December, Vespasian’s men were in Rome itself, and Vitellius was located and slaughtered in the Forum.
This portrait of Vitellius is based on the bust held by the Capitoline Museums in Rome. This particular example is held by the Royal Academy of Fine Arts of San Fernando in Madrid. Photo credit: Luis García (Zaqarbal) via Wikimedia Commons
What's going on with Otho and Vitellius? Tune into our classic episode for more details.
A New Dynasty Begins!
The year of the four emperors draws to a close with Vespasian. He managed to hold on to power for the next ten years, and was succeeded by his two sons, establishing the second dynasty of imperial Rome.
But how much did his victory influence the historical accounts of this time?
Join us as we discuss the ins and outs of this complicated period, which actually lasted for longer than just one year.
Portrait of Titus Flavius Vespasian, who emerges as a stable ruler from the chaotic years of 68 and 69 CE. Photo credit: Heribert Pohl via Wikimedia Commons
Major Primary Sources
Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, the lives of Nero, Otho, Galba, Vitellius, and Vespasian
It's 453 BCE and just as Rome seems to be heading towards a legal milestone disaster strikes: it's a plague!
Now plagues are terrible, of that there is no doubt, but how does this influence the path to codification? We're here to find out.
Episode 108 – Plague and Politics
The Character of the Plague
It is hard to identify the plague with certainty. What is clear from our later written sources is that the collective memory recalls this plague as highly contagious with the capacity to leap between species. People caught it but so too did some of the animals that people worked closely with.
The origin of the plague and how it eventually came to an end are lost to us. In lieu of strong osteoarchaeological evidence, it is possible to interpret this plague as a shared idea of opposition to the codification of the laws, which the elites likely saw as infringing upon their power.
Both Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus focus on the devastating consequences of the plague. Things to listen out for:
The horrific death toll
The Aequians!
The issue with the harvest
With 453 BCE wholly occupied with pestilence and its effects, everyone still standing is hoping for a better time in 452 BCE…
The Athenian Junket Returns!
Lucky for Rome, the plague does not go so far as Athens. The delegates sent out to find out about the law codes that others have produced return with some new ideas. There are some odd things about our narrative accounts though which Dr Rad delves into. Some pertinent questions:
Why would the Romans go all the way to Athens?
What are the law codes of the Greeks like? Do the Twelve Tables really suggest a Greek influence?
What might our narrative accounts gain by suggesting a connection with Greece at this point?
Rome's Heading into Uncertain Territory
It's fair to say that our narrative sources leave us somewhat dissatisfied. Our sources inspire less confidence the further we move into the Struggle of the Orders.
Who are the patricians?
Who are the plebeians?
How were these demarcations understood by the Romans?
Do our writers from the late Republican period really have a clear handle on what happened in the past?
Will the Twelve Tables live up to the suspense?
Only time will tell…
Thomas Cole The Course of Empire. Desolation 1836. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Our Players in 453BCEConsuls
Publius Curiatus — f. — n. Fistus Trigeminus (Pat)
Sextus Quinctilius Sex f. P. n. ‘Varus' (Pat)
Suffect Consul
Spurius Furius Medullinus Fusus (cos. 464 BCE) (Pat)
Flamen Quirinalus
Servius Cornelius
Augur
C. Horatius Pulvillus
Our Players in 452 BCEConsuls
Gaius/Lucius/Titus (?) Menenius Agripp. f. Agripp. n. Lanatus (Pat)
Publius Sestius Q. f. Vibi. n. Capito(linus?) Vaticanus (Pat)
Consular Nominations
Appius Claudius Ap. f. M. n. Crassus Inrigillenssis Sabinus (Pat)
Titus Genucius L. f. L. n. Augurinus (Pat)
Our Sources
Dr Rad reads Livy ab urbe condita 3.32
Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.53-54
Special Episode - Gladiator II with Dr Lindsay Steenberg
06 Feb 2025
01:16:47
WARNING! This post and episode both contain spoilers!
In case you somehow missed it, the hotly anticipated sequel to Gladiator (2000) hit the cinemas in November 2024. Gladiator II follows the story of Lucius Verus, the child of Lucilla and the hero from the first film, Maximus. Nope, we did not know that was a thing either.
Poster for Gladiator II, Source: https://deadline.com
After being separated from his imperial family following the death of his uncle (the Emperor Commodus), the adult Lucius ends up in the arena. His owner is Macrinus, an actual historical figure who served as emperor briefly in the third century CE. The film follows Macrinus and Lucius as they navigate the complicated political world of Rome under the Emperors Caracalla and Geta. Will Lucius be able to rid Rome of corruption, once and for all? (Dramatic music)
Joining us today to discuss the film is the delightful Lindsay Steenberg.
Special Episode – Gladiator II with Dr Lindsay Steenberg
Dr Lindsay Steenberg is currently a Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at Oxford Brookes University where she co-ordinates the graduate programme in Popular Cinema. Her research interests are violence and gender in postmodern and postfeminist media culture. If you like true crime, you should definitely check out her back catalogue. Whilst Dr Steenberg has published widely and regularly presents at conferences, our particular point of connection is her interest in gladiators. She is the author Are you not entertained? Mapping the Gladiator Across Visual Media, which was published by Bloomsbury in 2020.
We hope that you enjoy our conversation as we unpack:
Arena action scenes
The naumachia scene from Gladiator II
Macrinus’ role in this film
Gladiators and celebrity
Historical inaccuracy on screen
Our vision for Gladiator III: Tokyo Drift
Sound Credits
Our music is by Bettina Joy de Guzman.
Dr Lindsay Steenberg's book Are You Not Entertained? Mapping the Gladiator Across Visual Media. We recommend it!
Automated Transcript
Dr Rad 0:00 Hello. You're about to listen to a special episode of the partial historians, which is all about gladiator two, a movie set in the reign of Caracalla and Geta
so
Dr G 0:12 so we are warning you in advance that this conversation will contain spoilers if you have not yet gone to the cinemapost haste, my friends get there soon and come back and listen. Or if you don't care about spoilers, and in fact, you thrive in an environment where you know all of the details before you see a thing, please continue listening and enjoying.
Dr Rad 0:35 And it pretty much turns out as we all expected. Dr G Maximus came back to life and married me in the future, just as I always wanted. Finally, a New Zealand man finds his Australian bride, that's right, and now on with the show you.
Music. Welcome to the partial historians.
Dr G 1:10 We explore all the details of ancient Rome,
Dr Rad 1:15 everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles wage and when citizens turn against each other, I'm Dr rad and
Dr G 1:25 I'm Dr G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories. Join
Dr Rad 1:36 us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Hello and welcome to another special episode of the partial historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr rad,
Dr G 2:00 and I'm Dr G
Dr Rad 2:02 And we are super excited because we're going to be talking about another gladiator movie today. Dr G, just when you thought you couldn't get enough,
Dr G 2:10 I can't get enough. That's why I'm here, exactly. And
Dr Rad 2:15 we are super lucky to be joined by an expert, an international expert, Dr Lindsay Steenberg is currently a senior lecturer in Film Studies at Oxford Brookes University, where she coordinates the graduate program in popular cinema. Her research interests are violence and gender in post modern and post feminist media culture. If you like true crime, you should definitely check out her back catalog. Whilst Dr Steenberg has published widely and regularly presents at conferences, our particular point of connection is her interest in gladiators. She is the author of, are you not entertained? Mapping the gladiator across visual media, which was published by Bloomsbury in 2020. Being astute listeners, I am sure that you have all correctly guessed that she is here to discuss gladiator two with us, which was at time of recording, just released in cinemas. Welcome Dr Steenberg,
Lindsay Steenberg 3:15 thank you so much for having me and for giving me the opportunity to talk about one of my favorite subject matters gladiator movies, you're
Dr Rad 3:23 in good company here. You know, it's one of the things I think that we do the most around here. So look, we are so keen to talk a little bit about gladiator two with you, and also the aspects that you have looked at in your work. So we thought we might start off with the part that people probably remember most vividly when they see a gladiator film, particularly a Ridley Scott gladiator film, and that is, of course, the arena sequences. So please tell us what is often the function of the arena in Gladiator films.
Lindsay Steenberg 3:54 Okay, again, favorite subject matter within my favorite subject, yeah. So I've spent more time than really any human should, thinking about arena fights. And I can say that when it comes to the almost the genre of gladiator movies, they're the most important part. You can't have a gladiator movie if there's not any gladiating So I have spent quite a bit of time over quite a few different films, looking at the kinds of conventions, the way that the arena works. Why we keep going back there again and again? So in terms of what the function is really, it kind of defies the logic of a lot of action movies, which is, it isn't just story or spectacle, it's both at once. So you get them in a handy little place. The Arena fights almost a movie within a movie, it has a beginning, it has a middle, it has an end. You enter the amphitheater. You have some looking around to see what's there, some spectacle over architecture and bodies. You get the quality violence in the middle. And then you sort of exit the amphitheater, and that's the end of your of your. Little mini film within a film, they often are great places where you come to understand how power works in the film itself. It's a nice little structure. I mean, if you think about the way an amphitheater is designed in that in that oval kind of shape, it means everybody can see everybody else. So the kind of layers of the way that the looking works. It's like we in the cinema are looking at the amphitheater. The people who are in the audience are looking and being looked at. You've got the sort of authority figure sitting there watching, and we're watching them. Then you've got the people down on the sands doing their thing. So it really it becomes a way to further the plot, to show who's good, who's bad, who's skilled, who's dead. It also sort of provides an opportunity to raise the stakes of the plot. So you've got sort of Concerned Women are often there in the audience, rarely on the sands, and they can kind of look and look worried, or look very desiringly at the gladiators on the sands as well. That's a bit of a spectacle, in that sense, as well. And then the Gladiator, of course, is looking at the audience as well. And that's why you get are you not entertained? He's judging us for watching him. So it kind of does all of that at once, very economical kind of spectacle,
Dr G 6:10 a bit like an ancient panopticon where viewing is happening in all directions.
Lindsay Steenberg 6:15 It absolutely is. And that and the sort of really seamless functioning of power works. You know, you don't have to work for it. The shape almost guarantees that. And you know, the movies love that. They love that shape. You can do some amazing things just with a nice little pan across the audience with a nice aerial establishing shot to see the shape of the amphitheater, so you can see, see deliberately, the way that power works in a very spatial sense. I
Dr Rad 6:39 must admit, I do love a good camera pan around the arena. It's
Lindsay Steenberg 6:45 got to be done. It's it's hard to tell who that gaze belongs to when you do the full kind of almost 360 probably to the gladiators on the sand. But it just get lets you see questions what the spectacle is. Maybe it's the audience. Because if you've seen, if you've seen the stars show Spartacus, the crowds and theaters are as much they're frequently naked. One wonders why? Well, I guess one does,
Dr Rad 7:10 yeah, they kind of
Lindsay Steenberg 7:12 look around and they're like, oh yes, look at the audience. So, you know, you get to do everything with that 360 pan.
Dr G 7:17 I think this sets things up really nicely, because you you've described it as this sort of miniature film within a film. And I do love that that kind of MIS on a beam aspect of it, and that leads us really nicely into thinking about what some of the conventions might be for these arena sequences. What are audiences expecting, and where have those expectations come from in cinematic history?
Lindsay Steenberg 7:39 Oh, I've got stuff on this. Let me tell you, it is a kind of mise en a beam. And one scholar describes it as a mise en spectacle. So, you know, a spectacle within the spectacle of the film. So the kinds of conventions that you get, it's really interesting. As somebody who studies film, I hate saying that, like, oh, it's universal. It's always the same. Because films, you know, reveal a lot about the time and place they were made and the time and place they're watched. But a gladiator fight is remarkably consistent. So the conventions are really, really sticky. We really like them. We're not giving them up as to where they came from. It's a little bit hard, you know, there's a there's a myth that may have basis in fact that when Ridley Scott was going to make the original gladiator film. Someone showed him a picture of the painting pelica verso, which has a gladiator waiting to kind of decide if he for the Emperor, decide if he's going to die. And it's, you know, so this neoclassical, sumptuous painting, and someone held it up and said, I want to make this painting into a movie. And that was how they kind of worked. So like in the Colosseum with those conventions. So the way the sort of typical, the typical arena fight goes is that you always want to have the pre fight sequence down in the backstage area, bonus points if it's in that nice little basement beneath the trap doors, kind of area that's very exciting. It always it often sounds really similar, like there's like whisperings of gladiators in the corner, this kind of metallic clangings, and then you have that beautiful from the dark tunnel into the amphitheater sequence. It's often sort of backlit, so you can see the outline, the silhouette. And then all of a sudden, you get the spectacle and that pan of of the arena and who's watching and who's there, the way that I sort of tend to shorthand describe what are the conventions of a gladiator fight. Are from the movie Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. So Tina Turner's there, Mel Gibson's there,
Dr Rad 9:29 two men into. One man leaves, two men enter, one man leaves. You know, how
Lindsay Steenberg 9:33 do you do a gladiator fight? That's it. That's what you do. It's just two men enter. That's the scenario. That's the setup. But within that, of course, there's nuance, there's always a moment where the camera is going to spend a little extra time looking at the gladiator who wants you to have time to enjoy that he is part of the spectacle. You know, you're going to have a moment where, if the gladiator fight is between more than just one versus one, you're going to have a moment where the men bond, you know, where Maximus is like, you know, if any of you. Been in the army. Stick with me the same in the second film, like, Okay, guys, we're going to do this together. So you get the bonding, the Brotherhood of the gladiators. You sort of do that. You get that moment of the salute, which I know historians, it makes them a bit itchy, because it never happens, but Hollywood says it did, and apparently we love that. We want the gladiatorial salute. I noticed that in the second gladiator film, they don't really do that. I think they're sidestepping. They're trying not to get them themselves into some historical trouble. But the we who about are about to die, salute you is, is part of so many gladiator movies that we really like that, that part. So you normally get the salute before or the presentation of the gladiators before the fight. The fight is interesting because I am currently also writing a book now on fight scenes, so I spend a lot of time watching fighting. There's not as much fighting in an arena fight as one might expect. A lot of it is talking, planning, staring at rhinoceros, thinking about what you're going to do next, you know, giving a nice little speech to the crowd. How very dare you watch me staring at the Emperor? So, you know, the actual percentage of sword on shield action is quite small because it's, it's a narrative spectacles, whether as well as a violent spectacle. So you'll always get that talking the moment of sort of dialog in there. And then, of course, you always have the thumbs up or the thumbs down again. I think it's something that makes historians itchy, but it's something that Hollywood says, Yep, we want it. We want thumbs up, we want thumbs down. It's really easy and where it all comes from. I mean, I've probably, I've probably watched more gladiator movies than than most humans. Any human it comes from. The beginning of cinema, you get these kind of biblical or historical epics that were made in Italy. I mean, Hollywood loves a biblical epic. So you know, right down, even in the in the silent era, or the early era of cinema, that you still got these kind of conventions. You still would have somebody fighting animals inside of an amphitheater. You would still get the thumbs up, thumbs down. So it's, I'd say, that the gladiator fights on screen are as old as cinema, so they often involve Pompeii. That's that's a place we like to fight, and
Dr Rad 12:07 we like it when the volcano erupts during a gladiator we
Lindsay Steenberg 12:11 really do. If you can get gladiators fighting for their lives behind the volcano exploding, we get disaster movie. We get action movie. It's all
Dr Rad 12:17 happening exactly, and what are they going to do to finish the fight or run?
Lindsay Steenberg 12:21 I think you'll find both. They're running, fighting what's happening, and
Dr Rad 12:27 they should grab their romantic interest as they leave, because you
Lindsay Steenberg 12:31 don't want to leave her. I mean, you do. A lot of ladies have been killed in Gladiator movies. They Yeah, in movies that were we watch now. Sometimes she doesn't even get a name. Maximus, wife has no name. She she's the dead wife, the murdered wife who who prompts him to vengeance. That didn't always used to be the case in an old Italian pedlum film, you often had the ladies had names. But in the millennial sort of moment, it was all about the sort of the gladiators trauma rather than any kind of romance. It seems that, you know, after Maximus, there's no love story anymore. We've abandoned that which is one sadness and violence. We want
Dr Rad 13:14 those Wistful glances. You
Lindsay Steenberg 13:16 know, so much wistful yeah,
Dr Rad 13:18 now I am so curious to ask you now what you thought about the arena sequences in Gladiator two. Because I must admit, I really quite liked the first gladiator film, and I remember when it initially came out, there was a lot of talk, obviously, about the way that they'd staged those arena sequences, particularly the ones that involved the Tigers and that sort of thing. And there is a really curious thing that Dr G has often picked up on, which is the picking up of the arena sand and the rubbing between the hands that Maximus and now Lucius does spoilers, everybody. But yeah, so we'd love to know what you think. Yeah, we'd love to know what you think about the arena sequences in Gladiator too.
Lindsay Steenberg 14:01 I mean, I was, I was in it for the arena sequences. That's what I was there for. So glad that there were sharks involved. It was, I don't know too much, I think it was delightful. In terms of the arena sequences. I did do the kind of slightly nerdy film thing. I brought a notebook to the cinema hoping that no one would notice, because I wanted to count the arena sequences, because in the original film, there's five arena sequences, and they range from that first one in North Africa, where he fights in that wooden structure, and it's quite sort of homespun, I guess, the amphitheater, and then up into the logical Yeah, just a little a baby, baby amphitheater, and then he goes to the Colosseum, and part of the shock and awe of that fight is the structure, the architecture itself, like this is Rome. So I was quite curious to see how many there would be and where, and they echo each other so closely. We get the first fight sequence with Lucius and this terrifying CGI, apes, monkeys.
Dr G 14:58 Yeah, we. CGI baboons
Lindsay Steenberg 15:01 aliens. Like, why didn't they have fur? I find
Dr G 15:05 it was a shocking choice. It
Lindsay Steenberg 15:07 was such a strange choice. And I find monkeys very frightening. So I was like, Whoa, I would I'd rather they would be, yeah,
Dr Rad 15:12 they were frightening, but also so unreal, like, so unrealistic for the first fight, like you said, like the first film. It seemed right that we started off in that sort of humble, provincial setting. Yeah, with this one, it feels like we started too big and
Lindsay Steenberg 15:28 and then with a with a strange, almost science fiction element. So yes, what I think marked the Coliseum or the the amphitheater fights of the first film was the combination of this digital spectacle like the crowd generation software was state of the art at the turn of the millennium, and people were really impressed with it, but it was also that it was rooted on the sands in that authenticity of like face punching action. So this in that fight, I thought, okay, here we're going to get that lovely combination of digital augmentation, but authentic, like corporeal authenticity. And then I don't know, crazy bald monkeys came, so I was sort of like, okay, I'm willing to I'm it was okay. But then that they was, soon as they got back to Rome, I felt okay. We can recall, we can recover this the arena fights were pretty spectacular. I'd say the choreography of the violence within the amphitheaters was probably more nuanced. It speaks to a franchise based American cinema that demands very sophisticated fighting. It doesn't just want your John Wayne walk up, punch a guy in the face and leave no it doesn't want that thing that they used to do in sort of Hollywood swashbucklers, where you sort of gently slice somebody, they bend over and they die. They wanted to have that kind of brutal realism, and it did deliver. So I haven't, I haven't crunched the numbers on the density of the violence, but I suspect if it follows the pattern that all other Hollywood movies do, there will be more violence, Less talking, more fighting. And I would say that kind of I loved the naval battle, probably just for the spectacle rather than, I don't know where the boats were gonna go. It was a pretty tight space,
Dr G 17:08 a tight space with artificial islands. So where were
Lindsay Steenberg 17:13 they gonna go and the sale? Did they need a sale? They didn't need a sale. But, you know, they crashed together. And we did get some some fighting there. And it, I kind of it felt like the sequel to 300 which was sort of 300 but in water, this was sort of like Gladiator, but in water speed. So I felt like that's, that's what they were doing, like now it's not safe to get in the water. The sharks were great. I loved them, and so were the kind of battle they had the rhinoceros, which I have to admit, I I felt very emotionally attached to that Rhino, and the little sad noises it was making, oh, poor Rhino. And then Pedro Pascal brings his mustache into the amphitheater for some quality, sort of like Oedipal father surrogate son kind of moment. And it that that sort of like that was a good kind of way to wrap up a narrative moment, but make it violent so that you get plot moved lots of violence. And then, of course, it was a little disappointing that Denzel Washington and Paul Mescal didn't fight each other in the Colosseum, but I understand that they wanted to fight in water and beyond Rome, so I forgave them for that. I just kind of wish they'd brought it back into the Colosseum for the final point. Oh, that
Dr G 18:25 would have been a moment, yeah, because it did feel like the river sequence, if we can call that body of river, is maybe the smallest tributary of the Tiber I've ever seen. It
Lindsay Steenberg 18:37 was a modest, little, very
Dr G 18:39 modest, yeah. I'm like, Guys, are you sure this is where
Lindsay Steenberg 18:44 you want to have your final fight? Yeah, I
Dr Rad 18:46 think you put your finger on something there. I actually was not that enamored of Lucius as a character. I think that you did a good job in the action sequences. There was enough brawn there and everything. But I must admit, I found Pedro Pascal and Denzel Washington much more compelling to watch. And I agree. I would have loved to have seen them come together rather than what we actually got, which is, of course, is Lucius and Macrinus coming together after his confrontation with his stepfather. I'm going to call
Lindsay Steenberg 19:22 him Pedro Pascal, is the surrogate dad we all didn't know we needed. Yeah, he's always picking up something like whether it's a little Yoda or, you know, video game character,
Dr G 19:34 finding the child in all of us along the way. I want to hone in for a little moment on the nomarchia sequence, because I think this is one of those things that as a lover of Roman history, even though I'd be I'm very willing to pick up on the detail. I was super excited that this was something that was included in this film, because I feel like it's highly unlikely that I'm going to get to see a sea battle. People in the Colosseum, again, in any film in my lifetime. And I'm interested in your assessment on how well Ridley Scott is bringing that idea to life, and how his conception of it sort of compares to some of the ancient evidence we have for this kind of thing happening. Well,
Lindsay Steenberg 20:18 I was very excited about it as well, and it has been the foremost question that I've been asked, you know, by colleagues, by students, just interested, friends, going there, they didn't flood the Colosseum, how that's so unrealistic, and they kind of see it as this way over the top spectacle. And when I say no, they they did. This was a thing that happened. There were naval battles. People watched them. People are a bit astonished. Now, I
Dr G 20:41 can't, I can't
Lindsay Steenberg 20:43 testify to any evidence that sharks were involved. I think they're sort of quite how did they transport the where was the tank? There's many, many of this would mean
Dr G 20:52 that the salt the water in the Colosseum would need to be salt water. It seems very unlikely. A
Lindsay Steenberg 20:58 little tricky, a little tricky, but the fact that it's within the realm of possibility, I think that is something that is I was like, Yes, I want to see this. I want, I want all that CGI has to offer to bring this spectacle to me. Because I have seen naval battles in other gladiator films. I think I can only recall one I looked at my list before speaking to you, there is a 19 I've wrote it down, 1962 film called The Last Days of Herculaneum, or the destruction of Herculaneum, depending on the translation and they have, they stage a naval battle. Our hero is going undercover as a gladiator for reasons we we don't need to know. There is a lot, it doesn't matter. But he goes and they have this, and it is a low budget Italian- French co-production. So this is the days of those cheap muscle men, Italian films, which are kind of joyful and really fun to watch. And he goes and there's a pond, and they stage a full sort of canoe battle with, you know, all the finest that you know, homespun low budget gladiator movies had to offer. So I found that was one of the most memorable gladiator moments that I recall out of all the Italian movies that I watched, Steve Reeves, the former Mr. Universe, Breaking Chains and stuff and throwing trees. I'm like, no, no, I was in it for that pond battle. That was great. It was slightly awkward as they all tried to fight on tiny boats, but that sort of shows you the what if you just got together, grabbed a camera and some rafts and tried on the pond, versus Ridley Scott's imagining of all the tools and the toys and the spectacles and the islands and the sharks and the arrows and the fire. So I, sort of part of me, wanted it to be even more over the top. We're here. We're on the water. Let's make it happen. I mean, we know that it's a possibility, so let's just roll with that. But I expect he had to sort of temper his his shock and awe vision to be able to still tell a story, because it's hard to make the human element stand out in that kind of a naval battle. Naval battles, I think, are often quite tricky in terms of staging a fight scene. You have to be on the two sides. If they're just shooting at each other from their opposite boats. That's a different kind of scenario. If you want the stakes to be personal, they have to go on each other's boats. They have to get close enough. So I think in that sense, it did work. People who I saw the film with suggested that it was very video game like that. That moment seemed a little bit like an Assassin's Creed video game. So I think there was something kind of like, this is the next level to it as well. But I think they, I think they did a good job. I enjoyed it. I like I said, I would have liked even more just, I throw it all, throw it all at a water fight scene. I
Dr Rad 23:45 have to ask, What? What is more? What is more? On top of islands and sharks and ramming, it could have
Lindsay Steenberg 23:49 been islands. It could have been sure. I mean, we could have brought some, some women right into the amphitheater, and perhaps an emperor could have fallen at least one of them. I mean, there were two. There's a spare. Let's get, let's get Caracalla.
Dr Rad 24:00 Let's have one of them drown. Yeah, maybe
Lindsay Steenberg 24:03 some
Dr G 24:04 nunchucks falls onto a boat. Yeah?
Lindsay Steenberg 24:08 An explosion or two, like, bring Michael Bay on to consult, something could explode.
Dr Rad 24:12 You're right. You know, we've also had the Colosseum actually start to collapse and the crowds start to fall into, you know,
Lindsay Steenberg 24:21 the crowd falling in later. So that was, yeah, more, maybe more sort of Errol Flynn style, like ropes, a little, little swinging in there as
Dr G 24:31 well. Yeah, missed opportunity that one. So, yeah, it was, it
Lindsay Steenberg 24:34 was enough. It was definitely excessive. But somebody could have ridden a shark,
Dr Rad 24:38 yeah, you say Right? Because that was the main thing that people have said to me, they're like sharks gamma.
Lindsay Steenberg 24:43 I mean, yes, like I said, I don't think there were sharks, but there could have been other that they have reported, other animals, look
Dr G 24:50 but the thing that I've talked to people about, and I firmly stand by, is that if the Romans could have put sharks in there, they would have
Lindsay Steenberg 24:59 that's a. Exactly what I said. I'm like, Look, if they could find a way to get a shark into an amphitheater, they would have been 100% behind it. They've been a yes,
Dr G 25:09 very keeping in the spirit of the Romans, could
the sharks fight each other? They would have found a way to make this happen. So
Dr Rad 25:15 really, the great tragedy of this is that the Romans themselves will never see this movie. They will
Lindsay Steenberg 25:20 never see the movie about themselves, although, I mean, when it comes to sort of Rome on screen, the interesting thing is that that, of course, it is, is rarely about Rome. Gladiator is as much about America as it is about Ancient Rome and what we think it was like. So the heroism we see there is very American. Yes,
Dr Rad 25:38 it's okay. So now that you brought this up, I definitely would love to probe a little bit more about this, because one of the things I felt after seeing gladiator two, I didn't like it as much as the first film, and I felt that it was because it was kind of a typical sequel, you know, and that the villains were worse, the explosions were bigger, you know, There was more action, but I felt there was a little less heart and soul and story, and like the main character, for me, was lacking. I mean, as kind of laughable sometimes, as Maximus is, in some ways, there's something so strangely compelling about him, as characterized by Russell Crowe, which I did not find with Lucius so much as I did with fake characters like Macrinus. And I also felt that the first gladiator did have a more obvious commentary on contemporary America and that sort of thing with its I always got the impression that it was sort of talking about how the American people are distracted from politics and what is really going on by entertainment and those sorts of messages, which actually sort of stem a little bit from, obviously, what some of the critics of ancient Rome said as well about their own society. So I'm curious to know what you think about gladiator two and what it speaks to at this moment in time.
Lindsay Steenberg 26:57 Yeah, absolutely. The first one did seem to be a very kind of, you know, it's putting a toga on something, but it is commenting on, what is it like to live in a spectacle driven society? What's it like to kind of worship celebrities, to create a celebrity who becomes so powerful that even the Emperor can't give them a thumbs down. That idea, the sort of the Oliver Reed moment where he says, You know, I didn't succeed because I was the best. I succeeded because I was the most loved. I was most famous. To me, that was an excellent kind of way of thinking about how this fighter performer worked, and how celebrity can be built and manipulated. Whereas there was, I thought that there was going to be a little bit of the similar kind of thing, you know, Lucius would be built up as this celebrity gladiator and and that celebrity would be something that we could think about that seemed to have been emptied a little bit. Yes, he was famous. They were chanting. They liked him, but that didn't seem to make much of a difference. They also quite liked Pedro Pascal's character as this heroic general, but that didn't seem to be something we were thinking about. So it did seem to be a little bit emptied out of some of the more poetic, allegorical moments that the film had, which I found a bit disappointing, because, you know, a nice ancient allegory worked so well, and that idea that the barbarians are at the gate, or, sort of, you know, something is falling, we're under threat. That's something that that gladiator really wanted to think about, you know, what happens when the Empire Falls? What happens if we imagine something beyond this kind of rule? Whereas I found that sort of Lucius speeches were sort of, they don't end tyranny, which is, yes, nobody wants tyranny, but it didn't seem to be very specific. It didn't seem to speak to the moment of what would happen after. So I was a bit disappointed for that missing satire commentary. I was sad when Maximus died. I mean, he was a bit funny sometimes, you're right, he was a bit over the top, and his trauma was so over the top. My name is Gladiator, and I loved it. I loved that melodrama, and I did feel moved when he died. And you know, he was this dream of Rome. Could it ever be good enough to sort of be worthy of his death? Of course not. There was no, no real sacrifice that we were meant to mark in the second one, because Lucius didn't die. Maybe it would have been better if he died. Do I sound horrible, because then he would have fallen again for Rome, and you know, Pedro Pascal's general didn't that that moment didn't have enough gravity and weight to really make us be like, oh, oh, okay, we've lost something here. And you know, why was he there? Why did they want to stop their takeover of Rome to save Lucius? It some of the things were sort of missing in that it was, I think, standard run of the mill, mid level gladiator Movie. Yeah, what it didn't do was chew the scenery too much that I was expecting. I thought that Denzel Washington was going to go full Oliver Reed. He didn't like, like Kiefer Sutherland in Pompeii. I thought he was going to go, yes, he he sort of held a kind of emotional center in the movie that. So it didn't spin out of control. But yeah, I think I don't know whether it depends on when you see it. You know, if I saw it when I was younger, and I hadn't seen a film like it, does that make it more impactful? So maybe if I were 15 years old, seeing this film, knowing Paul Mezcal from other shows, like normal people, I would feel like I did in sort of watching the first film. I'm not sure if it is, but I do feel it was a bit a bit more superficial than the first Yeah.
Dr Rad 30:46 And it felt like it was divided between Lucius, Lucilla and the general, as he's so often called, Pedro Pascal character, gotta have a call in the game, just the general. Yeah. It just felt like it was maybe more divided between them, whereas the first film, it was really all centered on Maximus, even though there were other people who got involved, like Gracchus and Lucilla and that sort of thing. This one, I felt like it was, again, like a typical sequel. There were more distractions and rabbit holes, and there was just, there was just less to root for, I think, with Lucius, you know. And it was just Yeah, I was that was actually the main thing that disappointed me. It wasn't so much the you know, as you say, the arena sequences were executed really well in terms of their cinematography and the spectacle and that sort of thing. But I just felt I was lacking that, that classic gladiator message that films like Spartacus and glad he had to have, yeah,
Dr G 31:42 if I may, I think the reason why you might be disappointed is because the general represents the kind of vision that Maximus was attempting to pursue but was unable to fulfill through his death in the arena, and for him to exit the film so suddenly means that actually, that that narrative aspect is completely lost, and all we're left with now is what we now know is the idea of the natural Imperial inheritance that has already been laid out by Marcus Aurelius through Commodus. And we know how that goes, and it doesn't go well, so there's not a lot of optimism Fauci is coming into this. No, even though he's very angry and he's filled with rage, he's still a prince of Rome. And are we supposed to go for those guys? Because the other ones that we've got on show in this movie, Caracalla and Geta, not, not great, exactly. They're
Lindsay Steenberg 32:39 not, they're not great. They're standard Roman villains. They're, you know, excessive and effeminate, which, you know, classical Hollywood often equates with sort of perversity. Yeah, the notion that it is this ATRA lineal kind of inheritance, like he's his destiny is to be Prince of Rome. It felt like what I kept thinking, what Weren't we going for a republic was that I thought we were talking about a republic. No, yeah, we're good.
Dr Rad 33:04 And there's so much that's left unexplained about, you know, they just have this, you know, this scene where Lucille hurries Lucius out of the arena after Maximus and Commodus both die to get him to safety, to explain how he exists and how this whole storyline is possible. But there's no explanation about Well, why didn't Gracchus and the rest of the senators step up and do what they wanted to do in that power vacuum moment? How on earth did Caracalla and Geta ever get into power where did they come from? Exactly, there's a total lack of any, you know, connecting the dots there, which, which is why it's so frustrating. Because you're like, I don't understand. It seemed like Maximus was getting there. I felt like the only moment where there was a possibility for something similar was when the general dies. Although I didn't really love the timing of that. When Lucius says, Is this how Rome treats its heroes? I'm like, Okay, well, that's a little that's something a little bit different. There was maybe some possibilities there in terms of some, you know, some commentary about how, you know, people can be treated, particularly how good people are treated in more corrupt societies. But again, it never went anywhere. He just, he just died. And that was that it wasn't really followed through in any major way.
Lindsay Steenberg 34:22 I think some of it, too is down to the shorthand that Marcus Aurelius has as a good emperor, and the sort of recent movement towards sort of popular or vernacular stoicism. So, you know, there are places on the internet where it's called broicism. It is this kind of popular, populist philosophy where, you know, it's used a lot people like martial artists or MMA fighters. So you've got the sense that Marcus Aurelius is a good philosopher king, and that Lucius, you don't have to answer the questions because he is. Angry and stoic at the same time. So it isn't that you want to get rid of the kings, it's you just want a good one, not a bad one, which I think to me, even though I knew that Commodus wasn't going to die and leave a republic in his wake, because we may have studied a little bit of history here, I loved that. That's what they went for, that they were like, You know what? We don't want a good king. We don't want a bad king. We want no king, no king. So this one kind of backpedaled on that a little bit. So I thought, Oh, you could have, especially since the two emperors were awful and, you know, have this interesting moment in US leadership there, there was, there was room to do some interesting things that they sort of
Dr Rad 35:39 picked away Exactly, yeah, and Caracalla and geta don't have the backstory that Commodus does as much as Commodus is obviously Caligula 2.0 in the way that they've presented him. You understand very clearly that he has this tortured relationship with his father and never living up to expectations and so and he just has this desperate desire for love and family and connection and so. And maybe it's also partly down to how Joaquin Phoenix obviously played him, because he's a brilliant actor, but you have a certain amount of sympathy and understanding for Commodus, even whilst you totally know he's the bad guy wheras Caracalla and Geta again, there is nothing redeeming these guys nothing, and they have such interesting back stories in real life. It's crazy to me that that none of that was used a real
Dr G 36:30 missed opportunity. I
Lindsay Steenberg 36:31 was gonna say you could hear the difference in the two films too, because in the first film, the the music that you know, the scoring, had the really, meaty themes for Commodus and for Maximus. And, you know, I've read a really interesting article about how the entire film, you hear it, and it is these two motifs coming together and then moving apart. And it's this struggle between two interesting men struggling for power and paternal love, whereas the scoring in the second film, I heard the ghost of some of the classic themes from the original, but didn't quite set up its own unique motifs and identity for its characters. So in some ways, you could hear the difference in the story as much as you could see it. You didn't get those really notable kind of kind of motifs sliding through the film.
Dr G 37:23 I think, yeah, this is one of those things where it's like, do you have Hans Zimmer and his team on board, or do you not have
Lindsay Steenberg 37:31 he's some some film music. People don't care for him very much. But the score of gladiator was really and then Lisa Gerrard, I think that her contribution there, I think really raised it. It just makes a big difference for how you remember the film, and how the film kind of prompts you to feel, and for the scoring in that, yeah,
Dr Rad 37:49 I shouldn't really venture an opinion here, because I'm I cannot to be unbiased, because I actually walked down the aisle to the theme from Gladiator.
Lindsay Steenberg 37:58 It's a very memorable theme.
Dr Rad 38:00 It is
Lindsay Steenberg 38:02 the the much talked about similar melody to the Pirates of the Caribbean fight theme to the to the music and Gladiator I mean, you just have to kind of hum that, and people are ready to find their swords that it's, yeah, it's not exciting. So it was a huge part of that. And I don't recall kind of fight moment with the same musical kind of weight to it. It felt a little bit, you know, I'm not a musicologist, but it felt a lot like the kinds of scoring that you used to see in biblical epic epics from Hollywood, quite orchestral. And I was sort of like, okay, I recognize this. It's just I can't remember it once it's over. And I like to remember the music and think, okay, yeah, that makes me feel like I'm I'm ready for an amphitheater fight. Well,
Dr Rad 38:45 when you think about some of the more notable gladiator films from the past, and I am going to go to Spartacus, just because it's the one I know best, yep, but should Spartacus has that very memorable scoring all throughout it from Alex north, and I know that for some younger people these days, it's a bit much, because there is music every single moment, yeah. But they have, as you say, they've, they very clearly had themes for each character. You know, virinius theme is beautiful. It's a really lovely piece of music. And even though I can see it, I can see that, okay, yeah, that maybe it's a little too much music, but at the same time, it gives the film such a signature, and I only have to hear a few notes, and I'm I'm right back watching that movie, because it does just work like that, I suppose, in our brain. So yeah, I think that there is a lot to be said for scoring, even though it's kind of a bit of an invisible, yeah, part of a movie,
Lindsay Steenberg 39:38 the scoring. And then the other thing that's quite invisible, which I'm always paying attention to, is the stunt performance. So I'm fascinated by the way that that spectacle it, you know, it wasn't just Denzel, Washington, Pedro, Pascal and Paul mescale. It was all of the stunt performers who did an astonishing job of jumping out of boats and, you know, grappling on the sands. So you. I thought that part of it was, was pretty astonishing, but there would have been no point in fighting the twin emperors. They weren't, you know, they're not like Commodus, who we, I think we all know, or most people know, wanted to be a gladiator. So he has, like, you knew it was gonna, it was all coming to that we are gonna find this final battle in the Colosseum. Whereas, you know, not, not so much the similar kind of sort of gladiatorial backstory for the for the
Dr G 40:28 one. And to hone in a little bit, because I think Macrinus is my favorite character in Gladiator and my theory is that he's actually the protagonist of this film. Yeah, he's the one who is demonstrably acting in ways that further plot points, and we see his whole arc across the course of this film as well. And I'm wondering if when we're thinking about it, rather than focusing on our disappointment with maybe what felt like a bit of a flat Lucius, unfortunately, despite, I think, a really workable performance from Paul Mescal. Instead, we get a really sort of shining light with Macrinus, who seems comfortable in his costumes, and, you know, is owning every room that he moves into, and is finding ways to make things happen for him rather than against him, when it could go either way, really, before he gets there. I'm wondering how this might be a useful way to think about this film. I
Lindsay Steenberg 41:25 think so. And I think Denzel Washington's performance really did stand out in this film, like he was interesting, he was baffling in some ways, because at one point I thought, well, he wants the same thing as Lucius. Let's topple Rome. Let's do it. Let's go and I think that's what he wanted. We're not sure why, and I sort of like that. They never gave him a tragic backstory or tried to kind of bulk that up. It was just, this is what I'm doing. This is politics. I am the puppet master. I, you know, I will manipulate everybody to get what I want. So I think if you look at it from that journey, at first I thought he was going to be the Oliver Reed. He was going to sort of give him a pep top, be the coach, you know, get in there. But he wasn't. And he was, he was evil in a pretty great way. So I think that it was that one performance that all the other ones sort of circulated around. He did not, though, have that kind of physicality where it was going to end in a fist fight, even though it ended in a sword fight, I guess so. I think that if you look at it from he is this canny, disappointed, cynical, almost motiveless kind of angry revolutionary. I think that that makes it a much more interesting film. That makes it something to go. What, whoa, okay. What? Okay, Denzel take us along for the ride. So I do think he was the more interesting character. And he did own all the rooms, although sometimes I it did seem like he was wrestling his his clothes a little, and I was sort of like, okay, and I found that a lot of the upper class people, with the exception of Connie Nielsen's Lucilla, did seem to wrestle their clothes a little. And I sort of figured that this must be deliberate, and that, you know, the gladiators with their almost no clothes, they can move, they can stand, they can be embodied, whereas the upper class characters are struggling with togas and and trying to kind of manage themselves, whereas, you know, the Denzel mostly just sat there looking like, yeah, okay, unfold in front of me. I've made this Yeah,
Dr G 43:31 I look I feel like the toga is a bit of a constraining garment at the best of times. It's a bit awkward, it's a bit heavy. Does get in your way? So it does make the Senate an easy target if you're planning a revolution, but it doesn't seem anybody's taking real advantage of that. Unfortunately.
Lindsay Steenberg 43:48 I mean, I almost missed it that they paraded the senators with Lucilla into the amphitheater for execution. I almost missed that. I was like, Who are they? Oh, okay, those are the senators. Okay, like they seem to be less important than they were in the first one and that no, you know, nobody. None of the senators were fighting. None of them seemed very good at puppet mastering. They were outmaneuvered completely by Denzel Washington's character, by the monkey, even like they they didn't have
Dr G 44:17 a clout. Their job seemed to be to roll over when required to
Lindsay Steenberg 44:22 do what somebody said. You know, Lucilla said this, okay. You know, Denzel Washington says this, okay.
Dr Rad 44:28 You got well, Macrinus is such an interesting choice because this is not my area of specialty, this time period. But from what I am, from what I know, Macrinus is a bit of a blank slate of a historical figure. I mean, we know some things about him, but we don't know as much as we would like. So And certainly, there were problems when he became involved in Imperial politics because of his lowly background. But he certainly wasn't as low as the movie seems to indicate. You know, they've, I think they've tried to heighten the drama by I think it would be hard for a modern audience to really get. On board with the idea that, Oh, he was equestrian and not from a senatorial family, or how disgusting that he was really equally rich class.
Lindsay Steenberg 45:08 Is he middle class? Can we do that? Yeah, exactly.
Dr Rad 45:12 Whereas trying to give him this other backstory where he, you know, came from nothing, and then, you know, took himself to the top. I think that was meant to be the drama of it, the self made American man, exactly. Americans love a bit of rugged individualism, you know? They
Lindsay Steenberg 45:27 really do. And he, yeah, the hold himself up by his bootstraps. This, this is, these are heroic qualities. They've come to be villainous qualities as well, but often in action films where we're supposed to wonder about the motives of the villain. I'm thinking about Black Panther, or something like that, villains who, you know, made something of themselves from nothing in an unjust system. So he has that kind of backstory. But yes, it would not have worked if they were like, actually, he had a house like this. He didn't need to steal the other guys. Yeah, and that would have been okay for him, and he had power, just not as much. So, you know, we need the story. The underdog is a really important character archetype, and often in cinema, people have to work really hard to make their characters be underdogs. So, you know, you can just throw them in an amphitheater, and that works because they're automatically on the sand, not up in the stands, but giving them that pull themselves up by their bootstrap story is a good one that
Dr Rad 46:28 might, that might turn to our earlier conversation about America. Perhaps, maybe that was meant to be something there and just wasn't emphasized enough for it to come through.
Lindsay Steenberg 46:36 Yeah. I mean, heroic kind of conventions are so interesting, what we think of as a heroic quality and who we want to be our heroes that is very, very specific. Even if a the kind of gladiator as a man forced to fight against his will is pretty standard, who he is and what he get represents, does shift quite a lot depending on if you're looking at an Italian story from the 50s or the 60s, are you looking at like an Asian tournament film from the 1980s so much changes into in what we think is heroic that it's interesting to kind of trace it back to that, that kind of national specificity of where that hero is made and who he's supposed to appeal to.
Dr Rad 47:17 That's actually a perfect segue for us to talk about the idea of the gladiator and celebrity, which you did allude to before, when we were talking about Maximus and that sort of thing, but we would love to know a little bit more about the relationship between gladiators and celebrity on film, especially because we know that gladiators had a very interesting position in Roman society as someone who was both disgusting but also embodying certain Roman values that were much admired and were meant to kind of inspire in terms of when they were performing
Lindsay Steenberg 47:51 absolutely that that double status of them. I think that that speaks to exactly how we view celebrities, from a Kardashian to a sports celebrity. The idea that somebody is both, you know, a bit of a train wreck, but also somebody to admire and imitate is, I think, you know, a kind of quite an ancient formulation that stuck that notion that a gladiator is sort of the best and the worst of a society and somehow mixed together. I think that is also really interesting, and that's something that I've wanted to analyze and talk about, because over, you know, quite frankly, hundreds of films, television shows, adverts, the gladiator is when you see a gladiator character, you know right away that you're in a world that's corrupt and falling so you see him, you're like, oh, barbarians are at the gate. The Apocalypse is going to happen. That's Maximus. That's katnius, Everdeen, whoever it is, you see the Gladiator, like, Oh, we're forcing people to fight for fun. It's the end of the world. But they're also simultaneously the best of their world. If you're facing an apocalypse, whether it's Vesuvius or a nuclear war, you find a gladiator, you make friends with them, and they will see you through because they they say that the apocalypse is happening just seeing them, and that they're the one who can, uniquely with their particular set of skills, survive the apocalypse. So they're the best and the worst at all times. So I think that there is something that remains the idea that a celebrity is somebody who we want to imitate and admire and even who has influence over us, but at the same time we're deeply suspicious of that's really easy to talk about when we have infamous celebrities and the whole True Crime boom, and how we've come to elevate serial murderers as celebrities. That's like the tail end of that spectrum. That's way over there. Whereas a gladiator uses violence to make themselves famous, we love them. We admire them. Sometimes, maybe even the Romans wanted to be them. So there, I believe that there are records of aristocrats really wanting to try their hand at being a gladiator, but at the same time to. Put yourself and your body on display for entertainment is kind of quite taboo, and I love that they often found themselves in the same category as actors and even as sex workers, because that is something that has continued and many gladiator fictions, from the sort of television Spartacus to the Pompeii film they do enmesh the kind of sex work and gladiators as a similar category, and that's often another moment of spectacle that's layered on top of the violence is the sexuality of the believing that when
Dr Rad 50:33 I get to see it, there is an allusion to it in the first gladiator film, obviously that scene between Maximus And Lucilla. And obviously, at some point they did have relationship, although not when he was Gladiator, to be fair, as we now know, because of Lucius, all revealed. It's all revealed. I actually, genuinely did not see that coming. I didn't think that that was a thing. I mean,
Lindsay Steenberg 50:55 it, they kind of dropped it like it wasn't a thing, but it was, I mean, maybe hinted in the first movie that Lucilla and Maximus, they definitely had a relationship at some point, totally, but I don't know that we were ever supposed to believe that Lucius was Maximus son. But this one, they were just like, yippee. Is
Dr Rad 51:12 totally Yeah. No, exactly, I thought so too. I was like, Whoa. Okay, you seem very certain about this all of a sudden,
Dr G 51:17 yeah, if you weren't paying attention, yeah, exactly.
Dr Rad 51:21 There's trinkets being passed down.
Lindsay Steenberg 51:25 There's heirlooms. What? Yeah, did this happen? Just
Dr G 51:28 to recap on the first season, he's the son.
Lindsay Steenberg 51:32 Spoilers, he's the son. I mean, in some of this is when I was researching for the book on Gladiators, I came across the unrealized screenplay for a gladiator two that was written by Nick Cave,
Dr Rad 51:45 oh yes, I did see this referred to in your book, and I was so intrigued.
Lindsay Steenberg 51:50 I mean, I'll be honest that no gladiator two could ever live up to the absolute insanity that was part of that screenplay. And Nick Cave, I think he has said, like, I wrote it because I knew they'd never make it. I just knew they wouldn't. And Lucius was in it. He was in it. He was not Maximus son, but he was in it. And if I recall the screenplay correctly, the afterlife, there's gods, and it ends with like a 25 minute montage of Maximus fighting in every single war in history, like from the trenches of World War One to Vietnam, to the Civil War, like, just, let's give up. Let's just put this celebrity gladiator in every battle ever, and sit back and watch. And I was like, you know, and win. I would have watched that,
Dr Rad 52:34 you know. I saw Lucius being a character. I did. I thought as soon as I heard that there was going to be a secret, which I never thought there would be because of the way that the first one ended. But as soon as I heard I thought, yeah, for sure, Lucius is going to be a character. But never thought he was going to be a character in this way. I again, kind of wish they'd done something different with him. But thinking about Lucius, and again, going back to this idea that he was not quite the same as Maximus. Why is it you think that Maximus was built up so successfully as this sort of celebrity fighter, and yet in Gladiator two, it's, again, it's a little bit more muddled. You know, he is, as you say, he does earn his stripes in the arena, but it's just never quite as focused and clear as it is in the first film,
Lindsay Steenberg 53:22 I think it maybe is that they gave up on thinking about celebrity a little bit. So the first film they did have, you know, win the crowd. Win the crowd. You'll win your freedom. This is what you want, the dream of Rome. Win the crowd. In the second one, that wasn't quite as much a part of it. He was a good fighter, and that was enough, like it was, he was good at fighting, but he the kind of theatricality of what the battle was, and the fact that Maximus spectacle was that he hated them all and that he blamed them for the spectacle like that itself was a spectacle that we loved. We loved him being angry at us. That was great. Lucius was just kind of diffuse force of anger. He didn't it wasn't for a reason. It was just, I'm angry. I do all the fighting, all the fight. You just put someone in front of me, let a fight him. Whereas Maximus, I think that we often kind of read a lot of hesitation, like, I don't want to kill all you guys, or I'm protecting my friends, you know, stick with me. We will, we'll. We'll fight this battle. I saw that they wanted to build Lucius up as a leader, you know. They kept saying, you know, you need to lead your men. He gave the speeches. But that didn't seem to it didn't seem to stick as well as I think it probably did in the first film, you didn't get the same side characters, I think, like even if the gladiators, I can't recall, I can't recall all of their names, but he did have his friend, his very good friend. And then we saw, you know, a few of the same figures again and again. And we got a sense that there was a fraternity, that he was becoming closer. And that's something like in Spartacus. I am Spartacus. You have that fraternity, that crowd gathering around them, whereas Lucius had the one friend who was the doctor, but I and the one who died in the first arena fight. But I didn't get the sense of his, his family of gladiators with him in the same way that I did in the first one. And of course, in all the Spartacus, the Sparta chi, the many Spartacus films, TV shows, retellings, just that, that that brotherhood didn't seem to be quite where it could have been. I think
Dr G 55:33 they, they did definitely try to shortcut that by having a Spartacus esque moment.
Lindsay Steenberg 55:38 They so had a Spartacus moment. And when I was in the cinema, everybody giggled. It was
Dr G 55:41 like, Yeah, and I think, I think that's a reasonable response, because the back work on the additional characters in the gladiator troupe wasn't there to justify them all sort of taking part in that moment and being willing to step in and defend Lucius in that way. We didn't have a reason for that to be true. So I think that's why it felt, felt flat and maybe a little bit comedic. Yeah,
Dr Rad 56:06 whereas Maximus is so clearly someone who's earnt the loyalty and the trust of the men around him, and they clearly, they clearly adore him. Same thing with Spartacus, but yeah, you don't ever really get that with Lucius. It's kind of like, Why does everybody care about this guy?
Lindsay Steenberg 56:21 We're just gonna follow him to our Yeah. Okay. I mean, sure. Why not? Gladiator movies are written in shorthand, so I you know there's, there's often not time. I guess what gladiator the original one was, wasn't a bit of an exception. It was a bit of a gladiator movie that did offer you a backstory, that did think through things like male friendship and things like that. Whereas most gladiator movies are sort of delightfully one dimensional, it's like, what are we fighting for? For fighting? That's why we're here. You know, why do you fight? Because I can, like, there doesn't need to be too much complexity necessarily behind the fictions. So I sort of, when I came out of the theater, I was like, Gladiator two is a gladiator movie, like so many others. It has the same things. It has the same conventions, the same short hands. Everything feels familiar. It's just, I think that they're the first gladiator film was a bit of an exception. The trauma was more melodramatic. You know, there's also theorists have sort of noticed a break around that time too. The sort of the world has already fallen and we're all doomed that comes from Maximus onward. So we just, you know, we've just accepted that our hero is always sad. He's never going to get another wife. He's too sad. She's dead. All ladies don't matter to him, because he only fights. He has no time for romance, whereas the kind of pre millennial Gladiator, even Conan, even Conan the Barbarian, is kind of being raised as a gladiator, still gets a little bit of romance. He still has a bit of joy. He gets a sequel as well. So you get a little bit more playfulness and joy in the pre millennial gladiator who bite gladiate because he likes it. Why do you fight? It's awesome. I love fighting. The second sort of iteration is, oh, I'm sad, and I have to, and they're making me and then I'll die. So there is a kind of break in there. Whereas, you know, I think Paul Mescal was enjoying himself. He looked sad, but it felt like he liked fighting. So it was a bit of a throwback to the more traditional, actually, and it's
Dr Rad 58:23 interesting that you bring up the ladies side of thing, because I felt that that was, again, another aspect that was inexplicable, and that was his relationship with Lucilla as his mother, because that was the real relationship. But it went from being completely one way where he was like, Get out of my set. You were banished me. You mean nothing to me. I don't even remember who you are, mother who I'm sorry you didn't raise me. And then all of a sudden it was like, I would die for you. I would do anything for you, just like, what is happening. And that is an unusual That's an unusual turn events, because we don't often have the mother of a gladiator as a
Lindsay Steenberg 59:03 there are no mothers in Gladiator movies. They have all been killed, all of them. Yeah, she was really interesting. And I did enjoy her performance. She had a kind of, you know, dignity that's normally lacking in a gladiator movie. So I thought Connie Nielsen did a great job reprising her role. He switched with her, the way he did with the Pedro Pascal character, with the sort of, all, you know, I hate you. You replaced my father, kind of very Oedipal sort of struggle, like, how very dare you come and steal my mom. But then was like, oh, but okay, in the same thing, I hate you, mom. Okay, no, I don't. So it was a very kind of strange turn of events. And they did have her, you know, all in white on the sort of sacrificial thing, so that it was clear that she was going to be this, this sacrifice, and she was going to be the tragedy that kept him burning for some time afterwards, although I was secretly hoping. Think that the ending would have been every man was dead, and she's like, well, Rome is mine. Obviously the best person for this
Dr Rad 1:00:08 job. It looked like that's where it was going for I thought it was going there. I
Lindsay Steenberg 1:00:11 got excited. Yeah, I also found it. You know, the most unrealistic thing that Hollywood did was not the sharks in the Colosseum. It was imagining a relationship where a woman was older than a man, so Connie Nielsen is a bit older than Pedro Pascal. That never happens. It happens so infrequently, and it's always such a big deal that people commenting, you know, Anne Hathaway is in a romance film with a much younger man. Oh, they didn't comment on it, and it was just there, and I was watching, going, are they going to say something? No, they're not. Okay, Googling it afterwards, just getting a very niche difference. She's just, she's just going to be the love interest of a younger man. Oh, she died. I'm not going to say it was because of that, but I found it was, like, one of those striking moments. I was like, okay, Gladiator, too interesting. So if they had let her keep her her Pedro Pascal and rural Rome, I would have decided that that was much more exciting at the end. I agree.
Dr G 1:01:12 It's a wrap up question, because I feel like we're heading in that direction now with with this sort of alternative ending, which that's a film I would love to see, was there any particular moments in this film that did drive you crazy in terms of historical accuracy?
Lindsay Steenberg 1:01:28 I mean, I think I'm probably better than most people at being able to put that on a bit of a back burner, because I'm a film scholar, and I'm a scholar who studies a lot of historical films, a lot of historical films that are so incorrect that it's you just, you get itchy, it drives you crazy, or you give up. So I do, I do know how to, you know, healthily, give up on historical accuracy. There are some things where I felt they missed a trick, because history was more interesting. I'm like, Why? Why didn't you go into the backstories of those emperors. That was a crazy stuff happening. I would have been really cinematic. Also, the why, where was their mom? I guess Lucilla was offered as a maternal character. Like at the end, Caracalla said, you know, do we? Do we have to kill her? So maybe. So they missed a few tricks, and also the the gender politics and hierarchy of the of the actual arena, like the way things might have been segregated, who sits where i It's so interesting, the way that a hierarchy can be written in space that way. I'm like, Come on, let's do it. Let's we're those Vestal virgins. We're always thinking about them.
Dr G 1:02:41 They seem to be in the Senate House. I'm sorry, but that's where they seem to be hanging out. Yeah, I
Lindsay Steenberg 1:02:46 guess so weird.
Dr Rad 1:02:48 Yeah. We both saw that woman and the dress the way that she was in the Senate scene. And we were like,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:02:52 is that a vessel? Yeah. And there were a few women sort of wearing white in the background, looking disapproving. And I sort of wondered, I'm like, is that? Is, are they the best? Is we could use her? She would be a great character. So I just, I think that it didn't, it didn't upset me that that, you know, there wouldn't have been sharks in the Colosseum, or that I knew that the story was different in history than it was in the film. It was more like history is such a wild ride in this time and in this place. Why wouldn't you want to go there? And I know that the historical consultant for the first film, I think she worked with them, and then sort of said, Could you not put my name on that? Actually? Yeah.
Dr Rad 1:03:34 Kathleen Coleman, yeah, she absolutely did. Like,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:03:38 I'm happy to be involved in films, but you might not have listened to what I was telling you, so I can understand that the first one was more accurate, and somehow it was more accurate. But yeah, so I think that the thing that that is is sort of often a disappointment is, is not necessarily the gladiatorial salute that never happened, or the the thumbs up, thumbs down. It's more like, oh man, you missed some amazing parts of history that would have been so cinematic. I do think, though, for my students, especially, the films are so visually arresting that they will replace history in our minds as a collective. So there's always when you watch these movies, it's not a risk, it's just an interesting function and effect that if you see something that is so astonishing, it kind of sits there in your brain and it's not going to shift. So even if you know there's no thumbs up, thumbs down, or you know that they weren't saying we are the moratorium, we are about to die, it's in there, and it's part of the myth, so it can replace so I don't get too mad when the history's off, but I do think there always needs to be a place where someone says, Actually, no, or actually, yeah, you could have, you could have brought the, you know, you could have flooded the Colosseum. So, yeah, that, I guess my fundamental thing is, movies are spectacle. They're not real. I love it when they do things that are over the top. They could bring more historical over the topness and. And But effectively, we always do have to have the moment of conversation where we say that Rome is beautiful, but that's a Rome that the American imagination in 2024 built out of computers and, you know, martial arts trained bodies. It's not necessarily telling us too much about Rome. Yeah, I
Dr Rad 1:05:17 think that's the thing. I also am very forgiving of historical films, because it's also what I like to focus on. But I must admit, when I see a film like this, where I feel like the major issue was the story and the characterization, because the technology was there, the money was there, the talent was there, both, you know, both in front of us in terms of the actors, but also behind the camera and putting all the bits and pieces together. There was just so much talent actually in this film. And I'm just like, why did you make it harder for yourself? Like you obviously struggled with the story
Lindsay Steenberg 1:05:52 more than anything about plot points, you were exactly your plot is all
Dr Rad 1:05:57 over the place. So why wouldn't you use what is actually there, because, you know what, it's already been crafted into a story by ancient historians who are probably making stuff up to and
Lindsay Steenberg 1:06:07 they knew their audience wanted to hear that as well. And they they knew how to tell a good story.
Dr Rad 1:06:12 Yeah. And I was a bit disappointed, actually. And I don't, I don't think of Ridley Scott is someone who is, I don't really know how I feel about this, actually, but Caracalla and geta being portrayed the way that they were in that white face makeup, given their ancestry, I was so confused as to why those actors were cast, and that was the makeup choice they went for, especially, again, in a film with Denzel Washington playing the krius. It just didn't make sense to me.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:06:44 What yet they did make it harder for themselves, and could have kind of Lent back on some of the stories that were or the mythology that's already there. I wonder if they felt shackled to the first film, because the story, you know, had that like and then he was a leader, and then the wife died, and it was captured, and he came to Rome, and he fought for Rome. So I wondered if they were thinking that they needed to stay so close to the film that they forgot that they're telling historical story.
Dr Rad 1:07:16 Yeah. Look, as you say, it's a fascinating addition, because Ridley Scott being someone who is an older director, and someone who grew up watching the original, like golden epics of Hollywood, you can definitely see those reference points in there if you know the history of film. But I think again, that's the weird thing. Like Gladiator, to me, is just the love child of Spartacus and full of the Roman Empire, you
Lindsay Steenberg 1:07:39 know, yeah, and Anthony Mann's film Fall of the Roman Empire does not get nearly enough credit for having influenced that film and for for just being an AWESOME film, really. So yeah, it absolutely was kind of those biblical epics, sort of those those Hollywood epics stuck together, but sad. So
Dr Rad 1:07:57 you think you'd think, really, Scott could therefore take his own film turned into something good too.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:08:03 It's like, What happened, man, what were you doing? And I mean, when you watch a Ridley Scott film, you often whatever you think about what's happening, you're like, Yeah, but it was visually amazing. And I yeah, I did think this one was arresting and spectacular. I'm glad I saw it in a big screen, but I think it did miss a little bit of its own stylization, like when you watch kingdom of heaven, you were like, Whoa. You know, I don't, I don't know why Liam neesons here, but I'm enjoying what I'm watching, and it's stylish and it's interesting. For this one, it was spectacle. It was good, but I sort of felt like it. It missed a little bit of what Ridley Scott used to be really good at, yeah, Blade Runner good at, yeah, that kind of esthetic that belongs to its own world and makes its own visual language. So this, this felt like I said, mid range gladiator film, which I will always watch,
Dr Rad 1:08:58 yeah, very watchable. Yeah, very watchable. But I think, to be honest, that actually was the same issue with his Napoleon for me, because that was so visually stunning.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:09:10 Yeah, amazing. No matter what you think of what's happening in that film, you're like, well, it looks amazing.
Dr G 1:09:18 I was so angry
Dr Rad 1:09:21 about it, because the acting was terrible. And again, it came down to the plot being a total mess, trying to do way too much.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:09:29 And again, history had a great plot there. Yeah,
Dr Rad 1:09:32 exactly it's, I don't know how he made Napoleon so dull it was, it was crazy. Yeah,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:09:43 I'm gonna keep in my pocket his reaction to historians watching the film, which I think is one of the funniest things a director's ever said, is, you know, people like, oh, it's not very accurate. It's not this. And he just said, f off. It's a movie. Yeah, guys, I was like, Okay. Ridley Scott, I see where you're going. I. Yeah,
Dr Rad 1:10:00 and it's, it's not that, as you say, it's not about the accuracy, per se. It's more that. I'm like, Well, if you can't come up with something better, then why wouldn't you go to the original story, which is good. That's why people want to see a film about Napoleon. You know that that's the issue I have. I'm like, well, by all means, go. Be fictional. Make it up. But yeah,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:10:19 make it crazy. Yeah, exactly. Give us a bit of bridgerton, sure. Fine. Yeah, absolutely. Why not? Yeah.
Dr G 1:10:25 I think this draws our attention to the really important role of the screenwriters and the creation of screenplays in general, and maybe what is going on inside the Hollywood system at this current epoch with script writing and the way these things get changed and altered to suit what seems to be like a committee like structure of like what needs to be in this film. And so instead of being able to tell an original story of gladiator two, which is a natural continuation of the point where the first film ended instead, what you get is a film that is trying to hit the same notes exactly, because that's what made that film a blockbuster, and that's what that's what made it great. So we've got to do that same story again, but now we've just got to have some slight alterations to see if we can enhance that spectrum. Repetition
Lindsay Steenberg 1:11:16 with variation. Works in movies. It works in myths. It works in novels. You know that must make that's a genre repetition with variation. But you have, you have to vary. You have to surprise people, even just a little as you give them what you want. So I don't, I mean, I've spent a lot of my career studying big franchises like Mission Impossible, like John Wick, even Fast and the Furious. And they have that. They're an ecosystem. They have that committee logic, where, you know, you have the one, and then you have to have this, but more this, but more, you know, now with nunchucks now on water, so you do have the logic. You just
Dr Rad 1:11:51 got to go to Tokyo drifting. Yeah, we're gonna get gladiator
Lindsay Steenberg 1:11:55 three. Tokyo Drift would still watch the chariot. There'll be chariot. There's got to be, like, a take on this, like, I want to see that. But then you do feel like what is missed, what loses is that what made the first one special was its variation, and you haven't varied it, so you've given me tried to make literally, what is the first one. And I think you're right about the screenwriters as well. I mean, in an era where, you know, Hollywood is striking because of things like AI, an AI can write a script to gladiator two, it will not be like Nick caves. It will not it'll probably be a little closer to this film that we saw. I'm not saying that an AI wrote this. They absolutely didn't, but the notion that you feed in the kind of familiar tropes and it pops out what you wanted, I think that's often just not enough for us as viewers, even though, historically, often the sequels do make more money than the first. So I'll be curious to see how gladiator two performs at the box office, because when I went to go see it. It was sold out. I have not gone to a cinema where I've been turned away and they've said, No, it's sold out. Or since the 90s, like, I couldn't believe it. I'm like, wow. Okay, that's amazing. So I will see it. Might be enough of a same thing we wanted, but slightly different this time on water that it makes a lot of money, in which case, even if we are feeling a little disappointed that we might get gladiator three Tokyo Drift too fast to gladiator something I would 100%
Dr Rad 1:13:35 like today, Gladiator film where they're too fast and too furious. I would watch that. Well, I think that's probably a perfect note to end up on with our wishes for the future. Dear Ridley, Scott, do you have another one in you? Thank you chariot racing, exactly. Yep. Thank you so much for coming and chatting to us all about the gladiator movies, and Gladiator two in particular, it has been a complete delight. Is there anything that you'd like to tell us about that you are working on that we should keep our eyes peeled for in terms of articles or books or anything like that? Okay,
Lindsay Steenberg 1:14:07 a little shameless self promotion time. Yeah. I guess I think what has been so interesting for me that I'm working on right now is modern interpretations of gladiators that kind of stand out as metaphors for precarious workers in our kind of gig economy. So I've been very interested in things like squid game, very interested in reality TV shows where people gladiate, there's a there's a British show called Romans, Oh,
Dr Rad 1:14:35 yeah.
Lindsay Steenberg 1:14:37 Quite interested in the way that like metaphors like freelancer and stuff like that have become so entrenched in the way we talk about precarious employment. So yeah, I'm, I'm quite interested in writing about things like squid game and and finding out how gladiators have really kind of embedded themselves in our in our in our lives, in sort of like Anglo American and Australian culture.
Dr Rad 1:14:58 Well, that sounds fascinating. We are here for that excellent
Lindsay Steenberg 1:15:01 look forward to squid game two.
Dr Rad 1:15:03 Yeah, it'll come. Thank you so much for coming on the show, and we look forward to perhaps talking to you again when gladiator three eventually makes its appearance on our screens. That would be my pleasure.
Thank you for listening to this special episode of the partial historians. You can find our sources sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina and joy De Guzman. You too can support our show and help us to produce more lively content about the ancient world by becoming our Patreon. In return, you receive exclusive early access to our special episodes. And today, we would like to thank all of our wonderful Patreons and Ko fi supporters for helping us to cover the cost of making the show and taking it in new directions. However, if you have overindulged and blown all your cash on Jaguars earlobes and Wolf nipple chips whilst watching the games, then please just tell someone about the show or give us a five star review. You have no idea how much that kind of stuff really helps these days, Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome.
We jump into 454 BCE where we start to see the consequences of the events of the previous year play out. It's hard to get away from our “Roman Achilles” who, in his position as plebeian tribune, levels a charge of “injuring the state” against the former consul Romilius. This sets up a cascade of interesting incidents.
Episode 107 – Let the Codification Begin
There's little agreement between our major written sources for this year. Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus diverge in much of the details even though they hit upon some shared touchstones.
But this is partly about what we don't know…
Dr Rad explores some of the complexities of who is who during this period. While our sources use categories like ‘patrician' and ‘plebeian', these terms offer a binary model for thinking about the structure of Roman society. Often this is a simplification of what was really happening. By the time we get to the first century BCE when these histories were written, the composition of these groups is more clear cut than they were in the fifth century.
Speeches as didactic tools
Dr G delves into Dionysius of Halicarnassus' use of speeches as a means of teasing out a Roman perspective. Speeches are a significant feature in his writing and sets his work apart from Livy during this period. Dionysius' penchant for rhetoric offers a means of appreciating how the Romans thought. They also offer a framework for Greek readers to appreciate the reasoning of the Romans.
Listen in for…
Consuls with attitude!
A story of a father, a son, and filial duty
The Lex Aternia Tarpeia
The law about the laws!
A surprising consular return
The laws of Solon
Our Players for 454 BCEThe Consuls
Spurius Tarpeius M. f. M.n. Montanus Capitolinus (Pat.)
Aulus Terminius/Aternius – f. – n. Varus Fontinalis (Pat.)
Special Episode – Medusa with Let’s Talk About Myths Baby
17 Sep 2020
00:57:51
Medusa fills the imagination with a very particular kind of fascination. Pity for her situation and dread of what she is capable of make her one of the most recognisable figures from Greek myth. She has transcended that context with her story reimagined by the Romans, the artists of the Renaissance, and she continues to excite wonder today.
We sat down to talk about Medusa and her representation with the fabulous Liv, host of Let's Talk about Myths Baby.
Special Episode – Medusa with Let's Talk About Myths Baby
In this far-reaching conversation, we'll be considering some of the key stories that make up the mythological world of Medusa including:
How she came to have snakes for hair
The challenges she faced as the mortal Gorgon
And how her representation often reflects the values of the context of the artwork.
Who is Medusa?
When you start to look, Medusa is everywhere (but also, don’t look!). She is an extremely ancient figure best known for the Greek myths associated with the hero Perseus.
Medusa is famous for her snaky hair and ability to turn living things to stone with her gaze. This ability has been immortalised in movies such as Clash of the Titans (1981) and its 2010 remake, and Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (2010).
Her decapitated head—the Gorgoneoin—can be found on the breastplate of the goddess Athena, the logo for Versace and the Sicilian flag, as well as decorating many ancient buildings, floors and pottery.
Medusa endures today as a polyvalent symbol of danger and empowerment. She recently featured in Assassin’s CreedOdyssey (2018) and her name is given to the crime network in The Hustle (2019), the gender-swapped reboot of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988).
Join us as we discuss Medusa’s journey to becoming a symbol that can seemingly serve many masters.
Ancient Accounts of Medusa
This is not an exhaustive list, but a guide to those we mention in this discussion and a great place to start reading!
Homer Iliad5.741 – The Gorgon's head is described as a “ghastly monster” and a “potent symbol of Zeus”. Also see 8.349, where Hector's gaze is likened to that of Gorgo and 11.36f for a description of a Gorgon's head on the face of Agamemnon's shield.
A great deal of Medusa's complexity has developed through her reception over time. This is particularly apparent in art. We explore a few key examples that draw attention to a range of interpretations
The Rondanini Medusa
Dating to the late Hellenistic or Augustan periods, the Rondanini Medusa is iconic. It captured the imagination of Goethe during his travels in Italy and it shares many visual elements with the Versace logo as well.
“So-called “Rondanini Medusa”. Marble, Roman copy after a 5th-century BC Greek original by Phidias, which was set on the shield of Athena Parthenos.” Source: Wikimedia Commons, photograph by MatthiasKabel, 2005-10-26.
Perseus by Cellini, 1545-1554
This exceptional bronze can be found in Florence where it offers interpretation of the ancient myth and comment on Medici politics…
Bronze and marble (base), 1545–1554. Under the Loggia dei Lanzi, Florence, since 1554. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons, photograph by Jastrow, 13-9-2005
Medusa by Caravaggio 1595-98
Florence is home not only to the Cellini bronze, but also the famous Caravaggio portrait, where the face of Medusa is interchangeable with that of the artist himself.
You can also explore Caravaggio's Testa di Medusa in detail here.
Bust of the Medusa by Bernini 1644/8
Liv cites Bernini's Medusa as a piece that encourages empathy for the subject. This perspective will come to the fore again in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Held by the Musei Capitolini, Rome. Source: Wikimedia Commons, photograph by Miguel Hermoso Cuesta, 17-4-2014.
You can explore Bernini's sensitive artistry in detail here.
Medusa in King's Quest 3, 1986
Check out this quality graphic!
For Dr G, this was a definitely encounter with Medusa. For many children of the 80s, encountering myths through computer games was a window into the ancient world and its amazing stories.
Garbati's Medusa flipped the heroic narrative of Perseus and cast our snake-haired heroine as a woman of her own destiny. This reimagining of Medusa's story demonstrates how cultural perspective can shift representation.
You can explore high quality images of Garbati's work here.
The complexities of Medusa's story allow for a variety of interpretations. Garbati's sculpture positions her as a figure of female empowerment, gaining power by taking the head of Perseus. The image of her head severed from her body has also been repurposed as political imagery by pro-Trump, anti-Hillary campaigners. In such cases, the myth of Medusa is designed to keep women from power. Why are we drawn back to her story time and again?
Good Greeks!
Since we recorded this episode, we're excited to say that Liv has a book coming out soon! It's all about Greek myth and is gorgeously illustrated. If you're looking for a little more Greek myth in your life, this might be just the ticket 🙂
Looking to delve further into the world of Medusa? We've got you covered. Below are the works we refer to in this episode as well as readings that will build your appreciation for this incredibly engaging figure from Greek myth.
Bremmer, J. N. & Welwei, K. 2006. ‘Gorgo’, in Brill’s New Pauly. Consulted online on 11 January 2020.
Hirst's article is a great place to start. This is an accessible overview of who Medusa was and the main myths associated with her in the ancient world.
Keith focuses on Ovid, Lucan and Statius and analyses how these Roman authors reconciled themselves with the power of Medusa’s image. Ovid and Lucan’s work has been very influential in shaping the Medusa myth!
Lewis, S. 2011. ‘Women and Myth’, in A Companion to Greek Mythology, eds K. Dowden & N. Livingstone (Wiley), 443-458.
Mergenthaler, V. 2008. ‘Gorgon’, in Brill’s New Pauly Supplements I – Volume 4: The Reception of Myth and Mythology. Consulted online on 11 January 2020.
Topper's article is extremely useful for anyone interested in the artistic representations of Perseus and Medusa. Topper explains that earlier attempts to categorise representations of the Gorgon were too “neat” and linear, suggesting that Medusa and her sister moved from more monstrous or grotesque to a beautified image in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.
This introduction provides a succinct overview of the work of French feminist Hélène Cixous’, namely her ‘Laugh of the Medusa’. Keener readers may wish to consult the full essay on Cixous contained in this volume by Zajko.
Sound Credit
With gratitude we offer thanks to Bettina Joy de Guzman for the evocative music that accompanies this episode. She's an incredibly talented musician and scholar as well as a fantastic supporter of our podcast.
We continue to follow the cause of our Roman Achilles–more formally known as Lucius Siccius Dentatus–in 455 BCE. Dentatus is truly the star of the this period of history from the perspective of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Dr G has a lot to say about that!
Episode 106 – Spoiler Alert
What can we glean from a history written long after the fact?
Dr Rad takes us through some of the key concerns we face when approaching the written sources for the early republic.
Part of the trouble steams simply from the time of the events when people like Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus lived centuries later. But we also run into the challenge of stock figures, whose names and existence are open to question. Such figures serve an important role in bringing a historical narrative to life.
The complications of public discourse
The traditionalist streak runs deeply through the patricians. This comes as no surprise as they are the beneficiaries of the structures already in place in Rome, but it does lead to some questionable behaviour.
Things to listen out for:
The patricians position in the forum
The challenges raised by the pons or ‘voting bridge'
Patrician power called into question through trials
Some intriguing exchanges through the goddess Ceres…
Trouble in Tusculum!
A real set to between Romilius and Siccius
The discrepancy between Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus about the treasury
Our PlayersThe Consuls
Titus Romilius T. f. T. n. Rocus Vaticanus (Pat)
Gaius Veturius P. f. – n. Cicurinus (Pat)
Tribunes of the Plebs
L. Icilius
L. Alienus
+ 8 others!
Notable Plebeians
Lucius Siccius Dentatus
Some Family Appearances
the Postumii
the Sempronii
the Cloelii
Our Sources
Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.40-47
Dr Rad reads Livy ab urbe condita 3.31
Further Reading
Interested in knowing more about this period in Rome's history. Take a leaf from Dr Rad and jump into some scholarly reading:
Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome
Forsythe, G. 2005. A Critical History of Early Rome
Momigliano, A. 2005. ‘The Rise of the Plebs in the Archaic Age of Rome' in Rafflaub, K. (ed) Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders
Rafflaub, K. 2005. ‘From Protection and Defense to Offense and Participation: Stages in the Conflict of the Orders' in Rafflaub, K. (ed) Social Struggles in Archaic Rome: New Perspectives on the Conflict of the Orders
Roman warrior charging – Alex Broeckel. Source: Pinterest.
Sound Credits
Sound Effects courtesy of BBC Sound Effects (Beta) Final credits: Excerpt from ‘Ancient Arcadian Harp’ by Cormi
There's nothing quite like learning that there's a Roman Achilles! In this episode we get to meet the man behind the legend.
Episode 105 – The Roman Achilles
Before we jump in, let's find out where things stand. It's 455 BCE and our narrative sources have put forward the case that the opening up of the Aventine was an important step under the new collective of ten tribunes.
But all is not well on the homefront of Rome. Things get off to a bad start when the consuls try to forcibly raise the levy. The tribunes step up to the plate in defence of the plebeians and we delve into what privileges and powers go along with the position.
What we begin to see is the some of the complex workings of contested public space and the challenges of fighting for your rights with only a small crowd of citizens. As the crowd of disaffected plebeians swells in significance, the new consuls are faced with a dilemma – met with the crowd or remain in the safety of the senate…
How does the tribunicianship operate?
This seems to be a big looming question in our sources. There's a range of possible activities that an expanded collective can work towards. The capacity to be decisive, to operate on multiple fronts for common goals, to get passionate about taking strong action. It's intriguing to see how this potential is redirected under the influence of the patricians.
Events to anticipate:
The tribunes enter a meeting of the senate
A big push for the law about the laws
A consular venture to Tusculum to save them from the Aequians
A controversial decision about what to do with some of the spoils of war
Some clear deviation between the narrative focus of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus
A speech from the ‘Roman Achilles' including mention of the corona aurea
Our PlayersThe Consuls
Titus Romilius T. f. T. n. Rocus Vaticanus (Pat)
Gaius Veturius P. f. – n. Cicurinus (Pat)
Tribunes of the Plebs
L. Icilius
L. Alienus
+ 8 others!
Notable Plebeians
Lucius Siccius Dentatus “born with teeth”
Our Sources
Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus Rom. Ant. 10.33-39. Dr Rad reads Livy Ab Urbe Condita 3.31
Special Episode – Agrippina the Younger with Dr Emma Southon
12 Jun 2020
01:03:55
As far as incredible women in history go, it's hard to top Agrippina the Younger. Political, ambitious, and a savvy operator are all ways we might interpret the evidence that remains for her life. But its fair to say that our ancient sources are a little less than kind.
Special Episode – Agrippina the Younger with Dr Emma Southon
Quite the Pedigree…
As the Julio-Claudian family developed into a fully formed imperial dynasty, Agrippina the Younger emerged as an important figure in the rule of three emperors: her brother Caligula, her uncle (and later husband) Claudius, and her son Nero.
She could trace her connections back to Augustus through her mother's line. She was also the daughter of the wildly popular Germanicus, who died too soon and under circumstances palled with suspicion. Her family connections through her father were Claudian and ultimately this meant she embodied the Julio-Claudians.
After the demise of her siblings, we can think of Agrippina as the distilled essence of the family.
But having an illustrious ancestry is not necessarily indicative of how one's life will turn out, and in this special episode, we have the great pleasure of sitting down with Dr Emma Southon, who has written an accessible academic history of Agrippina the Younger to delve further into the life of this amazing woman.
A recent reconstruction of Agrippina the Younger as potentially the lead singer of an 80s band… Source: Royalty_Now on pinterest
What does it take to write a historical biography?
Dr Emma Southon's book Agrippina: Empress, Exile, Hustler, Whore was published by Unbound in 2018. This biography of Agrippina the Younger combines historical detail, engagement with the ancient sources and a colloquial tone to make for a roaring read.
We consider the path to publication for this biography and how academics are finding ways to bring detailed critical history to a broader readership.
Looking to delve further in the life and times of Agrippina?
Here's some sources to get you started:
Primary Sources
Tacitus Annals, esp Books 12-14; Agrippina the Elder's tears as read in Agrippina the Younger's memoirs by Tacitus Annals 4.53
One of the most famous depictions of Agrippina on coinage is her representation with her sisters on the reverse of one of Gaius ‘Caligula' Augustus' issues. c. 37-41 CE. The depiction of living women on coinage was rare and Agrippina's appearance here is an exceptional moment in Julio-Claudian iconography.
Before things went wrong… Nero and his mother, Agrippina the Younger depicted together on the obverse side. c. 54 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons and Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
We return to the City of Rome in 456 BCE and follow the ongoing domestic struggles that Rome faces in defining herself in terms of transparency at law.
Episode 104 – Aventine, Aventine
With a new crop of tribunes come some important consequences. While in previous years the tribunes have focused on the goal of ensuring that there is a clear and public way for any Roman citizen to access the laws in order to understand them, with new tribunes comes a shift in thinking.
A Return to Redistribution of Public Land
After a long hiatus, the issue of public land returns to the tribunician agenda. It's safe to say that things are about to get messy in Rome.
If there's one thing the patricians never seem to want to budge on, it's negotiating the fair use of public land.
Ten Tribunes Means Twice the Representation!
Not only are there new tribunes but there are now plenty more of them representing the plebeians. We'll get a taste of what can happen with a larger group of tribunes. That's a lot of bodies to protect the interests of citizens and we'll see how that magisterial privilege can be deployed.
The Lex Icilia de Aventino Publicando
We delve into the nitty gritty of the law passed in this year which is unusual for a number of reasons.
The PlayersConsuls
Marcus Valerius M'. f. Volusi n. Maxumus Lactuca (pat)
Spurius Verginius A. f. A. n. Tricostus Caeliomontanus (pat)
Tribunes
Lucius Icilius
Lucius Alienus
Sources
Dr Rad read Livy Ab Urbe Condita 3.31 Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.31-32
J. M. W. Turner c.1820s-1836. Rome, from Mount Aventine. Finding a painting that could do justice to the early Republican Aventine was tough, so we opted for this gorgeous, though much later view back onto nineteenth century Rome instead.
Sound Credits
Sound Effects courtesy of BBC Sound Effects (Beta), Pond5, and Lewi Pilgrim
Final credits: Excerpt from ‘Ancient Arcadian Harp’ by Cormi
It's c. 457 BCE in Rome and in this episode we explore the state of affairs in the wake of Cincinnatus' dictatorship.
Rome's affairs with her neighbours are not off to a good start. As the City lifts her gaze outward after recent troubles, nearby peoples have taken matters into their own hands. The Sabines and the Aequians are both making bold moves stretching Rome's attention both to the north and the south.
Episode 103 – Ten Terrific Tribunes
The Law About the Laws
As Rome faces threats from a range of peoples, the usual patrician policy of fielding a citizen army through the levy comes about. We're in pretty familiar territory here as the levy has been a sore point for years according to our narrative tradition and we can reliably expect the tribunes of the people to request greater transparency in relation to the laws. The desire for a law code that is public and accessible is increasing.
As tensions rise, the differing political aims of the Senate, the consuls, and the tribunes clash.
Things to Look Forward to
Roman masculinity – how to define it and what it means from the perspective of a Greek writer
Cincinnatus makes a fantastically interesting speech!
Horatius tries to rally the people together for war while preserving the patrician position of privilege
A discussion of some of the intersections and conflicts that arise from gender and class narratives
A rhetorical exploration of age versus youth
A proposal to increase the number of plebeian tribunes to ten!
The senatorial back-and-forth regarding the pros and cons of increasing the number of the plebeian tribunes
Hints of when we recorded this piece – during the long Australian bushfire season, but prior to concerns about COVID-19
Who's WhoConsuls
Quintus Minucius P.f. M. n. Esquilinus (pat.)
Marcus (Gaius?) Horatius M. f. M. n. Pulvillus (pat.) COS II
Tribunes
Aulus Verginius
Volscius Fictor (?)
Two or three other tribunes unnamed in our sources
Sources
Dr G reads Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.26-30
Dr Rad reads Livy Ab Urbe Condita 3.29-30
Jean Lemaire c. 1645-55 Roman Senators and Legates
Sound Credits
Sound Effects courtesy of BBC Sound Effects (Beta), and John Stracke via Sound Bible
Final credits: Excerpt from ‘Ancient Arcadian Harp’ by Cormi
Special Episode – An Interview with Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge
12 Mar 2020
01:06:34
We had the very great pleasure to sit down with Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge to discuss his latest publication The Failure of Augustus: Essays on the Interpretation of a Paradox (2019).
Special Episode – An Interview with Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge
Judge has a long-reaching career, accepting his first junior lectureship in the 1950s and going on accept the inaugural History Chair at Macquarie University in Sydney. Dr G and Dr Rad met as undergraduate students at Macquarie so it is our extraordinary pleasure to sit down with Judge and have the chance to chat.
Dr G (left) holding Cooley's Res Gestae, Emeritus Professor Edwin Judge (centre), and Dr Rad (right) holding Judge's The Failure of Augustus
In this far reaching conversation we learn about Judge's evolving thoughts on Augustus over the course of his academic career, some of the salient connections between Augustus and Tiberius that emerge from considering Augustus' aims, the content of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, and consideration of Augustus in terms of failure.
Things to look forward to:
A consideration of the importance of understanding time as a means of approaching historical interpretation
The challenges that Tiberius faces in the wake of Augustus' death
The importance of the Res Gestae as a lens to Augustus' life and career
Key materials for approaching the subject of Augustus' failure.
The cursus honorem of Augustus, as visualised by Edwin Judge. Used with permission of the author. This table appears on the cover of The Failure of Augustus and page 8 of the collection.
It's c. 458 BCE and Rome's troubles culminate in the appointment of a dictator. In this episode we explore the context which leads to the appointment of this emergency position and trace Rome's progress as she attempts to face enemies on multiple fronts.
Episode 102 – Cincinnatus, Dictator
Not only are Roman forces squaring off against the Sabines and the Aequians, but there are ongoing issues on the home front. According to the narrative histories of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the tribunes of the plebs continue to lobby for transparency regarding the laws. The struggle to pin down a public law code seems elusive. In this year it is also overshadowed by the troubles that Minucius' consular forces face in the south-east.
The Aequians are currently led by Cloelius Gracchus and the Roman forces led by the consul Minucius have been trapped in a valley, while the other consul Nautius is campaigning against the Sabines.
The Dictator
Our sources are at pains to let us know that Cincinnatus was both unprepared for his appointment as dictator and not particularly pleased to have the role foist upon him. This is part of a larger trope established in Latin literature of the good leader whose fitness for the role is encapsulated by his lack of ambition for it.
In this way, both Livy and Dionysius offer us a chance to see Cincinnatus—and indeed this era of patrician history—as one populated with brave, proud characters who understood the hierarchy and were staunchly traditional in their outlook.
What does a dictator do?
As the most significant magistrate in Roman society, the dictator has a superior legal capacity to make commands and can hold the position for up to six months. Despite his generally dissatisfaction with the situation, Cincinnatus jumps straight in. We'll be looking at how he goes about:
Raising an army
Organising troops
And getting on the march
We explore what Cincinnatus gets up to in the role and how he contributes to supporting Minucius against the Aequians at Mount Algidus. Tune in to hear all about:
The military tactics Cincinnatus deploys
How Cincinnatus deals with requests for peace
Some rather unusual divisions of booty
Just what happens to the Aequian city of Corbio
A triumph!
The incredible virtus of Cincinnatus!
Alexander Cabanel 1843. Cincinnatus receives the ambassadors of Rome
Our players458 BCE
Dictator
L. Quinctius L. f. L. n. Cincinnatus
Master of the Horse
L. Tarquitius L. f. Flaccus
Consuls
C. Nautius Sp. f. Sp. n. Rutilus – cos II
L. Minucius P. f. M. n Esquilinus Augurinus
Prefect of the City
Q. Fabius Vibulanus
Tribunes
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius Fictor (it's not certain whether Volscius holds the tribunianship in 459 BCE)
Aequian Leader
Cloelius Gracchus
Dictator's wife
Racilia
‘Freedom of the City'
L. Mamilius the Tusculan
Sources
Dr Rad explores Livy 3.26-29
Dr G is considering Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.23-25
Sound Credits
Sound Effects courtesy of BBC Sound Effects (Beta) and Free SFX Final credits: Excerpt from ‘Ancient Arcadian Harp' by Cormi
Join Dr Rad as she reminiscences about one of her film favourites and pays tribute to the man that has unwittingly dominated her life for over a decade.
Special Episode – A Tribute to Kirk Douglas
2020 has been on my radar for a while, listeners, as it marks sixty years since the iconic movie Spartacus was released. However, just a few days before the Oscars, the star of this film has passed away at the age of 103. Given the helicopter crash, the strokes, it is amazing that he lived this long, but I still feel very melancholy that a film star of his stature is no more.
I have a strong affinity for Issur Danielovitch (Kirk Douglas) and not just because I grew up watching his movies (which I did). Loyal listeners will be aware that I ended up studying the production of Spartacus (1960), the historical film based on the famous slave revolt against Rome. As the titular hero, but more importantly as the producer of this film, Douglas played a key role in shaping the representation of the rebellious gladiator.
Indeed, it was quite an accomplishment that this movie made it to the screen at all, as film star/producer Yul Brynner was also championing a Spartacus project at the same time. On top of this rivalry, Douglas' project was plagued with personality clashes and squabbles about the overall vision for the film. This led to constant changes to the script, and Douglas did little to contain this, earning the nickname ‘General Mixmaster' on set.
Douglas in costume on set talking to his young, and not particularly well-known, director Stanley Kubrick. The men had worked together previously on Paths of Glory, but the tensions over Spartacus would cause a rift to open between them. Image courtesy of https://www.rapportoconfidenziale.org/?p=36320
However, it is undeniable that Douglas' drive is one of the most important factors that led to the completion and success of this film in 1960.
The movie is largely remembered these days for the iconic ‘I'm Spartacus' scene and its' status as the film that finally broke the blacklist (in America at least). The real story about the breaking of the blacklist is a little more complicated, which you can read about here.
During this dark time in America, screenwriters were some of the only professionals in this environment who could potentially evade the restrictions placed on their employment. One such blacklistee, Dalton Trumbo, had been hired by Bryna (Douglas' production company). Trumbo had been working tirelessly to see his name restored to the credits by the time he started writing the Spartacus script. Douglas probably did not intend to grant this desire during the early days, but he had changed his mind by the time of the premiere.
Kirk Douglas spent hours trying to get his scene on the cross just right. Whilst he may have been one of the causes of confusion on set, no one could question his dedication to Spartacus. Image courtesy of https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20161208_02615140
There were a variety of external pressures that went into this decision (cough cough Otto Preminger), and we shouldn't imagine that after Spartacus, the blacklist vanished. Really, this was a sign that change was ahead. The blacklist lingered painfully into the 1960s, but the rebel gladiator had once again struck a blow for freedom.
Although there's a lot more to the end of the blacklist than this one film, Douglas does indeed deserve a large share of the credit for making what was a bold decision for the time, and one that could have had unfortunate consequences for himself, Bryna Productions or Universal-International.
Farewell, Kirk Douglas, you charismatic egomaniac. Like Spartacus, you will not be soon forgotten.
Special Episode - Enemy of My Dreams with Jenny Williamson
23 Jan 2025
00:56:52
We were titillated to speak to the scintillating Jenny Freaking Williamson. Jenny is one of the co-hosts of Ancient History Fangirl, which we like to consider part of the unofficial but highly exclusive #ladypodsquad. Jenny and Genn have been on our show before to discuss their fabulous book, Women and Myth, which was released in 2023. However, today Jenny is here to discuss a solo venture. She has just completed her debut novel, a historical romantasy called Enemy of My Dreams, slated for release through Harlequin in February 2025 and available for pre-order now.
Enemy of my Dreams is set during the late Roman Empire and focuses on a romance between an imperial princess named Julia and a ‘barbarian’ leader, Alaric of the Visigoths. Julia was largely inspired by three historical figures: Julia the Elder (daughter of Augustus), Galla Placidia and Honoria.
It was a delight to hear about Jenny’s process in crafting historical fiction.
Special Episode – Enemy of my Dreams with Jenny Williamson
Here are some quick bios for the ladies in question!
Julia the Elder
Julia the Elder was the only biological child of Augustus, which was a nasty surprise for him. Without a son, Julia’s importance as a dynastic pawn grew. She was married off to her cousin, then Augustus’ BFF Agrippa, and finally her stepbrother, Tiberius. Although it was normal for an elite woman to marry for the benefit of her family, there was a huge amount of pressure on Julia to in these scenarios, especially as her last marriage a trainwreck. Let that be a lesson to you – don’t marry your step-siblings!
Julia was suddenly exiled for scandalous behaviour in 2 BCE… or was she plotting against her father? We will never know. All we can be sure of is her fate. Julia was exiled to the island of Pandataria before her exile was moved to Rhegium. She was never allowed to return and died of “malnutrition” early in the reign of Tiberius, her ex-husband. If Augustus intended to put his errant daughter in her place, mission accomplished.
Galla Placidia lived hundreds of years after Julia, in the twilight of the 4th century CE. She was the daughter of Theodosius the Great, a very capable emperor (as the name implies). Sadly for Rome, he died in 395 CE and left the purple to his sons, Honorius and Arcadius, who split the empire between them. Placidia resided in the west with Honorius
These were not easy times for Rome as there was a lot of movement around their borders, and within the empire. The Goths were looking for a new home and the Roman Empire was it! The Romans were not always so thrilled by this prospect. In Placidia’s youth, they decided to unite behind a Visigoth named Alaric. Alaric was a pretty successful guy, and in 410 CE he and his followers managed to penetrate the walls of Rome itself. It’s hard to put into words how shameful and shocking this event was for the Romans.
It became even more embarrassing when Placidia was taken captive by the Goths. She remained with them for years, eventually marrying Alaric’s brother-in-law Athaulf, who became the leader of the Gothic forces after Alaric’s death. It is one of the tragedies of history that we know so little about this time in her life. Did she and Athaulf fall in love, or did it just seem wise to marry a man of status, given the circumstances?
This could have been an interesting union that changed history as we know it, except that Athaulf was murdered soon after their wedding and eventually the Romans found the time to negotiate for her return. Placidia was married to her brother’s right-hand man, Constantius, whom she despised. Hatred is not an effective birth control method, and she had two children by this marriage. Honorius had not produced any children, so Placidia’s son was a likely heir.
Placidia was highly respected in her lifetime for her piety and for her capabilities. When her brother died, she helped to engineer the succession of her son, Valentinian III. As Valentinian was so young, Placidia acted as regent, and she never really left the imperial stage. This probably had something to due with the fact that Valentinian was as useless an emperor as Honorius. She died peacefully in 450. She did not have to witness the assassination of Valentinian a few years later.
Honoria
We know very little about Honoria, the daughter of Galla Placidia and sister to the rather pathetic Valentinian III. Honoria was either born with a wild streak or developed one because she was oddly left single for too long, which was a weird status for an imperial princess. After an affair with one of the imperial stewards, she was being forced into a marriage with a rich senator. That oughtta fix this whole situation!
Honoria refused to go down quietly. She may have contacted Atilla the Hun, the latest barbarian threat on the block. She sent him a ring and asked for his help – was this an offer of marriage? Atilla certainly thought so.
We don’t know much about Honoria’s life after this treasonous act, aside from the fact that Placidia intervened to prevent her execution, and she was not given over to Atilla when he came knocking for his bride. She fades into obscurity, best known for this bizarre rebellion.
Jenny Williamson pictured with her book.
Enemy of My Dreams
You can order Enemy of My Dreams now through your local independent bookstore, as well as online suppliers such as Amazon. Use this link! For our fellow Sydneysiders, you might consider Abbey’s Bookstore.
As well as the many primary sources on both of these women, many of which can be found online
Sound Credits
Our music is by Bettina Joy de Guzman
Automated Transcript
Dr Rad 0:15 Music. Welcome to the partial historians.
Dr G 0:18 We explore all the details of ancient Rome,
Speaker 1 0:23 everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battled wage and when citizens turn against each other. I'm Dr rad and
Dr G 0:33 I'm Dr G, we consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.
Speaker 1 0:44 Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Dr G 0:54 Welcome to this special episode of the partial historians. I am Dr G
And I am Dr Rad
And we are absolutely thrilled to be joined today by Jenny Williamson. Now we have talked to Jenny before. She is one of the fabulous co hosts of ancient history fangirl and part of the exclusive and unofficial lady pod squad. So we had Jenny and Jen on the show to discuss their book, women and myth, which was released in 2023 which doesn't feel like that long ago, but at the same time, is actually ages ago. And we're really excited to have Jenny here today to discuss her latest solo venture. She's just completed her debut novel, which is labeled as a historical romanticy. And I love that sort of portmanteau of going on there, and it is called enemy of my dreams, and it's going to be coming out in February 2025, at the time of recording. It's a pre order situation. But maybe when you hear this episode, it'll be out and about, in which case you should just go and grab it. Welcome to the show. Jenny,
Jenny W 2:08 hi. Thank you so much for having me.
Dr G 2:12 It is an absolute pleasure.
Jenny W 2:16 So much fun.
Speaker 1 2:17 So look, enemy of my dreams is right up our alley as it takes place in the later Roman Empire. We love our things Roman, and one of the lead characters is Alaric of the Visigoths. However, we are most interested in your female lead, Julia, daughter of the Emperor of Rome, Theodosius the great. And we're here to talk about the history that inspired you to create this intriguing character today. So we believe that there are three women from ancient Rome whose lives inspired your story, Julia, the elder, daughter of the First Emperor. I'm using my little flesh rabbits there Augustus, as well as some women from the fifth century CE such as the Empress gala Placidia or plaquitia, depending on your preference, and her daughter, Honoria. So we're very excited to delve into that today.
Jenny W 3:14 Yes, I am so thrilled to talk about all these ladies.
Dr G 3:18 So I think we'd still like to start with, like, maybe the originator of bad women under the imperial system, and that would be Julia the elder. And I love this woman. She's great. I'm wondering if you can talk us through a little bit about her family connections and her character. Yeah,
Jenny W 3:40 so Julia the Elder is such a she's such a fun character for me. And I really, I think that my very early draft of this book, my Julia was just absolutely straight up Julia the elder, like she was just and Julia the Elder as a, sort of like very surface reading of Julia the Elder, who is very much just like a party girl who likes to sleep around and do what she wants, you know, which is kind of like I said the surface reading, she was the only biological child of the Emperor Augustus, quote, unquote, Emperor Augustus, you know. And listeners of our podcast will also know him as Octavian. We had a whole series about Mark Antony and Cleopatra, in which he figured very prominently. And we're gonna do a series on him later on in the year, I think, where he takes the Empire the, you know, Rome from Republic to Empire. So she was his only biological daughter, his only child, and he had her with, I believe it would have been his second wife, scribonia, and his first wife. I think, was I correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it was the daughter of Fulvia, who he married very early on and then wound up cruelly rejecting based on the sort of wars that he was having with Mark Antony, who was her dad. So that was his second wife, Scribonia, and I think he divorced her while she was pregnant. And definitely did, yeah, embarrassing, yeah, to marry his third wife, Livia, who was also a badass. And I believe that Julia the Elder as a child, was sent to live with Livia, her stepmom, and was taught to be like a noble woman in her house. She grew up and was engaged to various people, starting at a very young age, wound up being married, I think, first to her cousin at a very early age, I want to say, like 14 or 15 or something like that. Her cousin was Marcellus, was maybe a few years older. He died, and she wound up being married to Agrippa, her dad's best friend, who was also her dad's age. Ew, yeah, gross. They were married for a little while. They had a bunch of kids together, and then when Agrippa died, her dad married her off again to his other son. Was it his adopted? I don't know. How are they related…?
Dr G 5:57 Yeah, Tiberius, he's Livia's son.
Jenny W 6:00 right? That's what it was, you're right. He did adopt him, yeah, he adopted him. So, like keeping, keeping their, you know, family trees straight in my head is always a struggle. But it was her step brother. So yeah, it was, yeah, she was engaged her own step brother. They hated each other. And I think ever since her marriage to Agrippa, there were rumors about Julia the elder, you know, sleeping around, having boyfriends. And as far as I know, this really kind of got started with Tiberius, who also had been married to somebody else, and was made to divorce that person, to marry Julia. Neither of them were happy about it. And at some point, Augustus was trying to put he was trying to take Rome from Republic to Empire. And he was doing a lot of things like trying to craft this sort of unifying story about who Rome was, and change the laws to, like, restore what he considered to be, quote, unquote, Roman greatness. And one of the problems he noticed was that the women they were just were having affairs and being slutty and horrible things. So he was like, you know, tightening these laws around women and reducing their freedoms and kind of expecting them to be more embodying of the traits of a, you know, virtuous Roman Matron. This involved a lot of spinning. As far as I know, he really expected his daughter, Julia, to embody all of these traits of like an upright Roman matron herself, and she just did not want to do it. And there were all these wild rumors about her sleeping with with men in the forum and doing all kinds of crazy things. And she got exiled to Pandatarea, where it was kind of like a prison situation. And she was there for, I don't know, several years, like very, very curtailed, and was eventually allowed to come back. I think she might have been, I'm not 100% sure, but I think she might have been exiled several times. She
Speaker 1 7:46 was allowed to return to the mainland, I believe, for some of her exile, but she was never taken out of exile, and she actually died in exile under Tiberius, yeah,
Dr G 7:58 yeah. So yeah. Part of what happens is that when Julia is exiled. So this is in around two BC, she goes to Pandataria, this island in the Mediterranean. And do you think to yourself now, oh, that sounds not so bad, but it's not ideal when you're an imperial daughter and you're used to living in the city, and now you're on like, you know, a goat ridden island in the middle of the Mediterranean. Her mother, Scribonia, goes with her, so that's nice. She's got a mum, and they do have fun, so they're able to live a modest life. But what Tiberius does is he withdraws all funding from the exile, so they are essentially a starved to death. I don't know how they end up actually dying, but the withdrawal of funds sort of means that they're unable to maintain any life whatsoever, and it seems like they maybe haven't made enough friends on the island to sustain a life and be taken in by others.
Dr Rad 8:58 Ancient Rome. Survivor edition, yeah, exactly.
Dr G 9:02 It's like, there were only chickens here.
Jenny W 9:05 I don't think there would have been people to befriend. I mean, there were maybe not even that, I don't know. Like it was a very dire situation, right? I remember doing an interview with an author who had written a book, kind of a fictionalized version of the life of Julia the younger, and Julia the elder was in it as well. Who Julia the younger was also exiled for something like 20 years. And we were discussing like, the dangers of having this happen, where you were ex, you're sent into exile and then starved to death, or perhaps, you know, beaten by the guards, or really mistreated like this is not a good situation. And what she was telling me, her name is Tana Rebellis. She has she's written some really interesting, I think it was a duology about Julia the younger. But what she was discussing was how, you know, the power of Augustus in his time meant that the guards were gonna be pretty careful about Julia the elder, at least maintain her health and make sure she was okay. When Augustus died like that, was when you had to worry about the guards. That's when it got a little more dangerous because you didn't have that protection anymore. Yeah,
Dr G 10:07 and certainly, like, the orders are now coming from somebody else, and they're coming from somebody who has not liked her time. Think
Speaker 1 10:15 we all have nightmares about our ex being in control of our lives. No, like, Oh no,
Dr G 10:20 Tiberius is now in charge. But I really enjoy the focus of what is Julia the elder trying to do, because she's kind of like a classic, sort of stick it to the man figure in this scenario, because she gets caught in the forum, that's the rumor. And she's kind of got this whole group of senatorial young bloods who are very happy to like party on and have orgies in the forum. So it's like she's hanging out with some very elite characters, and she's really flaunting it all. And at the same time, this is precisely when Augustus is building up his reputation, and he's been awarded a really prestigious title pater patriae, the father of the Fatherland. So he's kind of gotten to this real pinnacle of his own political success, but at the same time that family life is like completely falling apart. And I think there is a really nice mirror to the opening scene of your novel, of how your protagonist, Julia, is kind of as we meet her for the first time, and the kinds of things that she's up to gives that real sense of somebody who's like, I'm going to do exactly what I please. I have the right I'm in a position of power. Life is here for the taking
Jenny W 11:37 exactly. And I think in my book, I was also really thinking about, and I'm sure, like, this was, this is an issue for Julia too, because she kind of lived in the midst of this time, like, what happens when there's a transfer of power, you know? And that's always a really dangerous time for for emperors and, you know, ruling, ruling families and their survivors when they die. So just thinking about how, how the rules are going to change, and they're changing underneath her. And my Julia doesn't really realize that that is what's happening until, until she does kind of too late.
Dr G 12:06 Yeah, interesting. So when we're thinking about the connections between, like the ancient source material and the way that you've interwoven it into this new form, what were the sort of aspects of Julia the elder that really appealed to you, and which elements Did you really try to bring in for this novel?
Jenny W 12:26 So I really enjoyed, and like, I said, like, I really enjoyed this idea of, here's here's this woman who's just kind of careening LIKE A WRECKING BALL through this very upright society, and just, you know, having these orgies and doing whatever she feels like, and probably having a lot of sex and drugs and just that is not normally what you hear about women in the ancient world at all. So I was just very drawn to this party animal character, and I think I wanted to bring that into my book. But you know, my my Julia, has reasons why she's like that and things that she's sort of coping with by sort of drowning her sorrows, basically, and it's like a coping mechanism for her. But I was also thinking about Julia the elder, and kind of how she's perceived, and all these screwless rumors that kind of show up in the sources about her and other figures, where you kind of wonder, like, is this the whole story? Did this actually happen this way, or is this kind of a smear campaign? So my Julia is, she's kind of wild, but she's not as wild as you think at first. And there are, of course, like rumors swirling around her, just like there would have been rumors around Julia the elder, and that was something that really interested me later, is that, you know, the reasons given for her exile, and whether they, in fact, did involve her sleeping around, or whether she was doing some deeper plotting against her dad, is kind of something I've always been interested in, yeah,
Dr G 13:46 and that's the thing, isn't it? Because what we get in the historical source material a lot of the time, we have to question it, because the political invective nature of how do you make it possible to exile somebody like you? Do have to find a way to really trash their reputation. And is it more useful to say openly that there was a political plot against you? It's probably not a great move that might just encourage more plots, for instance, so being able to find a way to tarnish somebody's character is a much more convenient way of ensuring that they're effectively disposed of, and people can no longer associate with them because it becomes hugely problematic. And also, like, if they're stuck on an island, good luck. How are they going to organize anything from there?
Jenny W 14:30 Exactly, exactly. So my Julia, I would say she's, she's a partier, but she's also a plotter, you know? So I kind of was inspired by those two sides that I saw in Julia the elder that I kind of wanted to be true, fair enough.
Speaker 1 14:43 I definitely got visions of I saw Megalopolis, which I would not recommend to anybody, but the opening sequence of Megalopolis, where they have this character of Julia as a party girl. I definitely got visions of your Julia like. When I was reading your book from that movie,
Jenny W 15:03 I have got to watch this. I have got to watch it. I haven't seen it yet. It is so terrible.
Speaker 1 15:07 It's honestly one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my whole life. Oh, wow. The fact that it is inspired by ancient Rome is the reason why I went to see it. But oh my god, what a trash fire. What a mess.
Jenny W 15:22 My goodness, I feel like I maybe just have to watch the first scene then,
Speaker 1 15:26 yeah, maybe the opening five minutes. That's what I would recommend you watch. Gotcha. So thinking about Julia the elder and how you wove various pieces into your book, I was just wondering what specific sources did you actually revisit? Because, as you said, you've done a series where Julie the elder was a major feature in the podcast before, when you were writing the book. Did you go back to any of the ancient source material, or were you more using sort of secondary sources? What was your sort of process with that? So
Jenny W 15:56 it's been so long since I actually had to do it, you know? But like, I remember going back to, like, the gossipy sources like Cassius Dio has some things to say about Julia, if I remember right, who else covered her Suetonius. I honestly forget at this point. But like any book that I could find, and I used a lot of secondary sources, too, and fiction, like whatever I could find, basically, and my own imagination, you know, because that's ultimately what it's about?
Speaker 1 16:21 No, I think what you've done is actually, it's really hard for people that tend to write history, which obviously is what we all do when we're podcasting. I find it really interesting to think about taking all of that material and then turning it into a fictionalized story, because it sort of goes against, in some ways, what we've been trained to do in terms of using so much of your imagination.
Jenny W 16:46 Yeah, I think that's true. When we started the podcast, Jen and I remember being very, sort of intimidated by the idea that I would have to be correct about things, because I did not train as a historian at all, like I have a degree in English, so I was always a little bit nervous, what if I just, you know, write this whole episode about something and just completely because I was, I loved history. I always loved history, but I was just like, what if I just get it wrong? And what's interesting about that in the podcast, in fangirl is that we have a lot of historians and archeologists who listen to us. So far, that seems to be a lot of our fan base. And I'm just like, that seems to be going okay so far. But it's not, it's not that weird to me, because we always kind of incorporated that into our podcast already. You know, like we do Jen and I, my podcast co host and I, we've done a lot of sort of fictionalized, kind of micro fiction intros to podcast episodes that we've done. Then we do a lot of extrapolating, you know, and kind of fan fictioning, and like imagining these scenarios and things like that, and picking a lane like I'm sure you have to do that as historians too, where there's many different possibilities of how the sources could be interpreted, or how the archeology could be interpreted. And you kind of even, even when you have that material in front of you, you have to kind of craft a story about what has happened here in order to make sense of it. So I don't know, like I feel like in my work, in the podcast, I find myself using my imagination more than I thought. Yeah,
Dr G 18:15 definitely, I would agree with that, because, and particularly for ancient history, like modern history, you're almost overwhelmed by the amount of source material you have access to, so you've really got to pick a niche. But with ancient history, I feel like it's more like you're crafting a lace, or you're a spider that's sort of creating a web. And like, what can you connect to? What and what would be most plausible to connect to something else given the other little pieces of information you've been able to scrounge together. So ultimately, the imaginative process is fundamental to doing ancient history, because you're trying to join together things that are just sort of sitting slightly far apart from each other, and how they are connected is going to be the key, and you have to make that connection. Yeah,
Jenny W 18:57 I think that's exactly right. Yeah. I
Speaker 1 19:00 think it's more the idea of having to put it all into the format of a fictionalized book, you know, having the actual conversations and interactions between characters and, you know, and really fully fleshing out the pieces where we don't know as much and that sort of aspect, that's where I think I would struggle,
Jenny W 19:19 yeah, like giving them a voice, like, What do they sound like, you know, when they're irritated or when they're excited, or, you know, like, well, actual words come out of their mouth, and what would that sound like if you translate that into English? Yes, I frequently struggle with dialog.
Speaker 1 19:32 I can, I can understand that. That's, I think, where I would struggle. As you say, it's not that unusual for us to have to pick a lane, but then to have to turn that into something that is more of a story where you've got people interacting and having those sorts of moments between each other. It's a different kind of style of writing completely to what we tend to do.
Jenny W 19:52 Yeah, and it's just to for me in this moment, it was two characters who obviously never met, like if I took Julia the Elder and introduced her to Alaric of the Goths, how would that conversation go like? These are two people from wildly different parts of the empire, from the beginning and the end, you know. So that also kind of interested me as like an exercise is to bring those two people together in a way, and just see what kind of sparks flew and like, how would their understanding of the world be different? And I think, like in the very, very beginning of the book, when I first started it. This was ages ago, and I was really, did not know what I was doing, and I was just kind of playing around. I was like, what if Augustus just lived in the time of Alaric, and this was the real Julia the Elder, like, what if I just did that? And I had, like, a few, you know, scenes written, you know, Intro scenes written with just Julia, where that was her dad instead of her brother. And there were lots of conversations about these, you know, laws, these, sort of like, “women can't be slutty anymore” laws, it was just me having fun. But that is definitely a huge source of inspiration for me. Is these, this sort of wild, what if of history, absolutely.
Speaker 1 21:02 So we can definitely see the influence of Julie the Elder in the characterization, particularly earlier on in your novel, but obviously a large part of your inspiration comes from much later in Roman history, and that is talking about Galla Placidia. Now I'd say that a lot of our listeners probably have heard of Julia the elder, but they probably haven't heard that much about Galla Placidia. She is definitely a lesser known figure, even though she was also very important at Rome's history. So can you tell us a little bit about her family background, her connections and the time in which she lived?
Jenny W 21:37 Yeah, absolutely so Galla Placidia, she was the daughter of Theodosius, the real daughter of Theodosius, and Theodosius was this emperor who lived in the late three hundreds. AD, I don't think he made it into the four hundreds. Ad, I'm trying to think, but he was a really big figure in the history of Roman Christianity, and establishing Christianity as the state religion of Rome. I think he was involved in the Nicene I think he was like the guy who laid down the Nicene Creed, which established Nicene Christianity as the state religion that would be different from Arian Christianity, which was the form of Christianity that alarca The Visigoths was part of. So she was his daughter, and she would have been in Rome during multiple Alaric related sieges, or, like, you know, invasions, he made it down to Rome several times. Yeah, he got there a couple of times. Yeah, yeah. It's actually kind of weird, because I'm like, there are so many times when he made it into the peninsula and then had to leave, and then made it all the way down, and then kind of went up again and then back down. Like, there was a lot of moving around, you know, but she was in the city for a lot of that, I think, 15 years old. There was news of Alaric at one of his sieges. This was not the final one, coming down the peninsula and setting fire to cities along his way. And all these, this horrible news of like sacking and burning, terrible things happening. And the people in Rome were freaking out. And there's all this paranoia. At one point, the priests in the city, these would have been Christian priests, allowed the pagan priests, the worshipers of the old religion, to fire up the old altars again because of all this, you know, horrible stuff happening, and they wanted them to appeal to the gods in every way that they could. And the wife of Stilicho, the old general who had been Alaric's main opponent, the guy who had been keeping him out, who had previously been executed for suspicion of colluding with Alaric. And that's a whole backstory of its own. Anyway, he had been executed. His wife, Serena was arrested on the belief that she was somehow colluding with Alaric. And like, strangled and Galla Placidia at one point, I think, was like witness that, and like, voted for it, or something like that. And from that early age, she just had this kind of cold spine to her that just fascinated me. And she was in the city of Rome when it was sacked by Alaric and the Visigoths. We're not sure exactly how she came to be in his entourage, but she was probably a captive who was taken at that point, she possibly met Alaric himself, but she wound up marrying Alaric's second in command, and his brother in law, Athaulf. Athaulf was this guy who was another Gothic warlord type of guy, said to be very attractive, said to be also short. So, you know, hot, but we is kind of how I pictured him. Here. They got married. It's, there's all kinds of stuff in Edward Gibbon about, like, the history of Rome, about her dowry, which is absolutely amazing, like she supposedly had this enormous table made entirely of precious stones that had 365, legs and, like, just giant gold, solid gold plates, the size of wagon wheels and all kinds of crazy things, supposedly awesome. And I'm just like, you know, reading all this, I'm like, How can I work this in? Where do I put the giant table in Alaric's war tent? So supposedly, depending on the source you. This is really kind of presented as these were two people who fell in love, which is another thing that really drew me to this story, because that's another thing you actually don't see a lot in in the sources about women in the ancient world falling in love with somebody that they wind up marrying, like a lot of is a lot of these noble marriages were like, marriage is a convenience, and if this is a kidnapping, obviously you would not think that that would be the case. And I think that that there are definitely sources that don't show it that way. And I think modern historians that I've read have been more skeptical of that interpretation. So it kind of depends on how you see it. But that's one interpretation. I remember being super drawn to that, because I was just like, oh my gosh, a situation where it's not the worst for the woman, how about that? So I liked it. And I thought, you know, I have early commentary about my book and the way I kind of wove Galla Placidia in. I don't use that name. I couldn't have her fall in love with Athaulf because he gets killed by this guy who was a servant of an enemy of Alaric about, like, a year or maybe two years in the bath after they get married. So they don't stay married long, and it's not a happy story for that reason. So I couldn't have written just a straight historical fiction romance novel about them. I kind of had to make it my own thing. And I definitely, you know, allergic dies five minutes after sacking Rome, so that that had, like, I knew it was suspending disbelief anyway, writing this book, and I wanted to give it a happy ending, so that's what I did. And, you know, early, sort of, you know, reviews about this book have pointed out that this is not historically accurate, like, if I wanted to write a romance novel about this time period, why didn't I just write about gull of lasidia? And my answer to that is, well, because that wouldn't be a romance novel, because romance novels have to have a happy ending any way I did it. If I was writing about Alaric, or if I was writing about Ataulf and Galla Placidia, I would have to completely change it to give them the happy ending anyway. So as long as I was messing with the history, I wanted to do it my way,
Speaker 1 27:02 absolutely. I mean, that's the whole idea, again, of writing historical fiction and not writing a history
Jenny W 27:09 Exactly, exactly. So Galla Placidia, after a tough dies, she gets basically sold back to the Romans. They're like a series of unfortunate events that happened where the Goths are in a terrible position again and wind up having to negotiate with the Romans to survive and send her back, along with a bunch of other concessions, she winds up marrying this general called Constantius, who she loathed, down to her soul, hated this guy. I think that's pretty clear in the sources, as I remember, he eventually becomes emperor, and then dies, and then she becomes Empress, and rules for about 12 years. And she is really, really good at it. Rules completely with an iron fist. She's like, very good at, like, negotiating disputes. She oversaw a lot of building projects in Ravenna, and was really pretty much undisputed. And I just love the idea of my Julia kind of growing into the gala Placidia, part of herself over the course of this story. So that's kind of part of the clay I was working with.
Speaker 1 28:12 I kind of imagine Agrippina, the younger, loving the position that Galla Placidia ends up having, which is after making it through all the marriages and all the men, she ends up getting to be regent for her son and effectively being Empress of the Roman Empire, which I think is what Agrippina the younger probably had in mind when Nero came to reign, and it just didn't work out for her that way. Oh, absolutely.
Jenny W 28:35 And, I mean, I think that there's a lot, there's a there's a huge interesting conversation to be had, because we saw how Cleopatra dealt with her brother husbands, you know, having them killed off. As long as you have a son who is a child, you can rule undisputed. But once that kid gets to be about Nero's age, he's like, 15 years old, he starts to want to do it himself. Then you have a problem, you know, and you see Cleopatra having a similar situation with these brother husbands that she's married to who are like, you know, 12 years old. I mean, she starts to assassinate them. At least that's the rumor. I don't know that's actually all 100% historically accurate all the time. I've
Dr G 29:16 got opinions. They've got to go,
Jenny W 29:18 you know, there's all kinds of stuff happening here, where, as a woman, if you want to rule, you have to rule through this son that you have most of the time if you're alone, you don't have, like, a husband. So that can be a problem as the son ages, unless, unless you have a good relationship with him, or, like, you know, you work it out somehow, I guess.
Speaker 1 29:39 Valentinian the third from memory was not the most inspirational character in history.
Jenny W 29:47 No, no, I don't know what happened with him.
Dr Rad 29:51 Nothing good.
Jenny W 29:53 Yeah, I
Dr G 29:55 think it's a really interesting aspect of history, is that we get the. Women who grow up in the imperial court, so they're very familiar with how things are done. They understand that on some in some respects, that they're locked out of official power in many ways. And we see that with particularly with Honoria as well. And yet, if they get the chance, some of them are like, I can make this work, and it's like, I found my conduit. I've got the small child. It's a man that's great, and now I can start to leverage within that system of power, which I'm very familiar with. I know he's working against me, but if I say I'm speaking on behalf of this kid over here, all of a sudden I can get some stuff done. And I was like, it's like, really face in the face of adversity, finding a way to be powerful anyway, which I think is pretty cool.
Jenny W 30:50 Yeah, I think it's fascinating, too. And it's also dangerous. Like, I think that as your son ages, that can become a time of transition that's dangerous for women rulers. Just as you know, times of transition when a male king dies could be dangerous for everybody. And
Speaker 1 31:02 it's interesting to think about you using Galla Placidia as well, because, as you highlighted when you were talking about the timing of her life, it isn't a completely different Rome. It's the room that most people don't really think about because it's not often presented in popular history, I think, is effectively as earlier parts of Roman history, because this is a really Christianized version of the Roman Empire. And as a result, the way that our sources write about people is different to the way that say, you know your Suetonius, your A Tacitus, would write about people. So what sense Did you really get of the character of Galla Placidia when you were crafting her, I just
Jenny W 31:44 got this sense of just this is a woman who is going to make it work no matter what. You know. She finds herself in the midst of this Gothic horde of people who has just sacked her city and she's gonna rule them. And she finds herself depending on this man who maybe makes her marry him. I don't know exactly how that would have happened, but, or maybe she fell in love with him, but what I suspect is that she wound up having to marry him because he took a shine to her. He decided that it would be politically advantageous to him to marry the daughter of Theodosius. And she decided, I'm going to rule over this man, and then I'm going to rule over your people. And when that fell apart and she wound up going back to Rome and having to marry this other guy, she made it work that way as well. Like she was somebody who was just not gonna she was not gonna take anything lying down, you know, like, whatever situation she came into, she was gonna dominate that situation. And that was really interesting to me.
Dr Rad 32:38 It is really interesting when you think about the what if of that situation, because, as you say, definitely the accepted version of things, even though modern scholars might be a bit more skeptical about it, is that there was some sort of affection or relationship developing between Galla Placidia and her husband, Adolf in that they had a child, they seem to have been really sad when that child died, and if her husband hadn't died so quickly as well. I mean, who knows what would have happened, given that her son ends up dying only a few years after she does, and it's during these increasing problems with the quote, unquote, barbarians. It's just so interesting to think about what would have happened if gala had managed to hold everything together and have preserved a union between the barbarians, again, flesh rabbits and the Romans. Yeah.
Jenny W 33:36 I mean, I think that it would have been a stronger kingdom, you know, because she she leaves it at a point of weakness. And I'm gonna do a whole series coming up on the history of the Goths, and what happens to the Goths after this whole episode with the Romans, after they move out of Italy and things like that like that's also just really interesting history, but I haven't quite gotten to that yet. It's a big undertaking. That's a lot of them. That's the thing. It's a huge undertaking. And that's what part of what made this book so heavily fictionalized, like how I had to write it that way, is because there's so much we don't know about Gothic culture. We have reams and reams and reams and reams and reams of military history, but there's a lot we don't know about how they saw things in just sort of daily life. And it's really easy to assume that they were kind of proto Vikings for various reasons, but that may not have been the case. I am doing a deep dive later. I'm not sure, but I made some choices in the book, you know, because there's a lot of gaps to fill in,
Dr G 34:38 for sure, and I think in a way that becomes like a perfect sort of Canvas for historical fiction, because we don't have those insights into exactly how they live their lives, how their leadership was structured in many respects, and sort of like cross culturally between different Gothic groups as well. Were not sure about when they really sort of came together and decided to work in a more unified way, and what led to that? So there's lots of potential for coloring in all of those gaps to create a really rich world for the reader to explore. Yeah, exactly.
Jenny W 35:17 And that's just so much fun like that is something I absolutely love to do. And
Dr Rad 35:21 so I'd love to ask for Galla Placidia, because, as I say, she's someone that people don't know as well, but she definitely was a major part of your character of Julia. What kind of source material was out there for you for her? So
Jenny W 35:35 I think I first met her in Edward Gibbon. So like the honestly, I'm terrible with names of books, so I should have had a list of things. There is Jordanes, there's Zosimus. There's various writers at the time who come at this mainly from a Christian lens. I would say, I think it's Jordanes, who is actually Gothic and who is writing a history of things. Those are like sources from my for the world in general, and about Alaric, and some of them also talk about Galla Placidia and Athaulf as well. So I think there was one, I forget the name, but there was one that was definitely talking about the relationship between Galla Placidita and Athaulf as servitude. That was the word that was used. But most of them talk about it as she fell in love with him, and he was very handsome, if just a bit short, but she didn't mind. They were in love. One
Dr Rad 36:25 down, full,
Jenny W 36:27 right? No, she was like, You know what? I like a guy who's my height. I don't know. I mean, that's definitely, I feel like that's just definitely a more positive interpretation that I really fell in love with at the time. But you never, you never know with these things, and I don't know, but I was very intrigued by this idea of a woman who could, who could just walk into that situation and make it hers. Yeah,
Dr G 36:49 I think it's really tricky, because obviously we don't have sources from the inside for that kind of situation, but obviously as a hostage, there is a certain degree in which it would be wise to follow along certain decision making paths in order to preserve yourself and to try to create a ring of safety around you and a bit of a buffer. So if somebody has taken a shine to you, for instance, and he does happen to be a little bit shorter, and to all of our short kings out there. Don't worry. It's okay. No,
Speaker 1 37:27 her brother wasn't exactly the most again. I mean, this is another another woman who isn't surrounded by men who were not the most capable, inspirational characters. Her brother was also a bit of a waste of space. Basically, I think her dad is the only one who anyone it would look at and go. Now there's an emperor. Her brother and my son were kind of a waste of space.
Jenny W 37:52 That is so true.
Dr G 37:55 She's doing the best she can. I
Dr Rad 37:56 think the interesting thing about Galla Placidia, as opposed to characters like Julia and Agrippina the Younger, who I'm just mentioning because of her ambition, not because she necessarily has any connection to your book. But the thing about Galla Placidia is that living in this Christianized world, it did give women a different set of tools to play with, I suppose, and a different avenue for power, because if they were admirable religious figures, it kind of, I think, allowed men to admire them and respect them in a slightly different way to what they had before. Yeah, and
Jenny W 38:34 that comes up in the sources, how she was perceived. I believe she's described as beautiful and very pious, and that was kind of a shield that she was holding. And remember that the Goths at this point were also Christian, so that would have been something that that was respected. I did a very early episode, like one of the first episodes that I ever did was about, I did a kind of a series about Alaric, Athaulf, and Galla Placidia, and Honoria and Attila the Hun and in the Athaulf and Galla Placidia episode. This is many, many years ago, like when we first started the podcast. Started the podcast, I made a case that the Gothic culture was less misogynist than the Roman one, and would have valued women more highly, even if they were both Christian at the time, like they had a long history of venerating women as ciruses and listening to them as, you know, community leaders. And there wasn't the sense. One of the things that I picked up on was this sort of scorn for love that occurs, at least in upper class aristocratic Roman culture, like, for example, Pompey was a wife guy and was ridiculed for it. And this happens occasionally, where, you know, people really make fun of someone for loving their wife, and it's kind of looked down on, is like, Oh, you're just kind of enthralled by this woman, and love was seen as this madness and things like that
Speaker 1 39:49 disgusting. I've never heard of such films, right?
Jenny W 39:52 I mean, the appropriate feeling for your spouse should be a sort of fondness and familial duty. That's what you're supposed to feel. You're certainly not supposed to get too excited about it. So this idea that maybe the Gothic culture gave Galla Placidia a little bit more room to breathe, I like the idea that maybe she enjoyed that about it when she found it.
Speaker 1 40:14 It is so intriguing to think about the possibilities of what her life was like in that very brief moment where she was living amongst them, yeah.
Jenny W 40:22 And this is, of course, fan fiction on my part, mostly, and potentially fan fiction on the sources part, depending, you know, because we don't have anything from her point of view, I think it's high, highly likely that when she got into that situation, she wasn't like, I mean, maybe, I don't know, maybe she fell in love with a tall first glance, unlikely. I think it was a bad situation that she was trying to make the best of. She could make this guy enthralled with her all the better. And then, if she could, once she was back in Rome, things worked out for her there too. And I think that kind of shows that that was the kind of person she was
Dr G 40:57 good at making the best of a bad set of circumstances.
Jenny W 41:00 Yeah, good, good at, like, walking into a situation that would be really bad and just ruling it fine of steel. And I just respected that about her, like that was the thing that came across to me.
Speaker 1 41:12 Well, I think you're right. I think when we're talking about her character, as I said, after her father died, which was in 395, ce really, there were a lot of, I mean, I suppose it's not the best way to characterize them, but weaker rulers. There weren't really any strong Roman emperors after Theodosius, and it was the people around them that were more holding things together. I think, after that, particularly if we're talking about, obviously, this sort of Western Roman court, and gallopicity is one of those people. We also have all these, again, quote, unquote, barbarian figures, and we also have people like Constantius, who, even though galapaciti Apparently couldn't stand him, these are the strong characters around the Emperors that seem to be driving events and holding things together. But the Emperors themselves a very meh from this time period, yeah,
Jenny W 42:03 and, and, I mean, that is kind of a, you know, in a way, she has a channel of power because her son is sort of her, her excuse to hang on to power when she is in that position. But there are situations where we kind of see Agrippina, the Younger doing this with Claudius, you know, like there are situations where women to hold on to power need a strong husband that they can operate through. So potentially, at that point, a tough was that guy, maybe potentially where she's like, all right, I can work with this clay.
Speaker 1 42:35 Now, just to wrap up, we're not going to go into heaps of detail, because, to be honest, there's not heaps of detail to be had, but we did mention at the top that Honoria was also worked into this story somewhat. She's a very shadowy figure in the histories, and we have even less from her point of view than we do about someone like Galla Placidia. Can you tell us a little bit about Honoria and how she factored into your story as
Jenny W 43:01 well. Oh yeah, this is actually one of my favorite parts. So Honoria was gala Placidia, his daughter with Constantius, and she did not want to marry the guy that her mom picked out for her, and she rebelled. And what is wild about this is that Galla Placidia, theoretically, again, depending on if you believe the sources, had been married to a man that she maybe loved or had some affection for, possibly, and then married to a man that she absolutely loathed, consensus, and she was really adamant that her daughter was going to marry this man that she loathed, which is wild to me, like this, this idea that she was going to make her daughter do this thing. And so Honoria, at this time, Attila the Hun was kind of ravaging various territories in Rome, and I don't think he had made it all the way into Italy or had made it to Gaul yet, but what she did was she, essentially, she sent him a message inviting him to come and get her,
Dr G 44:03 please. Yes, babe, I would really appreciate
Jenny W 44:06 and get me and I will marry you. Get me out of here. Is that amazing? And as far as I remember, this is a very long time ago that I did these episodes. But this is something that stuck in my mind. He basically took this as a pretext, you know, well, if I marry this woman, that means I own half the Roman Empire. So he invaded on that pretext alone, before they were even married. Now, I don't think these people ever met. Honoria was, I believe, eventually forced to marry somebody, or there's a question mark about what happened to her. I'm not sure she might have been sent into exile. Again. These are like just various theories that I've seen come across, but I'm not sure. I don't think people know, as you said, but yeah, she and Attila the Hun never met in person. And that, again, that scenario, again, was one of the inspirations for this book. And like, I kind of played with the idea of Augustus and Julia the elder living in 410 ad. I also played with the. Idea that maybe this romance novel I was writing was about anoria and Attila the Hun, like, what if they met in person? My Julia kind of propositioning Alaric of the Visigoths, comes from that sort of that just absolutely balls to the walls, you know, rebellious spirit that anoria had, and like, this absolute refusal to just do what most women did at that time, which is, marry who your parents told you to.
Dr G 45:26 Under no circumstances. I'd rather marry a hun. Everyone's like,
Jenny W 45:30 at least she picked him out herself. I mean, granted, she hadn't met him, but
Speaker 1 45:36 it is wild when you think about the reputation that Attila the Hun has, yeah, it is wild to think about a Roman imperial Princess being like, you know what? I don't like the guy that you've picked for me, mom. I'd like that guy well.
Jenny W 45:51 And I think at one point, Honoria was sent to live with the Eastern Roman court, which was a lot more rigidly Christian than where she was living before. So if I remember, right, I don't know if this, honestly, don't know if this is fan fiction at this point, but I wrote, I wrote an intro to this episode that I did about Honoria, where she's in the Eastern Roman court, and she's been living this extremely strictured Christian life, and she can't stand it. And there's this point where Attila the Hun is bearing down on Constantinople. And there's all these wild like, like with the Alaric story, you know, there's all these wild rumors flying before him about his brutality and all of the horrible things he's going to do to the city as soon as he gets to it. And the people are building the walls that have been just destroyed by an earthquake, and they have, like, two weeks to do this, or, you know, some extremely short time to do this before the the Huns are going to get here, and everybody's praying for the walls to rise, and anoria is praying for the walls to fall and for the Huns to just sweep into the city and burn everything and rescue her from this extremely rigid lifestyle. Like that. She just it just didn't fit her. She couldn't stand it. That's who anoria is in my head. I think about that all the time like that. What she was refusing to do was what women did all the time, like that was extremely common back then, is just you married whoever your parents told you to marry, and that was it. And if you were 15 and he was 50 years old, that was fine. That's just what people did. Or, you know, whatever other horrible situation it was like the these were, you know, women and girls who did not get a choice, and the fact that she just dug in her heels and said, No, nobody did that like gala Placidia didn't even do that well,
Dr G 47:28 not directly, but as Honoria is sort of growing up and witnessing what is happening in the imperial court. It's her mom in charge. So it's kind of like as a child, I think you would be seeing very much a situation where you're like, Well, mom gets to do what she likes.
Speaker 1 47:48 I know just imagining this confrontation where it's like, But mom, you got to run off with a barbarian who open you, and my age is a son. That's such
Jenny W 47:56 a good point. Like, why can't I have a barbarian husband? You got
Dr G 48:00 to do it. Yeah. And I think maybe if I'm thinking of like, in a historical fiction kind of way, I feel like that conversation will be like, But mom, you already said you love that guy, and it's like, I just want my own. How bad
Jenny W 48:13 could Attila the Hun be really? I mean, isn't it all just girl is rumor Exactly. It's
Speaker 1 48:21 also that thing of, as you say, We know so little about anoria, which is mental because she is often brought up as being a key factor in Attila the Hun attacking at this point in time. But again, it's that question of, was that just some sort of pretense on behalf of the sources to blame it all on her, when maybe Attila was going to attack anyway. Or maybe there were much larger reasons. It's so hard to understand, but at the same time, you can understand why he would if he thought there was a chance of nailing an Imperial Princess, yeah.
Jenny W 48:53 Or just, you know, maybe this comes up in my book, where my Alaric kind of sells the idea of being married to a Roman Princess, to his people by saying, like this, this is obviously going to mean that when I invade, we're going to have a son, and he's going to be the heir. So I basically already rule Rome. I just have to go and take it, you know, like there's that sort of, that motivation that I think Attila probably had, or at least he's, he's been presented as having. I mean, whether that's the actual case is anybody's guess. Well, I
Speaker 1 49:23 think that's what's so interesting about thinking about this period of Rome's history, in that it is one where a lot of the groups that are putting pressure on Rome's borders, or putting pressure on Rome systems from within. It is about them wanting to be integrated into the Roman Empire, and a lot of the time the Romans are causing problems for themselves by not effectively doing that, by either resisting it, fighting back, or putting all these terms and conditions which are kind of unacceptable on it. And when we see them thriving more, I think is where they are. Able to come to some sort of agreement with these peoples, because, after all, a lot of the barbarians are moving into Rome and putting pressure on Rome because they themselves are having pressure put on them, you know, because they're being driven out of their traditional lands. And so it is an interesting thing to think about when there's so much discussion about immigration in a lot of parts of the world at this point in time, and given that there's only going to be increasing number of people who are fleeing from war, genocide and climate change, it's such an interesting thing for us to be considering at this moment in time. Yeah, that's
Jenny W 50:35 a huge part of this story, because it was the migration era, right? And like, what that means is that there were Huns coming down from. People aren't actually sure where the Huns were coming down from. It might have been the Eastern Asian steppes. It might have been elsewhere. There's a lot of question about who the Huns were, but they were kind of crashing into these other populations of Germanic and Gothic tribes, and they were crashing into the Roman Empire, and that was starting in alaric's time. And so you have, like, you know, refugee crisis piled upon refugee crisis in this time period anyway, which is really the engine for what is happening right now. And Alaric wanted to be integrated. Like a big part of his story was that he had been a federate leader, and he wanted the legitimate, highly placed generalship position in the Roman army proper. And there's questions, you know, about what that means. Did he want that? Because it would have put his people in a better position. Did he want that? Because he just was really petty about the job title for some reason, like,
Dr Rad 51:30 I want the official title, god damn it,
Jenny W 51:32 right. But like the real Alaric, I messed with this history a little bit in my book. Like my Alaric is kind of more focused on the on the homeland part, but the real Alaric was really focused on part of his story was this was a story about integration and what immigrants into Rome did and didn't have the right to do and have, and what was happening to these people. And there's a biography that I've read that came out actually just as I was polishing up and finishing the final draft of book one. Unfortunately, that would have been so helpful, always, always. And it's about, it's called Alaric the Goth, like An Outsider's History of Rome. It's by Douglas Boin, and it is an excellent, excellent biography, and it really focuses on the immigrant part. And it's just fascinating, and just sheds a lot of light on this, on this topic. Well,
Dr G 52:20 at this point in time, I reckon we should wrap up, and I think there's lots of really interesting ideas that come up through your novel that sort of relate and raise questions about what we know about this history and that it is also a case that you're receiving a lot of high praise, so I want to just quote one of them. So Elodie Harper, who is the author of the acclaimed ‘The Wolf Den', has said, this is a hugely entertaining Roman world romanticy with a hilarious heroine and a smoldering hero, whose adventures in love and war are set against the backdrop of the last dangerous days of an ancient empire. So enticing, very enticing, that's Yeah. Congratulations,
Speaker 1 53:10 Jenny. You must be so thrilled to have such an amazing endorsement of your debut novel. And we're wondering, are there any hints about what you might be working on? Well,
Jenny W 53:22 I just want to say thank you to Elodie for that glowing praise. I am eternally grateful. I'm so glad that she loved the book. And yes, I am working on book two of this series where, yeah, which is the continuation of the story. I definitely, when I started it, thought it might be one book, but it is not. It is two books. I'm getting that draft ready. I'm actually, as we're doing this interview, scheduled to pass in the first draft of it to my editor in two days, three, two or three days. I don't know what day is it? It's Friday. Scary
Dr G 53:55 times. Yeah, it's
Jenny W 53:56 a little intimidating. That's what I'm going to be doing all weekend. So, yeah. So I'm working on Book Two, which is as yet untitled. I have an idea for a book three, but I'm kind of sitting on it for now. Gonna see how these edits go, and you know how everything goes, whether I keep the plot point that it's all based on. But yeah, I have an idea for one, at least. And yeah, we'll see. We'll see what's next.
Speaker 1 54:21 Oh, how exciting to hear that this might be a trilogy in the making, potentially,
Jenny W 54:25 I don't know at this point, it's a duology.
Speaker 1 54:30 Yeah, fair enough. So just to wrap up, Jenny, we have mentioned the podcast, obviously. But can you tell our listeners where people can find you? And of course, ancient Yeah?
Jenny W 54:39 So I my podcast is ancient history. Fan girl, it can be found wherever you get podcasts. And I'm Jenny Williamson. Mainly, I'm mainly active on Instagram. My handle is Jenny freaking Williamson. I have a website, Jenny Williamson, author, and from there, you can pretty much find out everything about me that you want to
Speaker 1 54:59 know. Fan. Fantastic. Well, thank you so much for coming on and telling us all about your book and your process and your source material, your inspiration and listeners, we hope that you also run out and buy a copy of Jenny's book. Yeah,
Jenny W 55:13 enemy of my dreams, it drops February 4. And yeah, thank you guys so much for having me
Dr G 55:19 an absolute pleasure.
Dr Rad 55:26 Thank you for listening to this episode of the partial historians. You can find our sources sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina Joy De Guzman, and because this is a special episode, we would like to say thank you to all of our Patreon and Kofi supporters who helped to make bonus content like this possible, and in return, they get early access to all of our extra content. We'd also like to say that if you found the people we were discussing in today's episode particularly fascinating, and let's face it, why wouldn't you? You might want to check out your cheeky guide to the Roman Empire, which is the book that Dr G and I just wrote, which has entries on both Julia the elder and Galla Placidia. We'd also like to recommend Emma Southon's excellent book, a History of Rome in 21 women, which also has some content that might interest you, particularly about Gallup Placidia and Honoria. Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome, you
It can be quite insulting to be told to ‘talk to the hand' and, for the Romans, it would seem that being told to ‘talk to the tree' is just as problematic. In this episode, we explore the tail end of 459 BCE and enter 458 BCE. It's fair to say that some mud is being flung between Rome and her neighbours…
Episode 101 – Talk to the Tree
The Trouble with Murder…
Livy and Dr Rad have some excellent details to offer about the ongoing and troubling ambiguity surrounding the plebeian push for the ‘the law about the laws'. This ongoing issues between patrician interests and the tribunes fighting for greater transparency is soon waylaid, however, by concerns pertaining to the recent accusation of murder! Dr Rad delves into the murky narrative and Livy's account of the affair.
New Year, Same Tribunes
Intrigues and law cases regarding potentially spurious accusations of murder give way to new elections and we find ourselves in c. 458 BCE. Both Verginius and Volscius make it back it into the tribuneship!
Listen out for Dr G forgetting Volscius (awkward for everyone) and temporarily being unable to read a map (to clarify, the Sabines and the Aequians are both East of Rome, North and South respectively).
Trouble in the South
It isn't long before Rome learns of Aequian incursions into Tusculum, which is a huge surprise given the peace treaty concluded between Rome and the Aequians just the year before. Listen in to find out how:
Rome reacts to threats from the south
the fetiales get involved
and oak trees take on an important cameo role
While Dionysius of Halicarnassus gets swept up in the military narrative, Livy seeks to balance the challenges the Rome faces externally and internally…
Our Players459 BCE
Consuls
Q. Fabius M. f. K. Vibulanus
L. Cornelius Ser. f. P. n. Maluginensis Uritinus
Prefect of the City
Lucius Lucretius (Tricipitinus)
Tribunes
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius Fictor (maybe a tribune)
Quaestors
Aulus Cornelius
Quintus Servilius (Structus Priscus?)
Patrician
Kaeso Quinctius
458 BCE
Consuls
C. Nautius Sp. f. Sp. n. Rutilus – cos II
L. Minucius P. f. M. n Esquilinus Augurinus
Prefect of the City
Q. Fabius Vibulanus
Tribunes
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius Fictor
Quaestor
M. Valerius M'. f. Volusi Maximus
T. Quintius Capitolinus Barbatus
Roman Embassy
Q. Fabius Vibulanus (also Prefect of the City)
P. Volumnius Amintinus Gallus
A. Postumius Albus Regillensis
Aequian Leader
Cloelius Gracchus
Claude Lorrain 1682 Ascanius Shooting the Stag of Sylvia, chosen for its artful arrangement of trees, which are quite pertinent to this episode. The story of Ascanius we'll save for another time.
Additional sounds in this episode: BBC and WolframTones
We've reached a huge milestone! One hundred episodes is quite something and we're super chuffed to have made it this far. To celebrate we've put together a very special episode for you on the consulship.
Episode 100 – The Consulship
While our narrative history of Rome is still very much in the early republic, the consul is a position that many aficionados of ancient Rome are familiar with. But how much do we know about the consul especially in the early years of the republic? We're here to sift through the evidence!
After the Kings
After the expulsion of the Tarquins, Rome is left facing a crisis of governance. How best to restructure the state in the wake of the collapse of monarchy?
The Romans innovative solution was to divide the powers of the rex between two men, thereby saving the populace from the tyranny of a sole ruler. But to claim that the Romans came to this decision cleanly, and with a clarity of what this would really look like, is to miss the fascinating complexities of the way the role developed over time.
What Makes a Consul?
In this special episode we'll trace the some of the key features of the consulship and explore what the position entailed in the early republic, the late republic, and the early empire. There's plenty to enjoy here including:
a return to the relationship between magistracies and assemblies;
the role of consuls in war;
and the consuls' relationship with the gods.
Alexandre Jacovleff ‘Ancient Roman Senators' illustration for The General History Edited by Satyricon (1911)
Sources
Interested in learning more about the consulship? These are the major sources we consulted in preparation for this episode and we definitely recommend them for getting a handle on the subject!
Beck, H., Duplá, A., Jehne, M., & Pino Polo, F. 2011. ‘The republic and its highest office: some introductory remarks on the Roman consulate’ in Beck, H., Duplá, A., Jehne, M., Pina Polo, F. (eds) Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic (Cambridge University Press), 1-15.
‘Consul' in Pauly's Realencyclopadie der classischen Altumsumswissenschaft Band IV, 1, col. 1112-1138 (1900).
Eck, W. 2019. ‘Suffect consul‘ in Cancik, H., Schneider, H., Salazar, C. F. (eds) Brill's New Pauly (Last accessed 29/9/2019)
Drogula, F. K. 2015. Commanders and Command in the Roman Republic and Early Empire (University of North Carolina Press)
Gizewski, C. 2019. ‘Consul(es)' in Cancik, H., Schneider, H., Salazar, C. F. (eds) Brill's New Pauly (Last accessed 29/9/2019)
Hölkeskamp, K. 2011. ‘The Roman republic as theatre of power: the consuls as leading actors’ in Beck, H., Duplá, A., Jehne, M., Pina Polo, F. (eds) Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic (Cambridge University Press), 161-181.
Hurlet, F. 2011. ‘Consulship and consuls under Augustus’ in Beck, H., Duplá, A., Jehne, M., Pina Polo, F. (eds) Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic (Cambridge University Press), 319-35.
Scullard, H. H. 1982. From the Gracchi to Nero (Routledge, London)
Smith, C. 2011. ‘The magistrates of the early Republic’, in Beck, H., Duplá, A., Jehne, M., Pina Polo, F. (eds) Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic (Cambridge University Press), 19-40.
It is c. 459 BCE and Rome faces the consequences of the Capitol having been seized and a consul killed in the previous year. The challenges come on two fronts: Tusculum and Antium.
Episode 99 – Tusculum and Antium
Consuls
Quintus Fabius M. f. K. n. Vibulanus cos. III
Lucius Cornelius Ser. f. P. n. Maluginensus Uritnus
Trouble at the Margins
The Latins and Hernicians (Rome's allies) come to Rome to report that the Volscians and the Aequians are still causing trouble at the edges of allied territory. Rome sends some troops to Antium.
The Aequians surprise attack Rome's friend Tusculum. According to Dionysius this involves enslaving many of the women but leaving many of the men untouched. The Romans are pretty upset by this turn of events and throw themselves into action.
These tussles lead to military actions in Algidum and Ecetra, both of which are near the territory of the Aequians and the latter is described by Dionysius as the “most prominent city of the Volscian nation” (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 10.21.3).
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Antium?
Rome has been raiding Antium for the past few years and recently converted the city into a Roman colony. None of these measures can be considered wholly successful.
As news of the seizure of Rome's Capitol reaches south, it seems like a good time to revolt. This is spearheaded by the Volscians, which makes perfect sense as Antium is part of their historical sphere of influence.
Livy and Dionysius of Haliarnassus disagree on a range of details about how this conflict unfolds so it's fair to say that we're less than impressed with our narrative sources right now! Nevertheless, what they do tell us is very interesting:
Livy has Rome heading in with a force made up of Romans and allies and devastating the Volscian camp by surprising them.
Dionysius offers us a tale of Rome turning Antium into a camp by surrounding it with palisades!
Who's Doing The Fighting Anyway?
Despite Rome facing a war on two fronts this year, Livy suggests that when the forces are drawn up, they are mostly comprised on allied troops, with only a third of the manpower offered by Rome herself. Is this a sign of Rome's growing hegemony over her immediate neighbours?
Join us for some very conflicting accounts from Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus as we delve into the complicated relationships between the Romans, Volscians, Aequians, Tusculans, Latins, and Hernicians!
P.S. Be on the listen for our podcat Hamish who makes a guest appearance!
An artistic impression of what early Republican soliders may have looked like (right). If you know the artist, please let us know so we can credit them appropriately.
Our Sources:
Dr G is reading Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.20-21
Dr R is reading Livy Ab Urbe Condita 3.22-24
Selected Secondary Sources:
Broughton, T. R. S. 1951. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic,Volume I (American Philological Association)
Lomas, K. 2017. The Rise of Rome: from the Iron Age to the Punic Wars(1000-264 BC) (Profile Books)
*Special Episode* What Does Your Toga Say About You?
07 Nov 2019
00:30:50
Dr Amy Place from the University of Leicester sits down with Dr Rad to discuss the humble Roman toga, fashion and social identity, and everyday life in late imperial Roman North Africa!
On a recent tour to Australia, Place presented a paper for the SPQR Roman History Forum at Macquarie University on the representation of fashions in Late Roman North Africa. The Partial Historians we lucky enough to grab the chance to chat.
*Special Episode* – What Does Your Toga Say About You?
Late Roman North Africa is a time period and an area that is understudied, but just as fascinating as Italy. Place is particularly interested in how clothing is represented and how it was used to express social identity.
Dominus Julius Mosaic from Carthage, Bardo Museum. Copyright credit: Sean Leatherbury/Manar al-Athar
When are we talking?
Dr Place’s research focuses on 200-550 CE. The late Roman empire is full of intrigue and was a time of great change. While there was some stability under the emperor Septimius Severus, who ruled from 193-211 CE, with his death and the succession of his son Caracalla, a century of turmoil began.
Amidst the political chaos that characterised much of this century, the Christians rose in prominence. By the beginning of the fourth century, Rome would have its first Christian emperor, Constantine I. This emerging system would rapidly became established as the exclusive religion of the empire as Rome entered the fifth century.
Where are we talking?
The focus of Place’s research has been the coastal regions of North Africa, examining an area that spans Namibia to Morocco. Parts of North Africa began to be acquired by Rome in the 2nd century BCE with the end of the Third Punic War. Roman influence continued to expand in this region throughout the late Republic and into the Empire.
What is the source material like for fashion and togas?
Place's research is based in part on literary sources but is supplemented with mosaics. She highlights the difficulties that come with using textual evidence to understand something that was visual. The terms used in the sources are not always easily matched to a surviving representation and it is extremely rare for any actual samples of clothing to survive to the modern day.
Matron at her Toilette Mosaic from Sidi Ghrib, Bardo. Copyright credit: Sean Leatherbury/Manar al-Athar.
How did people in North Africa use clothing to construct and express their identity?
Place’s research focuses on the impact that the growth of Christianity had on dress and identity. A particularly important author was Tertullian, a Christian writer who made some very vocal criticism of female dress in this region.
Although Roman writers had been critical of women dressing too provocatively before the advent of Christianity, for Tertullian there was an extra moral imperative for women to dress modestly and plainly. Austerity was a means of advertising one’s commitment to the new religion, most especially if one was wealthy enough to have a choice.
We see a stark contrast between words and deeds, however, when we consider the mosaics from the region. As Place notes, these don’t often show people have taken Tertullian’s advice – quite the opposite!
Tune in to hear all Place's insights into the local trends for women and men and the place of the toga.
Tomb cover for Victoria, originally from Tabarka, now in the Bardo. Copyright credit: Sean Leatherbury/Manar al-Athar.
Interested in learning more about this fascinating topic? You can consider more of Dr Amy Place's work at Academia.edu
It's c. 460 BCE and this hectic year in Roman history continues! In this episode we consider Rome in the wake of the sneak attack on the Capitol by Herdonius' disaffected Sabines. During the challenges of wrestling control back, the Romans lose one of their own. The consul Publius Valerius Pubicola falls in battle. This is a tragic loss and opens the way for Lucius Cincinnatus to return to the narrative.
Episode 98 – Cincinnatus, Suffect Consul
Looking to catch up on the narrative before diving into this episode? You can find out more about the earlier events of this year here.
Who's WhoConsuls
Publius Valerius P. f. Volusi n. Publicola (cos II)
Gaius Claudius Ap. f. M. n. Inrigillensis (or Regillensis) Sabinus
Suffect Consul
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Tribune of the Plebs
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius Fictor
A Man of the Land
There's nothing quite like a man who farms. For fans of men of the land, Cincinnatus is here for you. We explore the important symbolism of Cincinnatus working the land and his reaction to learning about his election as suffect consul.
A New Political Strategy
Cincinnatus takes the opportunity to lead in a new way. With much rhetorical flourish, our new consul lays forth a plan that spells trouble for the plebeians and the ambitions of the tribunes. We dig into the discrepancies between our sources – Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus have different takes on the essential narrative. This is very revealing in terms of thinking about the aims of our written sources for this period.
Things to Look Forward To
a taking of auspices
a desire for a dictator
some senatorial love for our man Cincinnatus
Alexandre Cabanel 1843. Cincinnatus receiving the ambassadors of Rome. Image Source: Wikimedia CommonsOur SourcesPrimary sources
Dr G is reading Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 10.17-19
Dr R is reading Livy 3.19.1-3
Secondary sources
Broughton, T. R. S. 1951. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, Volume I (American Philological Association)
Eck, W. (Colonge) ‘Suffect Consul' Brill's New Pauly, Cancik, H. Schneider, H., Salazar, C. F. (eds.), accessed online 29-9-2019
Lomas, K. 2017. The Rise of Rome: from the Iron Age to the Punic Wars (1000-264 BC) (Profile Books)
Müller, C. (Bochum) ‘Q. Cincinnatus, L.' Brill's New Pauly, Cancik, H. Schneider, H., Salazar, C. F. (eds.), accessed online 29-9-2019
*Special Episode* – The Thread of Women’s Representation
04 Oct 2019
00:44:45
In this special episode, we're joined by Liz Smith, who has recently completed her doctoral research of the representation of women's dress in statuary at Macquarie University. Together we'll trace the threads of evidence for women's attire in the Roman world.
The Thread of Women's Representation with Liz Smith
Liz's research includes the fashion of women's dress in ancient representations in order to investigate what we can learn about the representation of women. This means considering how representations of women in statuary were often mediated by a male perspective and asking what this might reveal about women's lived experience.
The Importance of Material Evidence
A consideration of material evidence, especially when combined with inscriptions offers an alternative to the literary sources for thinking about women and daily life in the ancient world. Our evidence in this episode dates from the third century CE, which means we're thinking about a Rome embroiled in empire and imperial rule.
In this episode we'll be considering the head coverings on statues in the round and sepulchral depictions of women. We explore the implications of topics such as:
drapery in statues and reliefs
the colour of statuary
the stola
the palla
dress as status
Epiktesis
Epiktesis outlives her family. We consider the monument she dedicates to her husband, her children, and herself. Liz takes us through the pose adopted by Epiktesis – the Large Herculaneum Woman Type – and its implications.
The husband remains unnamed in this relief as do the children. This in itself is somewhat unusual but this evidence goes to the next level when we consider that the children are represented as divinities!
With Epiktesis herself depicted in a very modest, unrevealing style and her daughter assuming the quite revealing Bathing Aphrodite Type, this representation has a lot to offer in terms of thinking about the meaning conveyed by poses and attire.
Liz explains how size plays a role in the representation of family in this monument and we consider what this might have suggested to an ancient viewer. We also consider the unique aspects of this piece in terms of its arrangement of the figures and their poses.
Aurelia Eutychia “I am Prosperous” c. 250s CE
We consider the sarcophagus dedicated by Aurelia to herself and her husband Marcus Aurelius Marino which can still be seen today in Ferrara. Liz takes us through the significance of the statuesque features of this artefact.
Social status is a particular feature at play in all these representations and the capacity of Aurelia to have for a sarcophagus where the figures display a range of statuesque features tells us a lot about how she wanted to be understood by her community.
Sarcophagus dedicated by Aurelia Eutychia to herself and her husband Marcus Aurelius Marino. Side panel.
Liz explores the implications of Aurelia's personal representation of herself. We discuss the potential implications of being veiled versus not being veiled.
Here's the inscription found on the sarcophagus:
Aurelia Eutychia built this sarcophagus while alive for herself and her husband Marcus Aurelius Marino a veteran of Syrian lineage at the behest of the patron and her most dutiful husband with whom she lived for forty-three years by order of the patron out of his own funds. If someone after the death of the both opens it they will deposit a thousand sesterces to the tax authorities.
Translation ~ Liz Smith
Join us for a lively exploration of women's representation through statuary and inscription!
Addendum: In exciting news, in the time between our chat with Liz and the release of this episode, we can confirm that Liz has passed her doctoral examination and joins us as a full academic. Congratulations Dr Liz Smith!
Edit: Since conducting this interview, further analysis of the sarcophagus dedicated by Aurelia has revealed the insight that Aurelia would have been Marcus Aurelius Marino’s enslaved property, before he freed and married her. As his freedwoman, Aurelia would have been bound by custom and law to respect Marcus and give him services (operae), even after her manumission. Accordingly, it is all the more interesting that Aurelia represented herself as an equal partner to her husband through the statuesque elements we see on the front and lateral sides.
We return to our narrative of Rome's history of its foundation with some surprising Sabines. It's still 460 BCE , which is an indication of just how complicated Rome's history is becoming when we read our sources.
Both Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus are very focused on the ongoing conflict between the Roman elites and the emerging claims to power from the plebeians.
We wouldn't would to give too many spoilers away, but while the Romans are busy trying to figure out what their internal politics will look like, there might just be an enemy on the horizon!
Episode 97 – Surprising Sabines
You can catch up on the earlier action of this year here.
Just Your Everyday Ongoing Political Conflict
Some of the complications in the City stem from the young patricians who have become a force to be reckoned with, terrorising plebeians. The tribunes have been lobbying for changes that would make Roman law transparent but so far there's been no real movement on the issue. There are a number of things to consider, such as:
connections between this conflict and the First Succession;
the use of annual levies by the patricians as a means of controlling the plebeians;
and the role of local warfare in preventing plebeians from engaging fully in Rome's politics.
Surprise, Surprise, it's the Sabines!
Just when the Romans are caught up in their own problems, the Sabine Appius Herdonius turns up with a goodly number of supporters and seizes the Capitol. Our sources disagree on just how large Herdonius' force is or who is part of it, but, regardless of the figures and identities, the narrative follows the same trajectory – infiltration!
We discuss the various strategies credited to Herdonius for entering the city and his apparent aims in making such a bold move. Suffice it to say, word of Rome's internal unrest has spread…
Sabine Attack as a Microcosm of Rome's Internal Trouble
Needless to say, the Romans are less than pleased to have an intruder in the heart of the City. Like a kicked beehive, the citizens rally to defend themselves! It's not long though before this chaos turns into competing calls to arms. The consuls and tribunes seize upon the moment to offer differing opinions about the situation and urging the citizen body to divergent actions.
Hear how the tensions rise and the Romans respond to the Sabine threat in this episode!
Our Main Players
Consuls
Publius Valerius P. f. Volusi n. Publicola (cos. II)
Gaius Claudius Ap. f. M. n. Inrigillensis (or Regillensis) Sabinus
Tribunes
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius Fictor
Sabines
Appius Herdonius
Tusculans
Lucius Mamilius
Our Sources
Livy Ab Urbe Condita 3.15-18
Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 9.14-16
Topography of the ancient Capitol, according to the arbitrary reconstitution of Nardini, in The Roman Capitol in Ancient and Modern Times (1906). Source: Wikimedia Commons
Warning! This post and episode contain huge spoilers.
Dr G and Dr Rad always enjoy a trip to the movies, as you tell from our past forays in classics like Spartacus,Gladiator, and the contemporary farce Hail, Caesar! We are planning to record more special episodes when we see a historical flick or television series that sparks our interest. This week we saw Tarantino’s latest offering, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019).
Bonus Episode – Once Upon a Time in Hollywood The audio is a little variable on this one, but we decided to keep at much as possible rather than cut. Equipment checking is a high priority before our next recording session. Did we mention the spoilers? They are coming…
The two main characters in this film (Rick Dalton, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, and Cliff Booth, played by Brad Pitt) are fictional, but the backdrop to their story is historical. Whilst occasionally flashing back to earlier points, the majority of the film takes place in Hollywood, 1969. 2019 marks the fifty-year anniversary, so the release is timely. This was a pivotal year for America in many ways. The protest movement against the Vietnam War reached new heights in the wake of the Tet Offensive in 1968, not only in terms of the numbers who attended protests such as Vietnam Moratorium Day, but also with the trial of the Chicago Eight for demonstrations during the August 1968 Democratic National Convention. This was also the year that the assassin of Martin Luther King Jr was captured and tried, and the Black Panthers were named as enemies of the state by the FBI for being a communist organisation. These are not the events that Tarantino focuses on.
What is Hollywood Anyway?
Dalton is an actor trying to keep his career afloat and Booth is his stuntman, BFF and all-round handyman. The Hollywood that they used to know is disappearing. For decades, the film industry had been controlled by the major studios (such as MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros) and each movie was subject to strict censorship rules. By 1969, the studios were no longer as dominant and the Production Code had been abandoned, opening the door for a wider range of artists and film subjects. The Graduate (1967) would have been unthinkable at the beginning of the decade and in 1969 Dennis Hopper’s ground-breaking, counter-cultural classic, Easy Rider, would be released.
Even so, Hollywood was about to be rocked by something more earth-shattering than a progressive movie. In August 1969, Charles Manson decided that it was time for his followers to unleash the race war that he had dubbed ‘Helter Skelter’ after the Beatles song from the 1968 White Album. This would lead to the grisly Tate and La Bianca murders. The crimes committed by the Manson Family had many implications, but it is the build-up to these events that Tarantino traces as Dalton and Booth cruise through Hollywood.
Hollywood with a Twist
Just as the audience is preparing to see Sharon Tate and her house guests get brutally murdered by Manson’s drug-addled followers, Tarantino turns audience expectations on their head. Dalton and Booth, who live next door to Tate and Polanski, are attacked by the Family and it is the latter who suffer a gruesome end. This is not the first time that Tarantino has ventured down this road with historical fare. Django Unchained (2013) and Inglorious Basterds (2009) both play with historical reality. Is it in the interest of providing his audience with a sense of catharsis? What are the implications of counterfactual history – of exploring the ‘What ifs?’ of history? This may seem harmless and perhaps beneficial; can exploring what didn’t happen help to shed fresh light on what did happen?
Respected historians such as Niall Ferguson have trodden down this path, but others such as Richard J. Evans have emphatically refuted the value of “parlour games” that seem to lament ‘if only’, rather than ask ‘what-if?’ (Hatherley, 2014). Do these issues apply to historical films, which obviously aim to entertain? Is the silver screen a suitable place for such games, or does the wider audiences of a feature film make counterfactuals more dangerous? This is history at its most controversial.
Join the Doctors as they explore the ins and outs of the 60s, hippies and history.
For those interested in learning more about Hollywood in the Manson era, we cannot recommend ‘You Must Remember This’ enough. Host Karina Longworth has produced a 12-part series exploring Charles Manson, the Family and Hollywood in the late 1960s.
If you are more of a true crime buff, you may be interested in checking out the Last Podcast on the Left (hosted by Ben Kissel, Marcus Parks and Henry Zebrowski) and their series on Charles Manson (Starting at Episode 147). These guys have a conversational, hilarious podcast that is also exceptionally well-researched.
And finally, if you’re just loving all things 1969, check out Parcast Presents the ‘Summer of ‘69’ series, which features a number of episodes on Manson, the Manson Girls BUT also other fascinating tales from this pivotal year.
*Special Episode* – Barbarians with Dr Rhiannon Evans
29 Aug 2019
00:57:41
Dr Radness travelled to Melbourne recently and met with the fantastic and erudite Dr Rhiannon Evans from La Trobe. Dr Evans is one of the famous voices on the Emperors of Romepodcast. In this special episode, Dr Rad and Dr Evans explore barbarians!
*Special Episode* – Barbarians with Dr Rhiannon Evans
Tune in to learn more about how the Romans thought about the peoples they came into contact with.
What makes a Barbarian?
Connotations have a very important place when thinking about barbarians. Our modern usage also influences how we think of the category. So the first order of business is a consideration of etymology and to consider who the Romans are applying the term to and why.
There are a range of factors to consider when turning to the Roman use of the term. Up for discussion:
who cops the designation of barbarian from the Roman perspective
what makes someone more and less barbarous
just what is happening on the other side of the Rhine
and some of the problems with our source materials – written versus archaeological
Julius Caesar's Barbarians
There's nothing quite like expansion to bring a Roman into contact with barbarians. Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars detail his campaigns. Reading the source closely provide some clues as to:
the divisions between the peoples
the Roman criticism of the role of writing and speaking amongst non-Roman peoples
maybe what's not happening (Roman victory)
and differences in attitude to land use
Implications of the Past on the Present
The concept of barbarian may emerge from an ancient past, but it continues to have relevance today. The idea of who belongs and who is considered an outsider, and the concept of the Other, are part of an ongoing engagement with how people navigate their relationships with strangers.
The conversation weaves through the dangers of Caesar's description of the Germani and touches upon Claudius' relationship with the Gauls, both of which have modern echoes that Dr R and Evans explore.
Join us for all this and more!
I, Dr G, sadly lament my absence from this episode – but having done the write up for this episode, I can assure you it is good!
Henri Paul Motte 1886. Vercingetorix surrenders to Caesar. Image courtesy of: Wikimedia Commons.
We love this version of the chief of the Arverni surrendering to Caesar for Motte's decision to centre the composition on Vercingetorix. The spectre of Caesar remains, but he is a distant haze of red surrounded by soldiers and defences. Vercingetorix is poised and still holding his sword.
The conflict between patricians and plebeians continues apace as we explore the political complexities of 460 BCE. Much like a Jane Austen novel, letters and rumours abound in the fair city of Rome…
Episode 96 – Letters and Rumours
According to the annalist tradition, debate continues to rage about the proposal for clarity around laws and the idea of equality before the law. This leads to an unusual situation: the tribunes from the previous year return to continue pushing for these changes. Livy notes that the tribunes are riding on a high after ensuring the recent demise of Caeso Quinctius. But this also means that the incoming consuls are dealing with tribunes who seem be becoming entrenched…
Strategies for Violence?
We saw in the previous episode that there seems to be a difference between how the older patricians go about politics—through mechanisms such as magistracies and the senate—and how the younger patricians seek to make plays, through public violence and intimidation. Nevertheless, it seems as though the younger ones might just have hit upon a new approach which Dr Rad explores through Livy's account.
Letters and Rumours Abound…
Perhaps as a response to the violence in the City, the tribunes hit upon a new approach to push for changes. And before you know it, secret letters are being delivered to the tribunes while they're in the forum! There are a few implications that arise because of this and more than a little drama…
Dr G considers the narrative provided by Dionysius of Halicarnassus which leads into some intense set-piece speeches from Aulus Verginius and Gaius Claudius.
Join us for an episode full of exciting turns, political jousting, letters and rumours, and maybe even…conspiracy!
Our PlayersConsuls
Publius Valerius P. f. Volusi n. Publicola (cos. II)
Gaius Claudius Ap. f. M. n. Inrigillensis (or Regillensis) Sabinus
Tribunes
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius Fictor
Patricians
Caeso Quinctius
Giovanni Battista Piranesi 1756. Map of the Forum Romanum / Courtesy of: Wikimedia Commons. Although a much later vision of Rome than what we are exploring in this episode, nevertheless, Piranesi conjures up the Forma Urbis Romae project with this elegant etching which includes the forum, the site of much of the action.
Special Episode – Storylife with Professor Joel P. Christensen
09 Jan 2025
01:07:37
We are thrilled to sit down in conversation with Professor Joel P. Christensen to discuss some of the ideas explored in his forthcoming book Storylife: On Epic, Narrative, and Living Things (Yale University Press).
Special Episode – Storylife with Professor Joel P. Christensen
Professor Christensen is also famous online for his engaging work on ancient Greece and Rome through his website sententiaeantiquae.com
In this episode we delve into some of the ideas that Christensen explores in his forthcoming book Storylife: On Epic, Narrative, and Living Things (Yale University Press). With chapters exploring Homer in tandem with the COVID-19 pandemic and people’s response to it, particularly in the context of the United States.
Cook, E. (1998). ‘Heroism, Suffering, and Change’ in D. Boedeker (Ed.), The Iliad, the Odyssey and the Real World: Proceedings from a Seminar Sponsored by the Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage and Held at the Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., on March 6-7, 1998 (pp. 47-63). Washington D.C.: Society for the Preservation of the Greek Heritage.
Lightly edited for the Latin and our wonderful Australian accents!
Dr G 0:15 Welcome to The Partial Historians.
We explore all the details of ancient Rome.
Everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battled wage and when citizens turn against each other. I'm Dr Rad.
And I'm Dr G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.
Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Welcome everybody to a very special episode of The Partial Historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr G.
And I am Dr Rad.
And we are super thrilled today to be welcoming a special guest, Professor JoelChristiensen. Now, Joel Christiensen is professor of Classical Studies at Brandeis University. He received his BA and MA from Brandeis in classics and English, and holds a PhD in classics from New York University, and has many exciting publications in his back catalog, including ‘A Beginner's guide to Homer', ‘A Commentary on the Homeric Battle of Frogs and Mice' with Eric Robinson, ‘Homer's Thebes' with Elton T. E. Barker and ‘The Many-Minded Man:The Odyssey, Psychology, and the Therapy of Epic'. Also, Professor Christensen is famous online for his engaging work on ancient Greece and Rome through his website, which I'm about to mispronounce, sententiaeantiquae.com
Yup, you stuff that up completely.
I did. Somebody correct me, please. Somebody correct me.
Sententiae, I think.
See, there you go. It's easy. Just don't rely on me for pronouncing things. So you could say, from this back catalog that we are incredibly starstruck and also completely out of our death, because we are Roman historians. And you will have noticed that Professor Christensen is really a Greek specialist in all of these sorts of areas that he's focused on in his work. And we are going to be really junior learners in this process of this interview, which we're excited about as we talk about Professor Christensen's forthcoming book, ‘Storylife: On Epic Narrative and Living Things', which is coming out in 2025 through Yale University Press. So thank you, Joel, so much for joining us.
Professor Joel Christensen 2:57 Hey, thank you for inviting me. I was so psyched when you guys sent that email, it's a pleasure to be here.
Dr G 3:03 Fantastic. Woo hoo. I'm glad that the excitement is mutual, because we're definitely starstruck. So this is, this is thrilling stuff. So to start off with, thinking about story life, in the preface, you say that this is an exploration of how we think about stories if we externalize them. And I'm wondering if you can take us a little bit about what led you to this idea to consider stories as external agents.
Speaker 1 3:31 Yeah, so I mean, what's probably connected and animated my work, in fact, my interest in scholarship, since I was, I don't know, middle school is thinking about how stories function in the world, why we respond to them so much, why we care about them and really like how we depend on them and what they do. And so, you know, for many years, in teaching myth, I, you know, grasp about for different metaphors and how to think about getting people to understand why makes vary, why stories are embedded in different contexts, and what similarities and differences from one context to another means. And at the same time, while I was doing this, I have been, as you note in the introduction, sort of habitually online, watching everything that's happened in Twitter and Facebook since it started, I'm, you know, I feel like I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember a world before Google and before Facebook. In fact, both debuted while I was in graduate school, and you really got a sense of watching them unfold, of how much faster narratives were moving and changing, and how they could really make people act in different ways. And so part of it is, for me, I've always felt sort of on the outside of what we might see as American centrism and what we do in the world. To go back again to around the time Google debuted, I was in New York City for 911. I was there for the peace protest. And you know, I lost friends and, like, ruined family relationships. Because from the beginning, I didn't understand why a terrorist attack in the US meant we should be going on an endless war and terror and, you know, invading Afghanistan, Iraq, all of those things. And so constantly, you know, I was interested in rhetoric, in politics. And then, you know, post the 2008 election and Obama, I got really interested in the way that stories shape our notion by identity and belonging to larger groups. And so that's a very long answer for your for your question, but I'm getting, you know, I'm getting to the point, I got to the point where I, you know, everyone's talking about intention and responsibility, like, who's creating stories, who's responsible for it? But one of the things that I think is really clear from watching the way narratives, you know, metastasize online and change, is I don't think there are agents, right? We can point to specific moments where someone floats in there, gets accepted, but it's so much more complicated than and so for me, what? But, you know, Trump's victory in 2016 like bored me. I was like, How does this happen? How do people think like we can actually do? And then what really made me start to think of narratives as being independent of us was our collective response of us, especially to COVID, just the very notion that people were rejecting vaccination, not believing that we could understand the way the disease is working, rejecting masking and public health things, you know, it made me think, well, what if, just for sake of argument, we imagine that stories have nothing to do with our attention, right, but that they have a reason for existing on their own, and they operate by their own logic. And what if, in this logic is the very logic that animates the rest of creation, which is the need to perpetuate itself, not for good, not for evil, just for basic survival. And so that, for me, was sort of the starting proposition, what would it mean to just think about stories as independent from us, and that, in a way, can help sort of soften the blow of us understanding that something that we create and participate in willingly actually causes us harm. And so for me, this is also connected. It's not just about COVID, of course. It's also about climate change, it's about so many of the narratives that we participate in that actually cause harm to us, individually and collectively. And so I think the ideas have been brewing and simmering for a very long time, but the real catalyst was just spending 18 months sitting at home watching us make bad decision after bad decision, and wondering if there's a different way of thinking about things.
Dr G 7:45 Yeah, I think that's really amazing. I think that puts things in a really great context as well, to set up, like the questions that we're going to start to delve into further as we get into this interview as well, but this sense in which stories sort of sit both outside of the realm of the self, but are also constantly interacting with us as we move through space and time. And I think your analogy of, well, it's not even an analogy, it's just a fact of history, the way that the explosiveness of the internet over time, and so I don't think that we're that old, either, but we also pre date some of that stuff.
Speaker 1 8:24 Well, I mean, look for full disclosure, my age. I'm 46 right? And, you know, the first time I ever sent an email was when I was a freshman in college, yeah. And, you know, I never used the internet till I applied for college. And so I think this means, to a certain extent, that my consciousness and cognitive capacity formed before that and have a different relationship to information, but we can see that change. It's like my parents talk about what life was like before cable TV. Like I really understand that, but I can clock the way it works. And just one thing to add to that, you know, that can another connection that that really primed all this thought is the work I did for my Odyssey book, which was really engaged in cognitive psychology and neurobiology and sort of collective notions of thinking and minds to sort of lay the basis for epic being a therapeutic experience. And I think one of our big challenges, and this again, lead back to the book, is as human beings, we are both culturally set up to think of ourselves as individuals and separate from things, and we're biologically encouraged to consider the world in that way, but our language and our engagement with ideas, with others, is actually a collective experience. And so I think one of the reasons why I find these analogies not just useful, but absolutely necessary, is it's so hard for us to defamiliarize ourselves, with our with the experiences that we have. Have like, we don't think well in the aggregate, and it's really hard to think outside of our individual subjectivity and imagine ourselves as part of a larger narrative ecosystem that shapes our identities, instead of sort of, you know, like free agents in the world making all of our own choices.
Dr G 10:15 Yeah, obviously, as of time of recording, to totally date this podcast, which I know we're not supposed to do. But hey, watch me do it yet again. We are obviously all reeling with the news of Trump's re election as of a few weeks ago, and definitely, as somebody who is constantly struggling with the lack of serious action on climate change, on the on the behalf of both institutions and individuals, I totally get what you're saying in terms of, it just constantly boggles my mind that this kind of stuff is happening in the world. And I do think it has a lot to do with with narratives and the way that people interact with them. Yeah, that's drive that, you know, helping to drive sort of action on these sorts of issues.
Speaker 1 10:55 No, I look it's mind boggling. And you know, the the stance I always had, you know, when we elected, when we re elected, George Bush in 2004 you know, my first stance was, everybody's stupid, right? But, but then I had to step back and say, look like, while it might be attractive to dismiss more than 50% of the country, like, we can't assume that everyone's just insane, right? Like, there has to be some other way to think about it, you know. And part of is about to reading people with empathy, trying to under, like, trying to understand the world in a generous way, which is really, really hard. And so that's where it's like, sort of, you know, to think of us as not individuals making rational decisions may seem to, you know, deprive us of agency, in a way, but it also is a fundamentally important framing for understanding human action, and I think that's one of our real challenges in public policy and education. Is really seeing that problem there, that we are part of these larger tides in the world. And no matter how much smarter more informed we think we are like, we still have to look at the larger picture.
Dr G 12:11 So perhaps to segue from modern American politics to ancient Greece, such a jump time traveling a little bit obviously, even the average person on the street is probably aware that one of the standout figures in ancient Greek thought and storytelling is Homer. And one of the big questions that usually concerns scholars of Homer is important enough to receive capitalized letters, which is the Homeric question. Can you briefly explain to us what the Homeric question is all about?
Speaker 1 12:45 So, so that modifier, briefly, there is, is a dangerous request, but I'll see. I'll see what I could do. So the Homeric question, it's not really one question, it's multiple questions, and it has the following elements, one first one are the alien the Odyssey by the same person in scare quotes? Two, whether or not they're by the same person, or if they are, are the alien Odyssey as we have them unitary? Are each of them whole in the way they're meant to be, instead of sort of Malcolm text that were put together by later, by later editors? Three if these texts are unitary, or if they not, or if they're not, what is the relationship between the texts we have and the oral tradition that we're very certain predated the textualizations of the epic right? So, how did they move from an oral tradition of performance into a textual tradition of reading. And I think an additional question there is, how does that change the way we think about the epics, even if they came from an oral tradition, but they're also in text? How do we analyze them? And then I think I'd add to that, how and when did it happen? And, you know it, did it happen in a single time or over time? And what's the dirty relationship between the oral tradition and the text? So complicating features of this is that we have no certain evidence about a person called Homer. There are biographical traditions that are clearly false. They're from all over the place. The best book on this is by Barbara Graziosi. It's called ‘Inventing Homer', and it really goes through the ancient evidence for the creation of Homer as a as a sort of poetic figure. You guys may like this next anecdote. I'll try to make it simple. But my daughter came home. She is in She's a freshman in high school, so first year in high school, she's 14, and to hassle me, she took out her textbook, and she showed me in her history textbook, line, Homer was a blind poet who wrote The Iliad of the Odyssey, and she knew I was going to die from that. And she's like, Well, why isn't this right? I'm like, it. To and I tried to explain to her about composition and performance and how important it was over time. And then she said, Well, Encyclopedia Britannica says this is right. And she took out a phone and started fact checking me. And then she went to karate class and kept texting me. She texted, you know, what is Homer, according to you, and then she followed up people in my class say who was a real guy. And I just like, you're trying to murder me, my daughter. And so I think the biographical tradition is clearly false. And in addition, there are significant features that are different between sort of oral derived literature and literary culture. And to add to all that, and make it more complicated, as a literate culture, where prejudice towards a sort of God author model for the creation of things. And I think if you read really carefully in the development of ancient Greek literature, you can see culture changing. I think Aristotle doesn't understand oral culture. He doesn't see the tradition as being indebted to variety and multiplicity and performance. He sees it as a written thing, because he's a writer, and I think our number one challenge in conceptualizing a non written, fixed textual tradition for Homer is our own cultural framework that privileges authorship over genius over almost all else, and dis privileges collective contributions and creations.
Dr G 16:35 Well, you convinced me I'm going to go out and smash my bust of Homer immediately after recording this episode. Oh no, take that genius.
Professor Joel Christensen 16:45 Somebody might find it useful.
Dr G 16:49 Just fragments. Just leave fragments behind.
That should be appropriate, like that's a good metaphor for what's gonna happen here with the test, I shook that Aristotle was wrong about something. I mean, my god.
Speaker 1 17:02 I may be, I may be veering into iconoclastic territory by saying that, but I think, look, we have good evidence in studies in sort of oral culture, that the shift in mindset is less than a generation like even one person's lifetime, as they move from an oral performance culture. Once they move to relying on reading and fixing things on a page, their sort of neurological relationship to creation changes. So there's some good stuff, but like about that, but it's something again, it's so hard for us to think outside of it's like thinking in another language completely, or like breathing different kind of air.
Dr G 17:41 Well, this is very much like what you were saying, though, because we are of the same generation as you, not to disclose our age too much, but yeah, as you said, like the creation of the internet in our youth, let's say did definitely lead to some changes. And I am a teacher of teenagers, and so I definitely see the different way that they think about information and communication and all of that kind of stuff, in terms of how they interact with social media and AI and all of those sorts of tools which they've grown up with.
Speaker 1 18:14 Yeah, yeah. And I think that's just a small sample of how much it changes. And just imagine the difference if you're embedded in a cultural group that's not relying on reading or writing at all, right, and that's used to attributing authority externally. And so that, to go to your earlier question about sort of externalizing stories, one of the most important things, I think, differences in early Greek literature is the externalizing of agency for an authority, for narrative to the muse. We now think of that as a poetic device that's a way like it's taught like this is just something you do, but I think it was taken very seriously prior to Plato, and even you know among in his time, like this is a way of saying this comes from somewhere else without actually being sure about where it comes to them.
Dr G 19:02 I think this has good parallels to draw upon in connection with oral culture that still exists within indigenous traditions. So definitely in Australia, there is a sort of a reclamation of a lot of indigenous oral tradition, and the way that storytelling is embedded in a really layered way, and it's about relationships between people. But it's also the case that it's very explicitly made clear that if you are being told a story by an elder, you're only being told the first version of that story. There's going to be deeper layers as you get further embedded into the culture and you demonstrate your responsibility and your obligations and things like that. So there's a sense in which the complexity of something like a Homeric text in its oral form is really beyond our capacity to be able to comprehend, because we've only got this written version that remains. That oral tradition has not continued, because it would have evolved and changed through the retelling every single time.
Speaker 1 20:01 Yeah. And, I mean, I think this is one of the things that we miss the most in our tradition, about Homer as well, in that we're taught to read ancient literature as if it's modern literature, as if we just sit there reading it literally. And there's been this sort of, this movement for about 300 years in reading ancient literature that discounts allegory and, you know, symbolism and indirect meaning. You know, as early we have evidence of 600 BCE Pythagorean traditions of, you know, of reading Homer's allegory, of seeing everything in the Odyssey about being the reincarnation of souls. It's not actually about the story of Odysseus. Instead, it's a secret included message. And so I think you know that goes exactly with what you were saying about so traditional literature and community and layers of interpretation and passing down the authority of the past, it's just something we're so separate from, because we're raised with sort of the belief in scriptural traditions where the word is on the page and we interpret it, and we have this idea of universal, timeless meaning, which seems to be inflexible in a way.
Dr G 21:09 So challenging, but also now I'm feeling a little bit riled up. The English teacher side of me is like, but no, it's always about the interpretation every valid and different.
Professor Joel Christensen 21:19 But my guess is you would be a better English teacher, because there are different models, right? There's the model where there's one interpretation and the authority gives it to you, and then there's the other one, where there are where it's the ambiguity and multiplicity of interpretations that makes literature special. And so I think there's a real tension there in the Western tradition of approaching literature, right? It goes back to who has the authority to interpret? Is it supply side poetics, where it's all about whatever the author meant, or is it about something more, much more complicated, about that dance between tradition and the individual and audiences and sort of narratives?
Yeah, for sure, there's so much to think about with this sort of thing. So yeah, I feel like I'm just like, I'm just letting my brain absorb it and and take it in um. But taking this idea a little bit further with the Homeric tradition, and starting to think about the external elements of it as well. You discuss the idea of thinking about Homer's writing home, is writing get out my flesh rabbits through both an oral metaphor and an arboreal metaphor. So a metaphor related to trees. And I don't know if you're open to it, but I'm wondering if you'd be willing to recreate this experience of the arboreal metaphor for us.Okay, sure. So in the introduction, the first thing I talk about is, instead of thinking about the Iliad of the Odyssey as a complex symphony played in different rooms by musicians who can't hear each other, the next one I think, I ask people to think about is the object of the elite. The Odyssey is something fixed like a tree in the landscape. So I have a section where I say, you know, I'll quote myself, and I'll go through it right. If you can get someone to read the next few paragraphs aloud, close your eyes and listen. And here we go. Take a minute and imagine a tree in a manicured park, a private garden. Make it a really lovely tree, one you would notice and remember, if you lingered on a bit, one that has been well situated in its environment. Think about the trees in perfect symmetry, the way it occupies its space. Has it grown? It's in odd angles to meet the sun's changing rays over the seasons or in response to persistent winds. How deeply is it rooted? Now think about this. Someone planted the tree, others tended to it and trimmed it. More people spent generations selecting this domesticated tree from its ancestral stock. Think about the uncountable hands that made this tree possible. The saplings transplanted, the varieties combined over time. What were their lives like? What stories did they tell? What were trees to them, think about the tree's beauty, its esthetics. What makes us set this tree apart from others? What is essential about it? Our appreciation is based on other trees we might not remember, as well as an entire grammar of human beings in the environment, like any native language, you learned its basic syntax without trying. You have a sense of the way trees should be. You probably judge a tree differently from a shrub for historical esthetic reasons. You have expectations of what trees should do, how they should look and how they relate to the world around them. For the most part, you're not cognizant of these assumptions, but you almost certainly have different notions about a shrub or a bush. Now, if you've been listening, open your eyes, but keep the tree in your mind. If someone asks Who is responsible for the tree, what do you say? Is that the person who designed the park? Is it the gardener is the first person who imagined a tree in the garden, any single answer ignores those countless hands, minds and environments that contribute to the treeness of the tree. I can keep going, and there's more, but enough of it.
Dr G 25:07 No I think that's good, that that starts to open up the pathways they're thinking about the complexities of anything. So I think one of the challenges that students often come with is when they're sold an idea that, like, Homer, is a guy, you know, he's a blind poet. He did these things is that it gives it that singular point of generation. It's like this is emerged from a singular moment of genius from one person. And perhaps it was a response to their world. But it somehow all comes down to them, and anything that we can take away from that text, we also then have to acknowledge the genius of the creator, and by stepping back and trying to place the poetry and the ideas that come with that poetry in the broader landscape. And I think this is part of the power of this metaphor, is that it allows us to see the whole context, or a window into that whole context. And it's like we're always looking at so much more than just some phrasing, just a moment of singular genius. I mean, Western culture does have this sort of propensity for the for the white male genius aspect, model of creation, but it's so much more than that, and so I think that it shows a real potential for how we can start to think about literature completely differently. So thank you,
Speaker 1 26:33 Yeah, and well, and I think what I found useful or attractive about is that there are two angles, and it really gets into what I'll just call, perhaps unfairly ecological thinking, right? Like we all, anybody who's taking basic science understands how a tree is part of an ecosystem, what we lose track of, though, is that most of our ecosystems are human shaped. At this point, there are few that don't have some sort of influence from us, that have kept a different equilibrium that wouldn't be natural, whatever that means, because we're still natural in a way, right? Or, you know, have had some other influence on what we're seeing. So there's that ecosystem that's really critical, because every every piece of the tree is shaped by, you know, inheritance that it has from its own tree genes, right? And then the experience of the world, how the world has shaped it the secondary ecosystem that comes from our judgment, right, and our judgment is similarly constituted in an ecosystem of ideas, of our own history, of other people's influence of esthetic judgments, of our interaction of our senses in the world that shape those esthetic judgments, but also shaped by them. I mean, all those things are really complicated, and then we live in a specific slice of time and have a real hard ability seeing duration of time and how things change. And so we pick a point, and we see things in one way or another, and we it's very hard for us to think about these overlapping ecologies of sort of the nature and ecologies of thought.
Dr G 28:06 Indeed, yes, and I really, I liked, I liked that tree metaphor. That was actually the part that really jumped out at me when I was reading the introduction. Now I have to ask you a question about my most feared subject, which is ancient languages.
Professor Joel Christensen 28:25 I'll try not to be too scary.
Dr G 28:28 Well, I am someone who struggles with language in any form, modern, ancient doesn't matter. Latin, Greek, either way, I don't understand it, so Homeric Greek is a big challenge. But even to people who are better at languages than I am. This is a big challenge. So in the first chapter, you explore parallels between Homeric language and DNA. What are some of the key features of Homeric meter and language, and how do you think DNA helps us to better appreciate the ethics?
Speaker 1 28:58 All right, so the first thing I'm going to say that's probably going to upset you more, or maybe it won't, is that I actually think that all language is going to be governed by the principles that I'll talk about, but that it's easier for us to think about Homeric language in this way, because we think of it in some way as artificial, even though that's completely false. So I'll talk about Homeric Greek a little bit, but, you know, interrupt me at any point, because I don't want to send people screaming after they listen to this bit, right? So look, we know that all languages are governed by rules, right? And the rules are essentially arbitrary. They exist within a system of contrast, and we have learned them at a young age, right? And so there's no sort of universal syntax or grammar or universal semantics or meaning. Those two axes are always engaging in the way that things unfold in time, right? So any languages, as I see it, has building blocks that are akin to. DNA. And the building blocks are the morphologies, the actual sounds, the grammar, how these morphologies fit together to unveil meaning right in an ordered way, following rules we know. And then there's the semantic sphere, which is, well, what do these words mean in contact with each other? And so the very basic idea that I have is that, you know, DNA that's not activated in an environment, that's not living, is just a string of proteins, but when you put it in an environment in contact with other things, then various traits are triggered. They are, you know, they are activated and they reveal themselves to the world. So a big, you know, big thing people talk about in genetics for a while is epigenetics, right? The way that certain features of DNA or of a creature will be activated by its environment, right? And so, you know, a hand or foot doesn't make any sense unless it's articulated with the rest of the body. It doesn't make sense in space to have four limbs, right? It's really based on engagement with the environment. So in a very simplistic way, language functions the same way. Now Homeric Greek, I think, lends itself to this analysis a little better because of the way it developed, it has a limit on it that other languages don't, and that limit is meter, right? So one of the things that people used to think about Homeric language is that it was composed the way Virgil composed the Aeneid or Shakespeare composed some of his poetry, which is that you had to, like, take your language and put it into meter, right? But that's not actually what happened with ancient with a Homeric Greek. Homeric Greek developed over time with the metrical shapes as part of its repertoire. So just as our language is bounded by tense forms, whether it's ed on the end for past tense or your ablouding with grew and grow. Ancient Greek had rhythmic features that drew from different dialects. And so that's another reason why I find the DNA for attractive is because we can look at strands of DNA and see how one organism is actually comprised of many different historical organisms like DNA put together to make a entity that functions in a particular environment with particular constraints. So Homeric language has drawn from several different dialects with different forms for any given word that make it possible to fill the six foot line, and now I'm going to make it really concrete for me. All right, so the first line of the Iliad is μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος. First line of the Odyssey: ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ. The basic rule there is that the final two feet end in a shave and a haircut, right bump ba-da bump, bump, right, a dactyl and a spondee. Everything before that can be two longs, like may, like, sorry, long and two shorts, μῆνιν ἄει, it can be two longs. And the main rule is that ending. Now, if you follow the history of Greek poetry over time, as you move towards writing, the rules become much more rigid. If you you know, if you were turned off by Greek poetry or by prosody, it's probably because someone made you learn a bunch of laws or rules. But the fact is, it's much simpler. If you think of it as music, if you imagine, you know, four bars, four bars of four, four time, and your options are like a quarter notes and eighth notes, and I can mix them together, right? If you're listening to music that's in four, four time. You're not sitting there thinking that's a quarter note, that's an eighth note, right? You're listening to it, and you tolerate creativity. People shove a bunch of syllables and like one line or they go, the meaning goes over one line or another. Like, music has that variety that we don't often attribute to prose. Now, to go back to Homeric week, part of what's really amazing about it is that it's not just single words put together. Most of the time, we're looking at phrases that can be repeated. And so the line I mentioned, μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος, really has three parts to it, and you can split most Homeric lines into two or three parts, and most lines of the Iliad and the Odyssey, 16,000 of the Iliad or so, 12, 13,000 of the Odyssey. Majority of them don't roll over into the next line. Each line is a single unit of meaning, which is first thing that floored me when I read Homeric Greek when I was I must have been 21 the first time I read it in Greek, because it was so different from, again, Milton or Shakespeare or Virgil, where you could definitely see the joins where we're trying to fit our ideas in this. And so this means that somebody who was trained to perform Homeric Greek could speak, or at least converse the way I am right now, in meter, right? It wouldn't be the same cadence or flow, because the esthetics would be different. But the whole system was conducive to composing in performance. And so the actual performance of Homeric poetry, Hesiodic poetry, anything in the same language, was a combination between sort of plans that happened ahead of time and the actual performance itself, which could change. And a lot of this comes from work that people don't know about it, Millman Perry, Albert Lord, studying living epic and what used to be Yugoslavia, they really found that there were traditions where things like this were still happening, where it was absolutely possible for someone to compose in the spot a very complicated narrative. And so to go back to the Homeric question, before I wrap up on the language, all of this is connected to whether or not people thought it was possible to develop a super long narrative without writing as a planning and it comes down to that sort of last moment of whether or not we credit the amazingness of the Odyssey to this really fluid multicultural tradition, or we credit it to a final composer who inherited this tradition and put it all down. But back to the language itself. It is so hard to explain, to convince someone of how the Homeric language works if they don't actually learn Greek. So if you're not fully persuaded, you know, maybe come, learn Greek with me or learn it on your own. But I mean, it is. It's qualitatively and quantitatively different from any language I've studied. And you can really feel it when you get into it if you move from a literate author, even a Greek one, like Apollonius Rhodes from several centuries later. And it's even more severe if you jump to say Virgil, Lucan or Ovid.
Dr G 37:22 I know. Look, I think we should convince them by forcing them to sit through nine hours of, you know, Irish bard performance, or, you know,
Speaker 1 37:31 Right, right? And there are, I mean, that's the thing. I mean, there are so many different traditions around the world that support it. But the challenging thing is that they're not all the same, right? Just that. So I think one of the mistakes early studies in oral poetry made is making the assertion that they were monolithic in nature, culturally and esthetic, right? But we know that written forms of poetry, say a Shakespearean sonnet or a haiku, follow, follow very different cultural rules and adhere to very different expectations. So why would oral poetry be any different, right? So if you look at, you know, Sub-Saharan African epic traditions, Arabic epic traditions, Yugoslavian, Indian you know the oral traditions of the of the Maori, or, you know, indigenous people in Australia, there are very different rules, right? But they do show some commonalities and difference from literary cultures. I think there, you know, if people looking for reading recommendations or classic texts on this is Ruth Finnegan's, Oral Poetry' really shows the variety of things available in oral poetic traditions. And then Walter Ong's ‘Orality and Literacy' really focuses on difference in esthetics between oral cultures and literary cultures, and they read really well together.
Dr G 38:51 I think this is amazing, because this is opening up some pathways that I've definitely thought about before within literary English teaching, but and have understood sort of tacitly, because people who do study Homeric literature, if we and the flesh rabbits again, I think definitely wax lyrical in ways that other people who study other types of of poetry do not, and I've never really been able to put my finger on why, because I've always been a Roman person, and I'm like mad Latin, you know, it's a bit like a mathematical part.
Speaker 1 39:36 I became a classics major because I loved Catullus.
Dr G 39:40 Ah, well, that's a good place to start.
Professor Joel Christensen 39:43 Yeah, I read Catullus and Horace, I think, when I was 16 in high school, and I hated Horace, I'll be honest there, but Catullus, like I did. I was floored, right? I was like, This is amazing. I want to understand more about it. And I took Greek just because you had to, yeah, you know. And, you know, I'd stumbled through. It, I was okay at it. I don't think anybody would say I was an exceptional Greek student, but I remember from the first moment reading the Iliad in the original that I was like, this is different, yeah. And at that time, I said, I want to spend a little time figuring out how and a little time turned into a senior thesis. A senior thesis turned into a dissertation. And now I'm over 25 years into it, and I'm still figuring out how Homer's different.
Dr G 40:26 That's amazing.
Too late to turn back now.
Yeah, yeah, you gotta keep going
Professor Joel Christensen 40:33 Yeah, it is
Dr G 40:35 Focus now, focus now, You've got to be getting close
Professor Joel Christensen 40:40 I may have another 25 years.
Dr G 40:44 And I also think that's one of the values, and the part of the great richness of studying the ancient world is actually it offers so much potential for rethinking and recalibrating your thoughts.
Professor Joel Christensen 40:55 It does, well I think, you know, yeah, in the spirit of the work I do, though, is sort of focusing on the opportunities rather than what's been closed off. When I was in graduate school, I told my advisor, David Cider, who won't listen to this, but if he did, he won't mind me sharing that I wanted to do homework. And he said, why the bibliography is so long? He's like, you can't say anything new. And I've always been someone who does what people tell me not to do. I just got that problem. But I think, you know, I think there's the challenge of it, but there's also, you know, the depth of what people have said already is impressive, and you can learn from it. And that, you know, it was never boring conversation.
Dr G 41:38 Yeah, for sure.
Yeah. And I think what you said about language, though, is so true. Because I think one of the reasons why I actually struggle so much with other languages is that I struggle to see the different ways that people put together their sentence structures. I can learn the meaning of words and grammar and that sort of thing, but then put me in front of a passage which I have no idea what it's about. And I'm like, Oh my God. It's like they're speaking like Yoda, and it makes no sense at all.
Speaker 1 42:07 But actually I think, I mean, I've been teaching languages since I was in college in Latin and Greek, and I actually think that some people just have are cognitively blocked and to move from word order dominant languages to inflected languages, just, I think there's a percentage of the population where it's just a huge challenge, right? It's like being colorblind. And I don't I don't know of any studies that prove this, but I can tell you that I've had so many students who are smart people, but when it comes down to it, they will never understand an indirect statement in Latin and Greek. It just doesn't come naturally, and it hurts. And I can't explain that in any other way, except the brains are just not set up.
Dr G 42:48 No, look, I'm really glad that we have this on recording. So everyone out there, including my old Latin teachers, Professor Joel Christensen, has just said that I am a smart person, but cognitively blocked and it is impossible for me to understand.
Speaker 1 43:01 I didn't say impossible. I just said harder. Like my wife. I met my wife when I was an undergraduate, but like in our like in our third week, and when I met her, she was studying Spanish, French, Arabic and Latin, like she was involved in those four classes. I said, What are you doing? She's like, I don't know. I like languages, but I remember her coming up and like, it was Latin indirect statements, and no matter how many times we went through it, she just couldn't get it. Now she can speak any language better than I can. She's a pediatric dentist. Now she's gone to Ivy League schools. I haven't, right, but there's just that one thing, like, her brain's just like, No, I hate it. I will not accept it.
Dr G 43:43 Under no circumstances
Dr Rad 43:43 Exactly what I think about Latin.
Dr G 43:48 Oh, look, I don't want to speak too much about my facility with or with, not with languages. No, I keep trying. I was okay at Latin when I was able to study it four hours a day. That was, that was the time I got good at it.
Yeah and look, I think, as well, in Australia, in the in the era that we grew up, English was taught in a very strange way in that it wasn't explicit. And then on top of that, back in, back in Australia in the 1980s your engagement with other languages in public schooling systems was generally fairly limited. So I think it's also to do with, yeah, potentially, the culture you grow up in, and how it encourages you to perhaps engage with other languages.
Speaker 1 44:32 No doubt, yeah, like, I mean, I spent, you know, the few two years ago, we were in Denmark, and I think we, you know, told we're in Scandinavia maybe a week and a half. And, you know, I had a graduate student study. I had to pass French exams, German exams. I don't know any of it well, but just being in an environment where everybody's speaking different languages all the time changes the way your brain works, right, like when you're in and. Monoglot culture, like the US, for many of us, because we are really, really segregated, or or Australia, like, your brain's just not primed for it. And it's like, if you spend your life doing very little physical activity, and then suddenly you have to do a 5k like, it's going to be the worst pain you've ever felt, right, but if you spend all your time really active, like, it's not that bad. And so I just think it's about training and and, you know, like, you can do everything you want in primary school and public school, but if you're not embarrassed in languages and exposed to them, like more than 45 minutes, three days a week, like you're not going to learn anything, like you're always going to be blocked.
Dr G 45:40 Yeah. Well, okay, okay, okay, focusing in, focusing in, because
enough about my trauma.
I'm not disinterested in your trauma, Dr Rad.
No no, I have spoken about it many times.
I'm trying to learn Italian. My husband's Italian, and that that is my new quest in life, and I've tried to learn so many times, and this is the first time where I feel like I'm actually getting it, because I'm no longer a beginner student, but I'm no yet, nowhere near yet, competent. But I have moments where I'm like, Oh, I think, I think I have it and and so, like, those little breakthroughs are really important, but it's, it's a struggle, but to to bring everything to a bit of a close, because we're coming up on on our hour together, so we're surrounded by stories. I think this is this has become really clear through what we've talked about and thinking about that context of politics, and the way that with the advent of the Internet, in particularly the the way that narratives shift and change so quickly. So there's the stories that we're told however we receive them. There's the ones that we read so we go out and and we we either read them or we receive them. And then there's the stories that we actually tell. So there's the orality. So we might hear stories, we might read them. We might be telling stories as well. There's this whole nexus. Stories create a capacity, I think, to glimpse lives and experiences that we will never have, the capacity to confront for ourselves. So there's so much opportunity when it comes to stories, and particularly when we're thinking about the Homeric tradition as well, and the things that extend out of that, the capacity to come in contact with generations of people so far removed from our own experience as well. If there's one last thing that you'd like to leave us with in terms of thinking about stories, what sort of idea or question Would you like to leave us to contemplate?
Speaker 1 47:36 Oh, well, um, one idea I'm going to go over time.
Dr G 47:43 Also, you don't need to limit yourself. If there's more than one, that's okay.
Speaker 1 47:46 No, no. I mean, so I think the main so, the thing you just said about story, giving us the capacity to experience 1000 lives is one of the most important things to acknowledge about narrative, right? And so I think that one of the ways that people often talk about language and narrative is to think of it as a technology, right? If we imagine that narrative and stories are akin to our ability to use fire or, you know, to cook food and to things like that, then we can see it as something we that we use that facilitates culture, etc. But I think another way to think about it, and this is the one I'll go back to, is the notion that stories actually do keep on living on their own. And so the reason I really focus on the biological narrative in the book is to give us the understanding that stories combine and recombine with other features in the world, and they act on their own, so in a different environment, let's say a heroic narrative is is successful and useful for getting people to stand up and defend their communities. On the other hand, that very same narrative can cause people to have expectations of their communities that are unfair and damaging, right? And so, you know, maybe I'll answer your question by getting concrete and going to the Iliad and then jumping outside of the Iliad, if I can, right? So, too often people see the Iliad as a simple narrative where it's about Achilles as a hero, and they're not wrong, he's a hero, but in the sense that Erwin Cook describes heroes in an article about Herakles and Odysseus, which is that heroes cause suffering and they suffer. So the biggest thing to understand about the Iliad and the Odyssey is that both of our primary heroes are mentioned for being serial killers, like from the beginning, Achilles is said to send myriad Achaeans to their doom, not Trojans, Achaeans. And from the beginning, we hear about Odysseus, that he tried really, really hard to save his men, but he failed. And then we're asked. To consider how human beings make their own fate harder or worse than it has to be because of their own recklessness. And if you read the Odyssey carefully, it's constantly pointing its finger, finger at Odysseus, right? So the ill in the Odyssey are not praise narratives. That's the biggest reason people or biggest way people misunderstand them instead their narratives about mismatched expectations and about how dangerous elevating individuals above the collective can be, right? And that's where I'll go back to Achilles and try to say something positive, right? Because what I think the Iliad is offering is the very same thing that the Pfizer vaccine I just got last week is offering me vis-a-vis COVID, and that's project protection. Because if you read the Iliad carefully, it lets you know that a heroic narrative is damaging. It lets you know that because Achilles expected to be honored by his community for being so awesome, and then wasn't, and through a fit, his best friend or lover died. Patroclus dies because of Achilles, and that's the hardest thing for the Iliad to convey, because people want to point fingers elsewhere. They want to talk about his rage, about how he is dishonored. No Achilles made a choice, and it was the wrong one, but the Iliad doesn't end with that. Instead, if you carefully read the Iliad, and I'm not going to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, I hope it has Achilles many moments, this moment, moment in Book 19, where he laments for Patroclus and the other people watch him lament and feel pity, and they lament for themselves as well. This is Book 19, but if you read the language closely, it's echoed at that magnificent moment in Book 24 when Priam comes to Achilles and he says to Achilles, remember your father and you know, and then they weep together, like they see in each other the suffering and the loss that they feel in themselves and the languages they pity each other, and they felt something about it. I think the notion the lesson of the Iliad is something that modern science has confirmed, and that's the stories can actually make you feel the very same things, cognitively and neurobiology, biologically, that real life can make you feel they can change you. And it's an avenue to be re humanized, right? And so what the Iliad offers, I think, and the Odyssey, too, if you listen to it carefully, is the understanding that narratives can send you in completely the wrong direction. They can make you instrumentalize other people. They can make you misunderstand people. They help you dehumanize other people in order to slaughter them and and continue with war. But narrative also has that potential when you understand somebody else's story to make them real to you, and for you to see yourself in them and to maybe change. And so that's a powerful moment. And the one person who acts like in The Iliad is actually zoops. He sees Achilles and he pities, and he changes the way he does things, because he has that feeling. And I think that the Iliad is that we as audience members are supposed to go through that process. And so like when I close the book, I talk about different stories. I talk about Kleomedes, this, you know, boxer who kills a bunch of young kids because he's upset that he lost. And I talk about heroic narratives and the damage they do. But I don't end by saying we're screwed. Let's just give up, right? Instead, like we actually need to get away from, you know, the very simplistic and superficial approaches to narrative that we have. We need to understand that it's going to keep doing whatever it wants to do, but we can actually live alongside it, right? Like we can educate people. The thing I always tell students and my colleagues now increasingly, is that we're born, we're not giving a manual to the human mind and body, right? One doesn't exist. And to be frank, if we were given a manual, I wouldn't read it, because I never read the manuals anyway, right? But I think a fundamental function of education has to be especially in universities, where we say we're preparing people to be citizens of the world, right? A fundamental part of education has to be understanding how narrative binds us and breaks us, how it allows us to work together as a group, but it also constrains our view of the future and what we think is possible, and how understanding narrative is actually prior to political activity, because political activity is presupposed on us, actually understanding each other. And so I think, like, you know, again, a long answer to your question. It wasn't a simple question, to be fair, but I think at the end, the one thing to take away is that you. Oh, wait, I'm going to get negative. Now almost all of our educational systems are moving in the wrong direction, right? I mean, we don't acknowledge that science is a narrative, right? That a whole notion of like causality is narrative. That what we need to train people from a young age to understand is, you know, differences between propaganda and narrative, identity and belonging, all of these things that make our life together possible. We take it for granted, to our own detriment, and then people who are good at manipulating it intentionally or not, I don't think, for example, major politician, politician just elected the US President, again, actually thinking about what he's doing instead, he's leaning into a system that favors a certain type of madness. And so we need to have anti madness out there. We need to inoculate people against the disruptions of narrative and actually give them a control, a choice in their lives, both individually and together. And I know to say, Oh, this is all what's going on the Iliad sounds a little crazy, right? But again, I think that the Iliad and the Odyssey emerge during periods of increasing political complexity, in a period when Greek city states were moving from little households and fiefdoms into larger entities that were experimenting with oligarchy and tyranny, aristocracy and democracy, and that the questions of language and how we lived together under the weight of the past were central to what they were doing together, and it's no different for us today.
Dr G 56:36 Oh, this is a powerful conclusion. Thank you so much. I think there is ways in which the dismissal of the power of narrative across education broadly has been to its detriment. I definitely agree with you on this, because so much of the role of humanity subjects, not just classics, is to try and give students the potential critical tools to be able to see narratives for what they are, and to pull out the pieces of information that that don't marry up quite well, to like expectation, To see the things that are potentially endangering society.
Speaker 1 57:23 And what you just said, I mean, you know, but the way we've been forced to sell the humanities right, is with these two insidious words, critical thinking, right? And we say it because, oh, this will make you a better stock broker. This will make you a better surgeon. Critical thinking will make you a better I don't know baker, whatever it is, but what we need to double down on is that one of the original meetings of the liberal arts was the, you know, the studies worthy of a free person, but another one or the skills and studies that make you a free person. And I think no again, to put my conspiracy hat back on, I think there's an intentional reason why corporations, governments don't want to lean into that aspect of it, because, as you said, they're the very skills the humanities social sciences, are the very skills that force us to question the basis of our social structures, of our inequalities, of our histories. And you know, there's a there's a reason why people might be disinclined to encourage that.
Dr G 58:28 Oh no, let's not create a disruptive citizenry that is expecting more, that's unproductive for us all. But don't get me started on productivity before I get angry.
Speaker 1 58:41 I mean, at times I find myself like, sort of even railing against the academic humanities, because we are, you know, you teach English, you know how much of it is like, what's this genre? What's this form? What's the main character, right? When, when the humanities, if they're useful, are the studies that help us be human. It's a study of what that means and what's uniquely so. And too much of it is just now the sort of rope stuff. We won't want to be dangerous. We don't want to unsettle people's notions of reality. But at the end of it, if we don't do so, what are we looking at, right? I mean, we're going to break that three degrees celsius mark, right? Pretty soon, right? And we have people are saying, oh, we should go to Mars. We should invest all this money and stuff. Like, human beings cannot gestate in non, non-Earth gravity, like it's a medical fact, like, we cannot survive on Mars. It's insanity to even think so.
Dr G 59:38 I mean, I do agree with you, but I'm also not against billionaires taking themselves out of this context and leaving us to then sort it out, because they're not helping
Speaker 1 59:47 But taking all that wealth that could feed people with them. Yeah, it's problem. I keep wanting to post online, but I'm afraid I'll get fired someday, and all I want to write is: Where are the good billionaires? Is a trick question.
Dr G 1:00:04 yeah for sure
Speaker 1 1:00:06 because it's where does wealth come from?
Dr G 1:00:11 As someone who has been increasingly concerned about the problems with communication into over climate change, I remember reading this really amazing book which really changed the way that I tried to talk to people about this a number of years ago, which was literally called ‘How to Talk About Climate Change' and and also thinking about the work of there's actually a really amazing Australian filmmaker whose name I've totally forgotten. I think it's, is it, Damon Gameau, but yeah, he his whole thing about, he made this film called ‘2040', and his whole thing was that part of the problem with the environmental movement is that it has not clearly communicated to people a better story you know about, you know, like, Why wouldn't you want to live in a cleaner, healthier environment that's, you know, that's much better for you, like, Why? Why wouldn't you want that? And so, you know, you have to tell people the story that shows them, you know, what is possible and what this is all about, rather than just being it all about, you know, the the scientific facts, or this really complicated, you know, scientific language, and it has to be a story,
Speaker 1 1:01:22 And we fail. I mean, we fail all the time. I mean another example that's not from climate change, but you know, from from the recent elections, so many people are upset in the US about inflation. Yeah, right. And they say, but I didn't, at once see the Democratic Party make the very true and clear argument that inflation went up because we had to lower our money policies to avoid a generation defining Depression during COVID Right? We rate, lowered the money down like that, increased the flow of money. The interest rates gave lots of people flush with cash, which created inflation that then we had to exert deflationary pressure on, which takes time, right? It was actually handled really well from a macroeconomic, economic perspective. But we didn't make the argument like we didn't tell the story that this is about COVID, and I just, I don't know why like it, just it flabbergasted me that we didn't like directly address a very clear cause and effect situation.
Dr G 1:02:23 Oh, look, I actually been talking. I actually teach about America in the 1920s and 1930s to my senior students, and I see so many parallels between that time period and now. And I constantly have to say to them about the Great Depression and the Wall Street crash. Correlation is not causation, and you can see that very much in American politics right now. People sometimes think that just because something's happening at around the same time, that therefore there is a direct cause and effect link, and it's just not the case.
Speaker 1 1:02:54 Yeah, yeah, no. And so, I mean all the way around, though, like from from simple things, like one election to, like massive things like the environment and what we're doing to the world, it is so hard to tell clear and simple narratives about complex things. So those of us who like study it and are experts are at some level, like, paralyzed by our knowledge and incapable of translating it to a way that people who haven't learned it can accept, just like me, with like, Homeric language,
Dr G 1:03:24 Yeah, no. Look, I think it's one of those things where, on the positive side, we do actually have a course here in New South Wales for high school students called extension history. And it is actually all about getting into these really higher order ideas about the way that history is constructed and potentially misrepresented, used and abused as a narrative. And it's one, it's one of those subjects that when people get into it, they actually, they actually, really like it, because it is moving away from exactly what you said. What was wrong with education? It's not about rote learning. It's not about, you know, just learning facts. It is about the students developing their own voice, their own capacity to tell stories, and also their own capacity to read stories. I'm going to use that word in a critical manner, but I mean in the sense of, you know, engaging with the way that things have been pieced together and then are potentially, yeah, used and abused in the world. So yeah, there are some things out there which are little glimmers of hope education.
Well, thank you so much, Joel for joining us. It has been a really interesting hour to delve into some of the ideas that are coming up in your forthcoming book ‘Storylife'. So very excited to see it out in the world. And, yeah, thank you so much.
Speaker 1 1:04:49 Well, thank you. And you know, I'm always happy to talk to you again, and I really, I just want to say I appreciate the work that you all do in you know. Popularizing and bringing all these ideas. I think that the you know, the podcast that you do reach, you know, an order of magnitude more people than any article I write ever will. So you're doing important work, and I appreciate it.
Dr G 1:05:13 Oh, thank you.
Dr Rad 1:05:14 Thank you.
Dr G 1:05:45 Music. Thank you for listening to this episode of The Partial Historians. You can find our sources sound credits and transcript in our show notesover at partialhistorians.com . We offer a huge thank you to you, if you're one of our illustrious Patreon supporters. If you enjoy the show, we'd love your support in a way that works for you. Leaving a nice review really makes our day. We're on Ko-fi for one or four ongoing donations or Patreon, of course, our latest book, ‘Your Cheeky Guide to the Roman Empire' is published through Ulysses Press. It is full of stories that the Romans probably don't want you to know about them. This book is packed with some of our favorite tales of the colorful history of ancient Rome. Treat yourself or an open minded friend to Rome's glories, embarrassments and most salacious claims with ‘Your Cheeky Guide To the Roman Empire'.
The complex relationship between the patricians and plebeians is central to our appreciation of the 460s BCE. In this episode we'll get to consider the complexities first hand with the entrance of Caeso Quinctius (remember this name, he's going places!).
We jump back into the narrative history of c. 461 BCE with our guides of the moment, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Both are writing long after these events, which means that their accounts leave a lot to be desired at times. Nevertheless, both are interested in presenting a narrative on the theme of power. How is it distributed? Who has it and who doesn't? And what are the mechanisms of political power in this system of armies, consuls, patricians, and plebeians?
Young Versus Old?
Livy makes mention of the some generational differences in attitude of the elder patricians and their scions. These simmering tensions influence the way politics plays out in the forum. Dionysius is more interested in discoursing upon the variety of patrician attitudes towards the tribunes, including trying to undermine their legitimacy by noting that they have no connection to the gods. It's at this point that the young patricians start to emerge with a reputation for public violence…
Enter Caeso Quinctius
Young, handsome, dangerous, and patrician – he not only has a reputation for words, but he seems like the kinda man who'd back himself in a fight. As a ringleader amongst the young patricians, Quinctius has earned himself a bit of a reputation. Things start to get rough for this youthful specimen of Roman masculinity when Aulus Verginius, tribune of the plebs, seeks to bring charges against him…
Our Key Players
Consuls
Publius Volumnius M. f. M. n. Amintinus Gallus (pat.)
Servius Sulpicius – f. Ser. n. Camerinus Cornutus (pat.)
Tribune of the Plebs
Aulus Verginius
Marcus Volscius
Patricians
Caeso Quinctius
Lucius Quinctius “Cincinnatus”
Further reading
Lintott, A. W. 1970. ‘The Traditions of Violence in the Annals of the Early Roman Republic' Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 19.1.12-29
Henryk Siemiradzki c. 1880s A Dangerous Game. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons Although considered to depict a mythological scene, this painting hints at the undercurrent of violence inherent in this episode as well as suggesting the generational factors at play.
We return to Rome's narrative from the founding of City. The year c. 462 BCE ends on a high note with the consuls both gathering honours for their military exploits. L. Lucretius Tricipitinus is awarded a triumph for his successes against the Aequii while T. Veturius Geminus scores an ovatio for his part against the Volscii. As for the title of this episode—'Flesh Rains Down Upon Thee'— well, we wouldn't want to spoil it, but let's just say it's best to keep your ears alert for prodigies!
C. 461 BCE is a big year for Rome in many respects and we'll be examining it in depth over a couple of episodes. Here are our main players:
The Consuls
Publius Volumnius M. f. M. n. Amintinus Gallus (patrician)
Servius Sulpicius – f. Ser. n. Camerinus Cornutus (patrician)
Prefect of the City
Quintus Fabius
Tribune of the Plebs
Gaius Terentius (Terentilius?) Harsa
Aulus Verginius
Restrictions on consular power?
One of the big subjects that comes into play is the extent of imperium held by the consuls. We start to get inklings in both Livy and Dionysius' accounts that something is not quite right in Rome. The tribunes, in particular, are not satisfied with the status quo.
One of the difficulties lies in the nature of the populace, what do our sources mean by the populace and why is it so challenging to understand them in a coherent way?
Beyond the murky and inconsistent character of the populace is the nebulous ideas that the tribunes are raising which include a need for equality of rights and equality of speech. Listen in as we explore the question of what is politically afoot in Rome at this time.
A Codification of the laws…
The conversation between the senate and the tribunes is tense, but it's clear that we're inching closer to a law code. The tribunes (and thus the populace) are calling for transparency, the senate is resisting, and then the heavens themselves open.
‘A day in ancient Rome; being a revision of Lohr's “Aus dem alten Rom”, with numerous illustrations', by Edgar S. Shumway (1885) ~ Wikimedia Commons From left to right: the Tiber, the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, and the emporium
*Special Episode* – Totalus Rankium and the Partial Historians on Tiberius
15 May 2019
01:08:57
We return to the fray with the most excellent Rob and Jaime to tackle Dr Radness' favourite emperor. How will Tiberius fare against the criteria of Totalus Rankium? We're about to find out!
How great is Tiberius? Tune in to find out! How are we judging Tiberius?
Oooo better not to ask me, Dr G, author of this post, because I'm too much of an Augustan fan-girl to answer this question. Okay, okay, here's how it will work. We'll discuss Tiberius' life and career and at the end of the conversation we'll apply the Totalus Rankium system to form a holistic judgement of the imperial man himself.
Here are the categories:
Fights Maximus – an emperor's fighting capacity
Opprobrium Crazium – their average level of insanity / taking things just too far
Succesus Ultimus – how successful were they (all things considered)?
Image Facius – were they attractive? Yes, this is the sexy category
An Origin Story
Like many people, Tiberius rises from humble beginnings. We'll explore the nature of his childhood and consider how this may have influenced his character and disposition (a very Suetonian approach if we do say so ourselves). We're on the search for clues that may help us better understand the complex influences on his life.
Tiberius Imperator
Some argue that Tiberius is the first emperor of Rome because he is the first to ‘inherit' the legal privileges and concessions that secured Augustus' rule. This is important as it reveals the tenuous nature of the imperial project in these early stages. The differences between Augustus and Tiberius are revealed the moment Tiberius becomes emperor.
Part of the challenge when examining his rule is the underlying consideration: what makes a good emperor?
We'll consider some of Tiberius' achievements and also some of the more controversial aspects of his rule in this collaborative episode. You just never know what controversy is in the wind when we're talking about Tiberius!
Obverse: TI[berivs] CAESAR DIVI AVG[vsti] F[ilivs] AVGVSTS (Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus), laureate head right, parallel ribbons Reverse: PONTIF[ex] MAXIM[us], Livia (as Pax) seated right, feet on footstool, holding sceptre and branch; ornate legs, one line below. Catalogue: RIC I 30; Lyon 154; RSC 16a. Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
Rome emerges from the year of pestilence and moves straight on to divide and conquer. While this seems implausible, we're still navigating the tricky gaps in our annalist historians – uncertainty is the name of the historical game at this stage. Welcome to c. 462 BCE!
The pestilence ensured the death of both consuls of c. 463 BCE so it's only after a series of interreges that we stumble into the new consular year. Join as we explore all c. 462 BCE has to offer including:
some of the factors to keep in mind when we encounter plague narratives
the increasing divergences in the narratives of Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus
the battle tactics designed to draw armies away from their chosen theatre of war
Episode 93 – Divide and ConquerBandits, Aequians, or Volscii?
One of the big discrepancies we consider this episode is just who is the enemy? A raiding force causes trouble outside Rome, but who are they exactly? Livy and Dionysius offer different interpretations of the evidence leaving us a central puzzle to resolve concerning battle tactics and probabilities.
Trouble in (Hernican) Paradise
While Rome's been down and out, the Aequians and Volscii alliance have taken the opportunity to strike! Hernican territory is a great strategic choice, but they are definitely allies with Rome so … we're here to guide you through all the consequences!
The major players
Consuls of c. 462 BCE
Lucius Lucretius Tricipitinus (patrician)
Titus Veturius Geminus Cicurinus (patrician)
Tribune of the plebs
Sextus Titius
The Urban Prefect
Quintus Fabius (Vibulanus) (or Quintus Furius in your Dion. Hal.) consul II (467, 465 BCE)
Scholarly material
Dr G gets more excited about pestilence than perhaps is appropriate but it did lead to some of the work of Northwood:
Northwood, S. J. 2006. ‘Grain Scarcity and Pestilence in the Early Roman Republic: Some Significant Patterns' in Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 49.81-92
Source: Costumes of All Nations 1882 by Albert Kretschmer, painters and costumer to the Royal Court Theatre, Berin, and Dr. Carl Rohrbach. Courtesy of: wikimedia commons
*Special Episode* Quo Vadis with the History of the Papacy Podcast
27 Mar 2019
01:14:06
We are super excited to announce that we sat down recently with Stephen Guerra, the host of the History of the Papacy Podcast to talk all about the classic 1951 sword-and-sandals film Quo Vadis.
This is a three way conversation with a variety of perspectives to enjoy. Stephen offers insights into the representation of Christianity. Dr Rad offers an intimate understanding of Rome in Hollywood cinema. Dr G has an eye for all things Roman politics.
Where are you going?
Quo Vadis is a Latin phrase which translates as ‘Where are you going?' and connects with the apocryphal story of Peter fleeing crucifixion in Rome. As he is leaving the city, Jesus appears to Peter in a vision. When Peter asks Quo vadis, Jesus confirms he is heading to Rome to be crucified again. The title of film alludes to the connections between ancient Rome and emerging Christian ideas.
This film deserves to be described as epic! From the MGM studio and filmed in technicolor, it ambitiously seeks to combine Roman history under the rule of Nero with a narrative of early Christianity. Although famous now for Peter Ustinov's engaging performance as the emperor Nero, he was not the big ticket actor drawing audiences when the film was initially released. Bona fide Hollywood star Robert Taylor plays the lead role as the Roman soldier Marcus Vinicius and Deborah Kerr plays Lygia, the central Christian of this story.
Where are we going?
Join us as we explore Quo Vadis from a variety of perspectives and consider things like:
The origins of the film in Henryk Sienkiewicz's novel
The challenges of bringing this story to the silver screen
Just how epic this film was in terms of sets and design
Roman history on screen and how it shapes understanding
Interpretations of the Christian-Roman conflict and conversion narrative
The reception of the film through time
We send a huge thank you to Stephen for having us as guests on his show and for the editing and post-production work on this episode. This is also a first for us in the sense that Dr Rad and Dr G were also in different locations for this recording. This episode is a big moment for us talking together but not in the same room. We're crediting the powers of technology for making this project possible!
Special Episode – Quo Vadis with the History of the Papacy PodcastPoster for the 1951 film Quo Vadis / Employee(s) of MGM. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
*Special Episode* Tiberius with the Life of Caesar Podcast
20 Mar 2019
00:58:37
We're very excited to bring you a special episode where we sit down with Cam from The Life of Caesar podcast! We're talking about Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti filius Augustus or ‘Tibbo' as he's affectionately known.
As you know, Tiberius holds a special place in Dr Rad's heart. The Life of the Caesars duo are in the midst of examining his life and career, so it seemed like a great chance to gather together and thrash out some of the details and perspectives on the man who follows in Augustus' footsteps.
The Julio-Claudian emperors tend to garner lots of attention in our historical understanding of ancient Rome and for good reason. First, they break away from the republican traditions that had been at the centre of Roman thinking since the expulsion of the kings. And then Augustus' politics sets the stage for Tiberius' imperial turn.
In this broad, expansive, special episode we'll consider some of the challenges Tiberius faces including:
the critical perspective of the historical tradition
the long shadow left by Augustus
aaaannnd those stories about what happened on Capri…
This is a great meeting of Australian podcasters and we're only sorry that Ray was unable to join us so we could gain the American perspective as well!
*Special Episode* – Tiberius with the Life of Caesar PodcastPortrait of the Roman Emperor Tiberius, Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. Image Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
We're jumping back into the narrative. The title might be a bit of a giveaway, yes yes, we'll be talking about … pestilence! But before we get there we need to consider the circumstances.
Rome has been having lots of problems with their neighbours, particularly the Aequians and we've seen a shift in tactics from Aequians engaging in guerilla style raiding to seeking out the Romans in pitched battle. To say that Rome has been vexed by this is an understatement. Livy has offered some portents for the times ahead which, in a narrative history of Rome, can't be good!
Our Main Players
The Consuls for c. 463 BCE:
Lucius Aebutius Helva
Publius Servilius Priscus
HARK, PLAGUE!
Livy kinds informs us of some dreadful details about a plague that is sweeping through the countryside. We take you through the grisly details from both Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
What initially seems confined beyond the city though soon moves within and this means problems for urban citizens, visitors, and the body politic (both figuratively and literally).
AN OPPORTUNITY?
While Romans struggle just to stay alive, the Aequians and the Volscians consolidate their growing friendship of mutual convenience into a straight up alliance. This places Rome in a difficult spot between needing to keep her own allies – the Latins and the Hernicans – appeased as well as the knowledge that their previous irritations have formally combined forces.
COME FOR THE PLAGUE, STAY FOR THE…
…Other excitement afoot!
Things to look forward to in this episode. We'll consider:
The first acts of the new Aequian-Volscian alliance
The Roman response to their allies' call for support
The defence systems of the City
The power of divine intervention
Some reasons why Rome doesn't fall in this moment
And questions and discussion about the role of the interreges
Episode 92 – The Pestilence of 463 BCEThe angel of death striking a door during the plague of Rome. Engraving by Levasseur after J. Delaunay Image credit: Wikimedia Commons and Wellcome Images
*Special Episode* Totalus Rankium and The Partial Historians on Augustus
20 Feb 2019
01:16:17
In exciting news, we got together recently with the amazing and very hilarious gentleman of Totalus Rankium, Rob and Jaime, to discuss all things Augustus! We love their work on the Roman emperors and thought it would be great fun to see how all our different perspectives on Augustus shaped up in conversation.
The results are in! Enjoy a sparring match of words that goes in all directions. We explore some of the highlights and low-lights of Augustus' life and career. You can hear all the fruits of our conversation as Dr G tries valiantly to salvage something from the criticism coming from all directions!
Totalus Rankium join The Partial Historians for Augustus!
The controversial politics of Augustus is central to the conversation and we'll even take a spin on judging Augustus' career against the categories developed by Totalus Rankium. We really enjoyed this collaboration and stay tuned because we'll be delving into Tiberius next 🙂
Augustus, Octavius, Thurinus?
Augustus is always a bit of a tricky figure, so let's back up the truck for just a moment, here are some of the key details of Augustus' life through his different names.
The first problem is always Roman naming conventions and even these get a run for their money when we come to Augustus. Here's a brief overview of his names in a timeline:
C. Octavius (Thurinus)
63 BCE, 23rd of September
The son of Atia and C. Octavius. As is customary, they name their son after his father: C. Octavius. Suetonius Aug. 7 reports he is also known as Thurinus because of an ancestral connection with the Thurii region.
Caesar, son of Caesar
44 BCE, post the Ides of March
His adoption by Gaius Julius Caesar leads to the assumption of a new name. According to Appian BC 3.11, he begins to refer to himself as Caesar, son of Caesar – this is a different formulation than usual for adopted children. While Romans may have been expecting him to become known as C. Julius Caesar Octavianus, with a nod to his birth family, he instead takes a radical approach of renaming himself as though he were Caesar's legitimate natal son rather than simply his grand-nephew adopted by will.
Ancient historians tend to refer to him as Octavian for the period between 44-27 BCE. Octavian is a shortened version of Octavianus and it is a useful distinction to prevent confusion regarding which C. Julius Caesar is under discussion.
Gaius Julius Caesar Divi Filius
42 BCE onwards
Construction begins on the temple to the deified Julius Caesar. This allows our main man to add something a little bit fancy to his name: he's not just C. Julius Caesar son of Caesar, he is now C. Julius Caesar son of the God (C. Julius Caesar). It's a bold political move!
Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus
27 BCE, 16th of January
In the wake of the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra in 30 BCE, and the ostensible restoration of the republic, he accepts the honorific ‘Augustus', proposed to the senate by Munatius Plancus. He'd been using the military title imperator for some time, but his transformation from humble Octavius to Augustus is something of a zenith. He will be known as Augustus for the rest of his life.
Giovannu Battista Tiepolo 1743. Maecenas Presenting the Liberal Arts to Emperor Augustus
We're back and as the title for this episode notes, you're about to tune into the tale of some furious Romans! It is none other than Dr Rad and Dr G tracing the history of Rome from the founding of the city and ooooh boy are we heading back into that sweet Early Roman Republican narrative.
The Big Namesc. 465 BCE
Titus Quintius Capitolinus (cos. III)
Quintus Fabius Vibulanus (cos. II)
c. 464 BCE
Aulus Postumius Albus Regillensis
Spurius (Servius) Furius Medullinus Fusus
We often talk about Broughton and this is a reference to the two volume set The Magistrates of the Roman Republic which is the result of a collaboration between the scholars Broughton and Patterson.
Do the Roman Have Their Own Gods?
It's a good question. A popular sentiment is that the Romans steal gods much like they take the territory of other people. This is not strictly true, but it is often challenging to identify indigenous deities with confidence and the tendency of Rome to adapt others' divinities to their own purposes means that there's potential of amalgamations of gods to take into account as well. As a prelude to the action, Dr G explores some of the details Dionysius of Halicarnassus examines for c. 466 BCE – relating to the dedication of a temple to Dius Fidius on the Quirinal Hill.
The Aequians
The Aequians have developed quite a bad reputation from a Roman perspective and we see this trend continue. Dr Rad considers the Aequians strength as a raiding force, and this leads to a consideration of their military clashes with Rome.
Things to listen out for:
some new military strategies
the differing fortunes of the consuls Fabius and Quintius
all the details of the census
Antium Returns to the Agenda
c. 464 BCE is a troubling year for Rome abroad. The tension with the Aequians continues, but now there is also trouble from the Volscians to consider as well. On top of that, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus begin to reveal some substantial narrative differences.
These differences include:
the focus of the narrative,
the space given over to the political and diplomatic issues,
and the depiction of the military engagements.
How will Rome fare as the year progresses? Listen in to find out!
Episode 91 – The Furious RomansThomas Cole 1832 A View Near Tivoli (Morning) / Wikimedia Commons.
Although not a historical rendering of the period of Roman history covered in this episode. Cole's painting evokes the landscape beyond the city of Rome to add extra depth to your imagining of the world the Romans inhabited.
We're turning 90 and it's time for a special episode on the reception of Spartacus! What better way to do this than to examine the history of Spartacus, the ballet. Dr Rad is our expert on the ground on all things Spartacus and reception. Dr G brings a wild curiosity and a small knowledge of ballet.
So how does a famous freedom fighter like Spartacus end up with his own ballet? We consider the major notes of Spartacus' story that have come down to us from the ancient material as the first step in tracing his reception.
The Reception of Spartacus Beyond America
The ballet takes us on a journey beyond the reception of Spartacus in America. Kubrick's seminal 1960 film is based on Howard Fast's 1951 novel – a Hollywood production based on an American novel sets the scene for a very particular reception of Spartacus. But the ballet couldn't be more different. The origins of the ballet come from Stalinist Russia.
A Little Context
The communist and socialist connections to Spartacus resonate with ideas such as seeking community amongst the oppressed and fighting for freedom from authoritarian or monarchical rule. Marx, Lenin, and the political movements in Europe in the early twentieth century, position Spartacus as a much relied upon symbol for the freedoms people sought from current leaders.
The Spartakusbund was a Marxist movement during the first World War, although its legacy falls foul of Lenin. While the Spartakiade was the name given to the Soviet Union's version of the Olympics. Dr Rad explores the dangers of the misinterpreting Spartacus' story in Stalinist Russia and this leads us squarely to the ballet.
Let's Get Our Dancing Shoes On
Spartacus («Спартак», Spartak), the 1954 ballet is the creation of Aram Khachaturian. He was born in Georgia, studied at the Conservatorium in Moscow, and went on to composer a variety of film scores. In 1948, Khachaturian found himself on the wrong side of the regime with his music described as “decadent” and “bourgeois”. Spartacus plays a role in Khachaturian's rehabilitation.
Join us as we explore all the details including the recent production by the Australian Ballet that Dr Rad had the great fortune to see!
Episode 90 – Spartacus, the BalletSpartacus at the Bolshoi in Moscow, October 2013. Image credit: Bengt Nyman via Wikimedia Commons
In 398, the Romans received some worrying signs from the gods, and now we return with a special message for them: From Delphi, With Love.
Episode 157 – From Delphi, With Love
In 397 BCE, the Romans were waging war on all fronts. On top of their ongoing siege at Veii, they were contesting their hold on Anxur with the Volscians, and their colony at Labici against the Aequians. Never ones to shy away from drama, the Romans were also dealing with internal division between the patricians and the plebeians. PHEW! Sounds exhausting.
Rude Raiders
The Tarquinii, from another part of Etruria, also noticed that the Romans had a lot on their plate. Now was their moment to attack and score some booty! The Romans were highly offended that anyone could even THINK of attacking them when they were already so busy. It was time for an etiquette lesson…
The Romans wiped the floor with these rude raiders, but the rest of their campaigns were in a stalemate. They weren’t losing, but they weren’t winning either. Clearly they needed some divine help, direct from Delphi.
The Temple of Apollo at Delphi, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The ambassadors that had been seen to the Delphic Oracle after the sudden rise in the levels of the Alban Lake in 398 returned at this moment. They confirmed what the kidnapped soothsayer from Veii had told them in 398. Lower the levels of the lake and you will have your victory at Veii. Suddenly their captive seemed much more valuable.
Getting Square
Aside from their lack of military victories and the higher levels of water in the Alban Lake, the Romans discovered another sign that all was not right. When the magistrates for 397 had been proclaimed, something had gone wrong. Magistrates were proclaimed during the annual Latin festival for Jupiter Latiaris. If a mistake was made during the sacrifice or proclamation, there was only one thing to do. Get rid of this lot of magistrates and start all over.
An interregnum ensued whilst the Romans sorted out their magistrate woes. Very unusually, the Romans set their sights on someone who was not even campaigning, Publius Licinius Calvus. Calvus had been the first confirmed plebeian to become military tribune with consular power and was known to be very moderate. But how would the Romans pull off his election? Tune in to find out more!
Things to Look Out For:
Aeneas’ dad, Latinus
The Etruscans giving Veii the cold shoulder, AGAIN!
Tips on the proper way to sacrifice a bull
Volcanic activity
Roman-style Christmas hampers
Highlights of happenings in the wider Mediterranean world
Our Players for 397 BCEMilitary Tribune with Consular Power
L. Iulius L. f. Vopisci n. Iullus (Pat) Mil. Tr. c.p. 401
L. Furius L. f. Sp. n. Medullinus (Pat) Cos. 413, 409, Mil. Tr. c.p. 407, 405, 398, 395, 394, 391
L. Sergius M. f. L. n. Fidenas (Pat)
A. Postumius – f. – n. Albinus Regillensis (Pat)
P. Cornelius P. f. M. n. Maluginensis (Pat) Cos. 393? Mil. Tr. c.p. 390
A. Manlius A. f. Cn. n. Vulso Capitolinus (Pat) Mil. Tr. c.p. 405, 402
Legates; Ambassadors
(Cn. Cornelius) Cossus (Pat) Mil. Tr. c.p. 406, 404, 401
(P.) Licinius (Calvus Esquilinus) Mil. Tr. c.p. 400, 396
(L.) Valerius Potitus (Pat) Cos. 392, Mil. Tr. c.p. 414, 406, 403, 401, 398
OR
(C.) Valerius Potitus (Volusus) (Pat) Cos. 410, Mil. Tr. c.p. 415, 404
(K.) Fabius Ambustus (Pat) Mil. Tr. c.p. 410, 404, 401, 395, 309?
OR
(Num.) Fabius Ambustus (Pat) Mil. Tr. c.p. 406
Our Sources
Dr Rad reads Livy, 5.16-18.
Dr G reads Diodorus Siculus, 14.85.1; Fasti Capitolini.
Bradley, G. 2020. Early Rome to 290 BC (Edinburgh University Press).
Broughton, T. R. S., Patterson, M. L. 1951. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic Volume 1: 509 B.C. – 100 B.C. (The American Philological Association)
Kraus, C. S. 2020. ‘Urban Disasters and Other Romes: The Case of Veii’ in Closs, V. M., Keitel, E. eds. Urban Disasters and the Roman Imagination (De Gruyter), 17-31.
Dr Rad 0:00 Hi listeners. Before we get into today's episode, Dr G and I would just like to mention that we will once again be presenting at the podcast event of the year, Intelligence Speech in 2025 this event will be taking place on February 8, starting at 9am Eastern Standard Time. The tickets are $30 and are available at intelligentspeechonline.com this year's topic is deception. So we will be hearing about all sorts of fake history. And historical deception seems timely. Last year, we had a blast talking about Augustus failed attempts to secure an air and we're looking forward to presenting on something similarly Imperial and scandalous this year. We hope that you can join us and all your other favorite podcasters at Intelligent Speech, and now on with the episode you
Music. Welcome to the partial historians.
Dr G 1:13 We explore all the details of ancient Rome,
Dr Rad 1:18 Everything from political scandals, the love affairs, the battles wage, and when citizens turn against each other, I'm Dr rad, and
Dr G 1:28 I'm Dr G. We consider Rome as the Romans saw it, by reading different authors from the ancient past and comparing their stories.
Dr Rad 1:38 Join us as we trace the journey of Rome from the founding of the city.
Hello and welcome to a brand new episode of the partial historians. I am one of your hosts, Dr rad, and
Dr G 1:59 I am Dr G, and I'm super excited to be here because we're about to talk about 397 BCE, indeed,
Dr Rad 2:09 we are Dr G as we trace the story of room from the founding of the city. But before we get to 397 Can we please quickly recap what happened in 398,
Dr G 2:22 look, there was some sort of lake. It rose up. I think that might be all I recall. Yeah, no, it was important. I didn't have a lot of evidence, but I think I had some things that suggested that, you know, we had a dangerous time. There was some reading of some portents, one of the people from they revealed the nature of the portent to the Romans, which then prompted the Romans to take some action to make sure the portent worked out in their favor.
Dr Rad 2:51 You are more correct than you know. Dr G, so we're right in the middle of this lengthy siege of they a rival Etruscan city to Rome, that even though we've got this very epic story, is actually not that far away. But we understand why the Romans want to conquer it. It's powerful. It's on their doorstep. It's from a rival peoples they want it for their close to home. Yeah, and it's been dragging on for a while. It's been causing internal tension in Rome over issues like military pay and military service. So the quicker this is wrapped up, the better. And last episode, we did indeed have a man from ve, potentially an older man, a soothsayer of some kind, being kidnapped, and he revealed that the only way Rome was going to be able to conquer the city of a was if they figured out how to deal with the excessive water in this particular lake that you mentioned.
Dr G 3:52 Now, intriguing. Now, I have to say, one of our Patreon supporters got in touch with us about this, to discuss the way that there is some evidence from a volcanology perspective, that's right, or the flooding of these kinds of volcanic lakes from volcanic activity that happens below them that then pushes the water up above the line that it usually sits at. So if you've got a lot of magma moving around under the surface, all of a sudden, you might get a situation which appears preternatural, but is actually the result of volcanic activity. And I loved the fact that they reached out with this detail, because I am not a volcanologist. I am an ancient historian. I was just baffled by this, like,
Dr Rad 4:38 what are you bringing to the show, if not volcanology, get out of here!
Dr G 4:42 Charm and good looks. Thank you.
Dr Rad 4:43 Well, that would make so much sense, and I agree with you. So glad that someone reached out with this detail. Because we are, of course, talking about the album like which is seemingly not connected to they, which is in completely the other direction. However, sign. Come from? Whence signs come? Dr, G, when the gods choose to speak, it may not be geographically appropriate, and that makes sense, because the Alban Mons was an active volcano up until around 1150 BC. I believe which, which might explain why there's not a lot of people living this area until just after that. So that kind of makes sense. You know, the volcano stuff, it adds up.
Dr G 5:29 It does. So I think that's an exciting detail that adds into this. Because you're like, Okay, that sounds like a really bizarre story on the surface, but there could be some natural phenomena that is feeding into what is some very unusual natural observations that are happening from the side of they and the portents that are suggested as a result.
Dr Rad 5:50 Yeah. So thank you very much. Patreon, listener for your volcanology tip and with that, Dr, G, I think We might be ready to dive into 397, BCE,
Oh, all right. Dr G, 397 BCE, please tell me. Who are we dealing with as magistrates? This year,
Dr G 6:33 our players, the magistrates, we have a whole suite of military tribunes with consular power, and they're all patricians,
Dr Rad 6:44 back in the saddle again for the ride through the town with the elites. Yeah,
Dr G 6:51 look, you can have some successes in your siege under a plebeian leadership. But is that enough to keep them in power? No people who have always had power want it back, and they want it back yesterday, so
Dr Rad 7:05 yesterday and forever. Dr, G, yeah,
Dr G 7:07 look so people we have in the role. We've got some names that are going to sound awfully familiar, and I think most of these people, by and large, have held positions before, or if not, they come from families that are going to be well known, well well heard amongst listeners, sure. So we have Lucius Iulius Vopisci.
Dr Rad 7:31 Ulis, yep, I definitely recognize that name, and I reconsider 90% of the people listening to this show
Dr G 7:38 like a Julii in power. What are the chances? Previously, a military Tribune in 401 so really, quite recently, Lucius Furius Medullinus,
Dr Rad 7:50 yeah, yeah,
Dr G 7:52 a Furius back in the saddle. Previously, consul in 413, and 409 and previously, military tribunein 407, 405, but most importantly, 398, just the previous year. Methinks,
Dr Rad 8:08 you've got a bit of a monopoly on power.
Dr G 8:11 He certainly seems to hold a lot of position. So he seems to be quite popular new kid on the block, but very familiar name, Lucius Sergius Fidenas,
Dr Rad 8:23 yes, descended, I presume, from a branch of a family that's had something to do with the conquest of Fidenae, one would assume, yes,
Dr G 8:34 following up, also new to the role Aulus Postumius Albinus Regillensis, new
Dr Rad 8:40 man, but perhaps very familiar name.
Dr G 8:43 Yeah, we're like, is that a new guy? Because that sounds like somebody we've talked about before. I agree. How many, how many, how many Postumii are there? We;ve then got Publius Cornelius, Maluginensis.
Dr Rad 8:58 I hate that name.
Dr G 9:00 Also first turn around the block, and then Aulus Manlius Vulso Capitolinus, who was also previously military tribune in 405, and 4020, okay. I do have some mention that there are some legates or some ambassadors, indeed, but apparently Livy talks about them, so I don't have their names.
Dr Rad 9:21 Oh well, okay, I have their names so I can go through the little list, and then we'll see how they come up in our story. We've got Cnaeus Cornelius Cossus. Now we think that's his name, who's a patrician, previously military Tribune with consular power in 406, 404 and 401 and then we've got Publius Licinius Calvus Esquilinus, previously military Tribune in 400 BC. We've then got Lucius Valerius Potitus, and he has been military Tribune with consular power in 414 406, 403, 401, and 398,
Dr G 10:03 somebody's popular at high school. Yeah.
Dr Rad 10:05 Now that's, that's one set. Oh, yeah,
Dr G 10:09 there are more sets. Yeah. Well, this is
Dr Rad 10:11 the thing. There's a bit of confusion about, I think, these positions. So we may be dealing instead with Caius Valerius Potitus. Yeah. Consul in 410, military Tribune in 415, and 404 Kaeso Fabius Ambustus, military Tribune with consular power in 410, 404 and 401 or we might be dealing with a Numerius Fabius Ambustus.
Dr G 10:43 Oh, okay, now that that we've hit the Ambustii, yeah, in this list, I'm like, wait a minute. I had these people listed down for the previous year, but apparently, maybe some of them are ongoing in their ambassadorial Yeah. I
Dr Rad 10:59 think there's a bit of confusion. There's a bit of confusion. There's definitely a bit of confusion happening around these Ambassador legate people. All right,
Dr G 11:08 okay. They're still there, still hanging around. They are
Dr Rad 11:11 listed in Broughton, and therefore I accept that they were there.
Dr G 11:15 No fair enough. So when we're talking about legates at this time period, it's basically a delegation. You could be given any kind of task. It's whatever the military tribunes or the Senate decide needs to be done. So it's not like they hold a specific military position. I mean, you do get military legates later, but you could be asked to do any task that's administrative in nature, that is supportive of the Roman state. Yeah. So whatever that is, and I'm probably about to hear about it for the first time,
Dr Rad 11:47 well, I think, I think the reason why there's a bit of overlap is that we, of course, had some legits legging it to see the Oracle at Delphi in the previous year. I would maybe implying that maybe they're still traveling at this point in time that might have something to do with it.
Dr G 12:05 Are you telling me it's not that fast to travel all the way to Delphi okay, it's
Dr Rad 12:09 bit of a journey. It's a bit of a journey. All right. Dr, G, you ready? Therefore to jump into 397, now that we kind of know who we're dealing with,
Dr G 12:18 I'm excited to find out what happens for sure? Yep.
Dr Rad 12:22 Okay, so we have a new enemy on the horizon for Rome in this year, the Tarquinenses.
Dr G 12:33 Oh, dear. Yeah, these the inhabitants of Tarquinii. This
Dr Rad 12:37 is to do with the area of Tarquinii, yes. So we're talking about an Etruscan peoples, yes. Now they notice that Rome is dealing with a lot of other enemies at this point in time. So not only do they have the siege at they which is ongoing and they, of course, has by this time, being joined by neighboring peoples, the Falerr and people from Capena. And then we've also got them fighting the Volsci who were contesting occupation of Anxur. We've talked about that a few times. That's been tossed backwards and forwards between the Romans and the Volscians like a hot potato. And then we've also got the Aequians who are engaged in attacking the Roman colony at Labici, oh,
Dr G 13:25 dear. It sounds like the Romans have got enemies on every single side.
Dr Rad 13:29 When don't they talk to G, when don't they this is
Dr G 13:33 a particularly robust group of everybody that they've really ever encountered, not having anything nice to say about them and deciding that attacking is worthwhile. So the Volsci and the Aequians, sort of to the south and the south east, the Falsicans, the Capenates and the people of they to the north, and the Tarquinii also to the north. It's a pretty big sweep of war on two fronts and multiple enemies on both fronts, and
Dr Rad 14:03 just when you thought that Rome couldn't take anymore. Dr, G, I'm gonna add a smattering of internal problems. Uh, oh yeah, we're talking, of course, about the patricians and the plebeians.
Dr G 14:15 Well, Color me surprised. What are they up to now? Oh,
Dr Rad 14:19 well, you know, they always have these ongoing issues, don't they? I mean, we're in the conflict of the orders, and we will be for quite some time now.
Dr G 14:28 Oh boy,
Dr Rad 14:29 it couldn't be really more problematic in Rome right now. So the people who are the Tarquinenses are right on the money in saying that Rome has its hands full. Now, if I were being historical about this. Dr, G, I might want to point out that there are some eerie parallels between events from this year at another year, which we haven't actually covered yet, which is 388, BCE, oh, okay,
Dr G 14:55 that's a very close year to have as a parallel, but I'll allow it. Yeah.
Dr Rad 15:00 I think it's just that historians have definitely noticed that there are some interesting overlaps in that. We also have war with the Tarquinii. We've also got Camillus showing up in that year. We've also got an attack on the Aequians. It's just some interesting crossovers there, which may or may not be coincidental.
Dr G 15:22 This might explain why my evidence is such a mess. Because there is some evidence that I have that I think goes with a later year, but could possibly be connected with this one. And I think for now, I'm just going to leave it until later, and whenever we get to the episode where I think it belongs. But yes, there was some confusion, even with the small amount of things I have available to me as evidence right now about where things go in terms of the timeline. Yes,
Dr Rad 15:49 exactly, yeah. So basically, the tar quinnenzis, they decide they're going to just dabble in some raiding whilst Rome is too busy to really pay attention. They totally believe that the Romans are either going to just ignore the attacks as they didn't have the capacity to address it, or if they decided to deal with it, they wouldn't be sending their best men, and therefore might be easily defeated or dealt with. I
Dr G 16:15 see. Okay, so it's a raid of opportunity.
Dr Rad 16:19 It is definitely now, the Romans were not necessarily particularly worried by this raiding, because, of course, come on, they're wrong. They're way too awesome to worry about such minor problems. However, it's the manners, the etiquette, that is at stake here. Dr G, it is an outrageous and unprovoked attack. How very dare you. Is basically their response to these people.
Dr G 16:47 How rude any warning. Yes, exactly.
Dr Rad 16:51 It's just, it's just not the way that we do cricket. Yeah, can't
Dr G 16:57 you see, I'm busy with a whole bunch of other wars. You could at least send a letter to warn us we were about to do this kind
Dr Rad 17:04 of as predicted. The Romans indeed did not put much effort into their preparation for dealing with this new and unexpected enemy. But they also didn't hesitate to deal with this situation. Aulus Postumius and Lucius Iulius. They weren't able to hold a regular levy because the tribunes of the plebs are named, prevented one. So instead, they set out with a volunteer force totally made up of anyone who had been talked into signing up. And they decided to travel through car A and managed to surprise this new enemy as they were journeying home happily with their stolen booty in their backpacks.
Dr G 17:49 Wow. Okay, so I think the most impressive thing here is that there was anybody left in Rome who would volunteer go on a party when they're in the middle of so many wars. And the reason why the tribune of the plebs are probably trying to prevent the levy is because the people, by and large, do not want to be levied anymore. No,
Dr Rad 18:08 who is, I agree with you, who is left to levy?
Dr G 18:11 Yeah. Who are these people? Yeah. Is it the young patricians who are like, it's time for me to show my masculinity out in the field? Yeah. Is
Dr Rad 18:19 it children? Is it the elderly?
Dr G 18:23 I don't know. Volunteers, Goodness me.
Dr Rad 18:26 But of course, because these people are totally beneath the Romans, the Romans managed to kill a lot of them. I mean, it is surprise attack, to be fair, and they managed to take back all the booty that had been stolen from them and headed back to Rome. Wow.
Dr G 18:41 Okay, so on some level, I suppose this could just be read as a standard surprise attack, but I wonder if this is also something where Livy is now trying to build a narrative of Etruscan decline, because interesting. So the Tarquinii are one of the Etruscan peoples, and we know that they is not in a great situation. They haven't lost this siege yet. But watch out, everybody, spoilers.
Dr Rad 19:13 Yes, it could be definitely a bit of an indication of what is about to come spoilers. Yes, so the Romans then have a very amusing situation to me, which we've spoken of often, Dr G, which is where they basically put everything out in the open, and they say, Come and get your stuff. You got two days. Oh,
Dr G 19:31 okay, so is this like a is this a booty situation? Yeah,
Dr Rad 19:36 because I take him back, basically everything that had been taken in this, in this initial attack, has been taken back in the reverse surprise attack. And so they come home with all this stuff. And stupidly, the Romans have not put their name on everything in black texture. And so they just put it all out and they say, right, you got two days. Everybody and anything that's left on the third day is going. To be sold under the spear, and the money raised will be split between the soldiers that served in this surprise attack. Selling something under the spear means a spear would sort of be set up to as like an advertisement saying, Come and get it, and it would be essentially a public auction. Intriguing.
Dr G 20:17 Now I wonder if there would ever be anything left, I feel like the onus would be on. The priority would be to take as much stuff as possible, particularly if you were involved in the raid. Because what if there was nothing left at the end for that auction to raise money for yourself? That would suck. Yeah, this, this does sound like a bizarre set of maneuvers. You know, there
Dr Rad 20:42 might be an odd shoe doesn't have,
Dr G 20:46 like I see that leather vest, but I could make one better myself. Yeah, take that rubbish home. Etruscan rubbish. No. Well, so
Dr Rad 20:54 anyway, so that's what happens. That's a little bit obviously of Roman success, which is just as well, because as for the rest of the Roman campaigns, it's not going that well. Dr, g Now, don't get me wrong, the Romans are definitely not losing their other campaigns, but they're certainly not winning. It's basically a stalemate just all around. Ah,
Dr G 21:15 well, that's tough times, isn't it? Not making any progress, just sort of waiting it out, and it's the grind of war. It
Dr Rad 21:23 is. It is so the Romans feel that they're stuck in this situation. They no longer feel that they're going to be getting any help from humans. We need to turn to the divine. Dr, G, and wouldn't you know it? It's right about now that those legates slash ambassadors returned from the Delphic
Dr G 21:43 Oracle. Oh, good timing, guys,
Dr Rad 21:47 exactly. Now they did have that soothsayer, the elderly soothsayer that had been kidnapped from they, who told them how to deal with the rising waters in the Alban Lake, and that unless they dealt with that, they would never triumph over they. But naturally, because he's from the enemy, they're in little bits and submissions that he might be trying to throw them off course. And they wanted verification. The Delphic Oracle says exactly the same thing as the old man has said. So now they have corroboration. Of course, being an Oracle, it says it in a much, much more wordy Oracle, e sort of way the the meaning is essentially the same, I
Dr G 22:23 suppose, yes. I mean the famously, these oracles could be misinterpreted. So I hope this one is clearer than most
Dr Rad 22:30 well. Interestingly, some historians, of course, have looked into this oracle, and it does apparently stem from something that has been translated from the Greek, and the prophecy is thought to be one that isn't really an original Oracle from Delphi, but one of these ones that had sort of popped up in the late Republic and was reported to be an Oracle from Delphi. Oh, I
Dr G 23:00 see, okay, the way that, I mean, yeah, okay, yeah. So we're dealing with a bit of a sort of an anachronistic sort of retrojection back into this, at least
Dr Rad 23:10 in the wording, yeah. I mean, the meaning might have, you know, always been there. But yes, the way that it's worded, I believe, hmm,
Dr G 23:17 I think this is a really interesting move, on the behalf of the Romans to be like, we need to put our faith in not any sort of soothsayer necessarily, or even local members of the sipper lines, for instance, but we need to travel all the way to Delphi to get an answer. This might be indicative of just how under the pump the Romans feel in this moment, with this ongoing siege, that they're like, We really need the big guns for this one. But it is an interesting sense in which we can understand Rome as being part of that broader Mediterranean world. They're not just relying on their own people. They're certainly not just relying on the Etruscans, and they're willing to travel quite vast distances in order to get some sort of divine insight into their local problems,
Dr Rad 24:04 and now the Romans feel obliged to give the Delphic Oracle a very generous gift once the war was entirely over. So that's their future intention. Ah,
Dr G 24:16 yes, okay, I look forward to this because I think I've read a little bit about this, but it doesn't happen this year. I'm like, No, this
Dr Rad 24:22 is just a an intention. They're like, mental note. Put it in the diary, guys. Once we finish dealing with this situation, we better send them something really nice. We'll get them a box of lint chocolates. We want top quality. We want foreign champagne. The whole works.
Dr G 24:38 All right, so prepare yourselves for a hamper. Priestess of Apollo, given
Dr Rad 24:44 that we are currently recording this at around Christmas time, I feel like there's going to be all sorts of strange things in this hamper as well that you would never normally eat, but somehow turn up in hampers.
Dr G 24:55 Yeah, you're like, Oh, that's really intriguing. Yeah, some
Dr Rad 24:59 sort of. Pate, some sort of spread made of something that you never thought could be turned into a spread.
Dr G 25:04 Well, you're like, thank you.
Dr Rad 25:08 Now, of course, all of a sudden, the guy that they had kidnapped from they the soothsayer that had told them ages ago about this whole lake situation is very respected in urban society, because wouldn't you know what he was telling the truth this whole time.
Dr G 25:24 Can you imagine his fate, if that he had not been corroborated by the Delphic Oracle, would have been death very quickly. So I'm glad for his sake, but that it's turned out well, it's
Dr Rad 25:35 I think this is where your version of events makes more sense than mine in this particular instance, because you highlighted that in your account, this guy was tortured for information, whereas in my account, he seems to very willingly just give information up. Either way, I definitely would have been suspicious. Torture means he might have just been saying it to make the pain stop. The other way around, it seems a little quick that he just suddenly turns against his own people and tells the Romans what they need to know.
Dr G 26:03 Where's the sense of loyalty? What's in it for him?
Dr Rad 26:06 Yes, the military tribunes, Cornelius and Postumius, want to use the soothsayer to take care of this whole album Lake overflowing situation, especially because now the gods are involved, they feel they have to appease the gods by taking care of that particular situation. Sounds
Dr G 26:21 reasonable, all right, so they're going to get a workforce onto that one.
Dr Rad 26:25 Now they also find that there's been an offense against the gods, because there was a problem with some of the magistrates.
Dr G 26:36 Oh dear.
Dr Rad 26:38 Turns out that there had been a problem with the election. Oh, okay, it had been improperly proclaimed, these Latin games and a sacrifice conducted on the Alban Mount. Now this is probably referring to a Latin festival that of Juppiter Latiarius. This is probably what it's referring to here, which was something that is associated with the Latin League. It was held every year. And after this festival, that's where there'd be a sacrifice, and there'd be the proclamation of new consuls or military tribunes at this time. So it seems that somewhere in here, at this very important moment of proclamation, something had gone wrong.
Dr G 27:24 Okay, so I think this is one of those things about Ancient Rome which is off overlooked, particularly for the Republic, but is super important, which is the way in which their politics is very much tied in to their relationship with the gods at all times. So the way that things are pronounced, the way that things are said, all of those ritual formulations, are extremely important in order to get right for things to be proper in the eyes of the gods, from a Roman perspective. So if something has gone wrong in any of that stuff, and they come back around and they realize this is a huge problem. So does this mean that they disband this whole group of, like, military tributes we're
Dr Rad 28:10 getting there. We're getting I'm just gonna add okay to what you just said. I think it's also, I think you're totally right about that, but I think it's also potentially a problem with the sacrifice, like, it sounds like a great big stuff up on their part.
Dr G 28:22 Oh, a problem with the sacrifice. Do they have details about what went wrong with the sacrifice?
Dr Rad 28:27 No, just says there was a problem, a problem
Dr G 28:31 with a sacrifice. Yeah, all right, I'm very intrigued by this. Yeah. Please continue. Yeah.
Dr Rad 28:36 Well, and I just thought I'd also mention because people might not know much about this. Indeed, I don't know much about this because I'm not really into religion as much as you are. But this particular gathering, this festival, it's very ancient. As far as we can tell. It goes back a really, really long way. It's held, funnily enough, on the Alban mount, which we keep talking about, this previously volcanic mountain, which has now become such a focus of so many of our stories. And it is something where various Latin people come together, and it's where you can see this commonality between them in terms of the language that they speak in terms of the gods that they worship, potentially also the way that their societies are organized. You know, we offer, you know, we've often questioned, do they have exactly the same political setup as the Romans? Because sometimes it seems like the Roman sources assume that they do. Maybe they do,
Dr G 29:36 maybe they do. There has got to be some sort of cultural connection. You would assume, even if things are run slightly differently in each place, that shared language and a shared understanding of the gods that need to be looked after and appeased is a sense of commonality of purpose, even if there are small nuances of differences in how each one is run. Politically when they go back home, yeah? Now, if we're talking about problems that you could have with a sacrifice, I mean, there's a whole number of problems potentially. And this
Dr Rad 30:10 is a big have, yeah, this is a bull that is sacrificed, okay,
Dr G 30:14 yeah, because it has to be, obviously, it has to be the right kind of bull. So you would hope that that's not the mistake that they've got the right kind of bull in terms of its coloration, for instance, and its age, things like that are very important. But it could be something about the nature of the procession to the ritual killing. It could be something about how the knife was wielded during the sacrifice. It could be something about what was said in the moment over the sacrifice, either before it happened or after it happened. So those verbalizations tend to be something that is really possible to make a mistake with, and could be heavily scrutinized afterwards. Now, how would you know you'd be waiting for other signs of the gods, right, to suggest that there was some sort of displeasure here, so then you'd have to backtrack. Yeah, yeah, the lake might be the indicator. Be like, Oh no, the lake, guys, I don't think we did it, right, yeah.
Dr Rad 31:16 And it is. It is so interesting, because, as you say, I feel like I often do overlook these religious aspects to Roman life. And obviously this is beyond Roman life. This is about Latin communal life where they're coming together. And it becomes a really important sign that you're invited to this, you know that you're part of that particular community, and it's something that the Romans will continue to attend for, like, a really long time. So it's probably not the only moment where we might mention this particular festival. Now we don't know how far back this particular association goes exactly, even though we know the festival itself is very ancient, but it might be something to do with this myth idea that the Latins all trace their ancestry back to Latinus, the father in law of anaeus, who's obviously very important in terms of Roman understanding of themselves and their connection to Trojan War survivors, who is transformed into The figure of Juppiter Latiarius after his death. Now that may come after the festival, maybe a way of explaining some aspects of it, but certainly it does eventually have that particular association as well, which again highlights that shared culture.
Dr G 32:35 Yeah. And as far as these sorts of things go, there's likely to be a number of different locations, in different spots locally, where gatherings happen depending on the god, depending on the time of year. So shared sacred spaces, essentially where people come together to meet in order to do this kind of ritual undertaking, in order to make sure those relationships with the gods are solid. Now I think what I would love to know, and I think might be impossible to really know, is how often might it be the case that the Romans are turning up to these sort of shared sacred spaces in order to engage in communal sharing of gods and sacrifice with people that they are also potentially at war with outside of those spaces, I've wondered to what degree that is happening, or whether there are times where certain groups don't attend in anticipation of not wanting to run into groups that they're currently in conflict with it is an
Dr Rad 33:41 interesting question, because as far as we can tell, the Romans did not initiate this festival, and it's something that they just they became a part of, and became a perhaps more important part of as they start to conquer. You know, surrounding cities and towns and their reach grows larger, but yes, I agree. Awkward,
Dr G 34:03 awkward. Oh, hey guys, just, just here for the sacrifice.
Dr Rad 34:09 Could you please pass the slaughtered ball
Dr G 34:12 that guy tried to stab me last year on the battlefield? Anything
Dr Rad 34:18 now, as you highlighted Dr G in this particular moment, the only thing that could be done to address this was to get all of the military tribunes to resign their office and to retake the auspices and start an interregnum in the place of the military tribunes. Because, oh goodness, yeah, it causes huge problems, obviously, for their their power, the legality of that power, it's just not worth the risk.
Dr G 34:44 Wow. It's been a while since, I think we've had an interregnum. Yeah? Okay, I'm up for that. Sure. Let it commence.
Dr Rad 34:52 Yeah? So, I mean, I think it's because they see all these signs, not just the lake, but obviously the fact that they're not having much success in battle, like they're not you. Not a disaster, but it's not what they aspire to. So the Senate orders that this takes place the interregges who are chosen are Lucius Valerius, Quintus Servilius Fidenas and Marcus Furius Camillus.
Dr G 35:12 Oh, okay, well,
Dr Rad 35:15 how convenient. Yes, there are ongoing problems caused by these unnamed tribunes of the plebs who are continuing to cause issues. In this particular instance, they are blocking elections until they receive assurances that most of the new military tribunes with consular power would be plebeians,
Dr G 35:38 fair enough. I mean, it's a classic tribune of the plebs move. I applaud them for it, and I wish them all the very best. Yeah,
Dr Rad 35:45 yeah. And I think this is perhaps why they're unnamed, because Livy's just like, Oh my God, here we go again. Not more of this segue to what's going on in the Etruscan land. Ooh. The Etruscans are also having a bit of a meeting at this moment in time. Now, we've often seen the Etruscans come together at voltuner. It's where they all seem to meet chat and get on Veii's case.
Dr G 36:16 What's happening down there this time? Guys? You need help again? We're busy. Yeah.
Dr Rad 36:20 So now that they've got the capernaus and the Philistines involved in this whole shenanigan, they are strongly suggesting that all the Etruscans should band together to try and help end the siege against vein, because they're obviously now committed. And they're like, Come on, guys, come on. We know you hate vein, but what about us? We're adorable. However, once again, the Etruscans say a big fat no to helping. They citing their old reason that they had never shown any interest in helping or caring for anyone else but themselves. It
Dr G 36:51 is really interesting, because one How would Livy know this, but also this idea that Etruria as a nation is starting to break down. Like, under what circumstances would you not try to look after one of your own? They is an Etruscan city. So the idea that the rest of the Etruscans are getting together and being like, No, and it's like, it's really rejecting somebody from your family at that point. Oh, yeah. Like, you're on your own, whatever. Yeah.
Dr Rad 37:23 No, I know it's kind of bizarre, because surely they can see that things aren't going terribly, but it's not good. It's been the Siege has been enduring for quite some time now, and what
Dr G 37:33 does it what does the true area think is going to happen if they falls? Who do they think is next? It's like they haven't thought ahead the way the civiliscans and the capinartes have. They're like, they're like, no, no, we're a solid block. We'll be fine.
Dr Rad 37:48 The Etruscans also have their own problems going on, which might also explain their reluctance to help the people of A and that is that they're dealing with. And I quote my translation of Livy, a strange race new settlers. Who are these people? No freaking idea. The Etruscans aren't actually engaged in warfare with them at this point in time, but it's clear that it's a prickly situation, right?
Dr G 38:14 Are these people, by any chance, from the North?
Dr Rad 38:18 I know what you're thinking, and we can't really be sure, it doesn't seem quite right. Seems too early.
Dr G 38:25 Intriguing. Yeah, I
Dr Rad 38:26 I'll just explain to the listeners. I believe Dr G is asking if they are indeed, Gauls. Are
Dr G 38:34 they have the French arrive. Everyone's like, I'm confused, but their cheese is delicious, so I'll let them stay for now.
Dr Rad 38:44 Yeah, honestly, not sure. But from what I've seen so far, I think the answer is probably no, okay, yeah, but we don't know. Okay,
Dr G 38:52 I wonder if they're people from the other side of the Apennines. Then there's sort of like, the East Coast Italians coming over the way, being like, hello,
Dr Rad 39:02 East Coast. West Coast. Yeah, exactly, yeah. So the Etruscans decide to make a bit of a compromise in this whole scenario, which is that any of their young men who want to go and volunteer may go and help. They once again volunteering. Big thing 397,
Dr G 39:19 nobody's got any money that that we've established
Dr Rad 39:22 that might be it.
Dr G 39:25 They spend it all paying the soldiers to get through winter. Nobody's got any cash left. Etruscans included,
Dr Rad 39:30 yeah, with young people going to volunteer to help, they the Romans, of course, presumably don't know that all of this is going on, that this is a negotiation that's happening, and so all they see is this huge influx of young fighting men, and they're like, holy crap. What does this mean? Is this a sign that worse is to come? This seems very worrying. And of course, as soon as the external threat that external pressure is increased, it means that the patrician and plebeian problems, they got to take a back seat that predictable pattern that we come to know and love. Dr, G,
Dr G 40:08 yes, we need to band together, put aside our personal political differences and make sure we win this war. It's the only way. In fact, it is the only patrician way to navigate anything. Yes,
Dr Rad 40:22 it's at this moment that we see a return of Publius Licinius Calvus, if that name doesn't ring a bell for shame, because he was the first ever military Tribune with consular power, who was definitely, without doubt, a plebeian. And he first served in 400 BC, so only a few years ago.
Dr G 40:41 How could one forget that's very exciting. But what's he What is he going to do? Does this mean they've put him into a magistracy or,
Dr Rad 40:48 yeah, he's he's chosen again, to be prospective military tribune with consular power for the following year. I believe that's what, oh, that's what they want. And I think because they know that he's a very moderate character. Remember, if we cast our minds back to 400 BCE, it seems that he was chosen because, whilst he has the plebeian background that would please the tribunes of the plebs and the plebs themselves, he was not offensively radical to the patricians,
Dr G 41:16 very willing to roll patrician style, yes, and
Dr Rad 41:20 because he had proved himself before, I think they see this as a compromise moment, once again, all right, very interesting. Now I'm going to add another detail. It's going to blow your mind here. Okay, okay, so he was chosen even though he had not run for the office.
Dr G 41:41 Okay. Well, that sounding more classic Roman potential, weird horse moment being like, I'm just hanging around being a dude, and it's like, we need you to save Rome. Yeah,
Dr Rad 41:52 I think that's it. I think they see him as serving a very particular purpose and a moment of tension when they need the Roman people to be united, and the senators are very happy that he is around to serve this purpose. And I think the idea is they're going to get the whole band back together. That's what Livy says. He's like, let's just get everybody from 400 because that was a great team. We want that team. We need that team. Wow.
Dr G 42:15 Okay, well, I feel like that's that will be an interesting moment for them, if that's the path they decide to tread for the next year. But I guess, I guess we'll find out soon. We
Dr Rad 42:26 will, and I'm gonna have to save, unfortunately, the details of exactly what happens for the following year, because, of course, this is all for the following year. So this is looking forward to 396, the detail that I'll finish up on. And this is one I must admit, that I always find confusing to explain, because the Roman voting system is always one that perplexes me, particularly early on in this stage where we can't be 100% sure about a lot of details, but the way that he was chosen was apparently by prerogatives. Now explaining this is where I get a little a little tripped up. Essentially, the idea is that there are 18 centuries of knights, and they would vote first, and if they all vote the same way, the other centuries are not required to vote because they outnumber it. That whole idea of like the the rich and the powerful out ranking everybody else,
Dr G 43:17 yeah, there's a yeah, there's a clear system of who gets to vote in what order. And then there's a first past the post kind of element to this, where it's like, once they reach a threshold of who the winner is, everybody else can just go home.
Dr Rad 43:31 Yes. The difference is that with the praerogativa, the idea is that one would be chosen by lot. Okay, yeah, so that's kind of the idea, rather than them all voting together as a voting block, eventually, there was a system introduced where one would be one of the centuries would be chosen by lot, and it would be revealed to the rest of the assembly before a vote was recorded. So it was kind of being like, this is the way that we're heading, kind of indication, I suppose,
Dr G 44:08 okay, and that selection by lot happens before the voting commences. Yeah,
Dr Rad 44:13 it's this idea that one of the centuries. So presumably, what we're talking about here is like the committee a century art, and it's like one of the centuries from the first class would be chosen by a lot, and that would be like an indication of where things were going eventually, it was, I believe, adapted so that a single century would be chosen by a lot to try and make it a bit fairer. Now, all of these developments that I'm talking about here, they're all things that we can only test for certain at a much later date. We have no idea when these things actually really started.
Dr G 44:47 Yeah, the voting organization is very unclear from our source material for this particular period, and I think we only start to get some really solid evidence, some hints and tips. It's in a century or two.
Dr Rad 45:02 Yes, exactly. So exactly what this means is a little unclear, but it certainly, I think, is meant to be indicating that, look, this is the way that the vote would go. And we like this guy, we want Publius, Licinius Calvus, to be our man. Interesting. Very interesting. Yeah, so it's a little confusing. I apologize that I've explained this badly, but it's mostly because it's all about who has the right to vote first, essentially. And the reason why it's confusing is that it's really hard to know exactly how this would have played out at this particular moment in time, for sure. And that is about all I have for 397, BCE, dr, G
Dr G 45:44 Oh, well. Exciting news. I have things to tell you about the broader Mediterranean world. Love it, not a lot, but I don't have much on Rome, but I have made a note about this prerogative motion in voting systems, because I'll go and have a look at it and have a look at it and see what I can dig up, because I would love to know more.
Dr Rad 46:04 Yes, and I must admit, when I looked the more I looked it up, the more I became incredibly confused, because it's obviously been adapted several times, and none of those particular tested moments may have anything to do with this story.
Dr G 46:18 Yeah, it's a tough one, particularly for this early period of the Republic. So the source that I have for this period is Diodorus Siculus, amazing. Who gets some of the names right of the military tribunes some of the names wrong, leaves a couple out. But he does also tell us about what's going down with the Persians and the Athenians at this point in time. So we have this really interesting character called Conon. Now, Conon was a naval commander of the Athenians, and he gets voted in on multiple occasions as Dr Goss so as a military commander, General figure, and during the Peloponnesian War, he gets caught up with some situations around my deline, and he loses a whole bunch of his ships. And this is a problem, and he escapes out of this situation, and he flees to a king eurogoros And who's in Cyprus. So he gets to a different island, he gets himself out of trouble, and it's at that point that he's put in touch with a guy called fauna barzos, who is a Sartre of the Persians, and is currently great king as well. So somehow, he falls in with the Persians, the powerful Persians at this time, and he is then taken in by the Persians and placed as an amral at the head of a Persian fleet because of his great skill set. So he's basically escaped from a war like situation and sold his skill set to the Persians. The Persians have been willing to accept that, and he's now an Athenian leading a Persian naval command. You're like, this is chaos. What is this guy up to? I
Dr Rad 48:23 feel like that's not a terribly uncommon story for the Greeks at this moment in time. Even though the Persians are often like their great enemy, a lot of people who fall afoul of their fellow Greeks seem to find their way to Persia.
Dr G 48:38 Yeah. And so it's in this sort of like situation where it's like he's fallen in with the Persians, and they're looking after him, and he's been put in charge of stuff that they then send him because it probably because of his intelligence, they send him at the head of a Persian fleet to Athens so not only is he now working for The Persians, but he now is rocking up at the doorstep of his former homeland, entering the parius with 80 triremes. And he's like, we're here to help. The Persians are here to help everyone's like, this situation is part of what is going on with this complexity of the Athenian situation, which has been variously strung out with the Peloponnesian War, which is just has wrapped up, but is now like, what are the consequences of that? And part of the consequences of that is that the Spartans are now seeing a power gap in opportunity, and so they see that this Conon character is that the head of this fleet, they try to make that a thing for them. It's just getting really messy over there. He eventually gets lured back to Persia, and there he's arrested because he's not doing what the Persians want him to do. So the Athenians don't seem to be particularly happy, and the Spartans are not very happy either. So it's a tale of woe and dissatisfaction that is playing out in Greece. So I mean good luck to the legates and ambassadors who have been trying to travel to the Oracle at Delphi, because it seems like it's a complicated time in the Mediterranean Sea in terms of who's going where or what ship, and how they're ending up, and who's actually in charge. And how do you tell if somebody's Persian or Athenian when they're in command of a whole fleet of vessels? Nobody knows it's madness out there. Indeed.
Dr Rad 50:36 Oh my goodness. Well, that's
Dr G 50:37 that's my fun tale. I'm sadly lacking in source material for the Romans. I
Dr Rad 50:42 suspect that will change for the next year. I'm very excited
Dr G 50:45 for the next year, because I have so many sources to consider,
Dr Rad 50:49 indeed. Well, I think that means, Dr G, that it's probably time for and the partial pick a very tired little Igor today. So Dr G tell us about the partial pick. All
Dr G 51:04 right, we judge Rome by their own standards, and often they fail miserably, so we'll see how they do this time round. But there are five categories that we're going to consider, and they can win up to 10 golden eagles in each category, and at the end, we'll add it up to see what they got out of 50 and whether it's a pass or fail for the old romance this time round,
Dr Rad 51:27 I'm not holding my breath. I'm not going to lie. But let's start off with our first category. First category is military clout, all right. Well, whilst widely acknowledged to be in a stalemate. They did have that little victory over those Raiders.
Dr G 51:43 I give them one point for that. They haven't lost
Dr Rad 51:47 anything disastrously. They're holding their own.
Dr G 51:51 They've won nothing else, but they're facing so many enemies, okay, two I would expect, I expect more victories, but they're
Dr Rad 52:01 not losing. They're holding their own against several enemies and still managed to secure, okay, admittedly, a minor victory against some raiders, but still they got all their stuff back. Okay,
Dr G 52:12 how well have the Romans acquitted themselves in battle? Is the question that is connected with the concept of military clout. Well,
Dr Rad 52:20 they won against the Raiders. They got all their stuff back, and they give it back to everybody.
Dr G 52:23 Raiding is not a battle.
Dr Rad 52:25 No, the enemies were raiding. The Romans put those raiders in their place with volunteers, no less. Dr G, volunteers
Dr G 52:35 willing to give them one golden eagle. Nothing more. All right, fine, nothing less. The second category is diplomacy,
Dr Rad 52:44 Hmm, no, I don't think so.
Dr G 52:48 I sense no negotiation. Well,
Dr Rad 52:50 I feel like the Etruscans are negotiating amongst themselves, but that doesn't count for the Romans.
Dr G 52:54 It certainly does not expansion, no.
Dr Rad 52:58 I mean, they're kind of just holding on desperately.
Dr G 53:05 Okay, weirdos? Oh,
Dr Rad 53:06 my God, no, there's like nothing going on here.
Dr G 53:10 I don't know. I felt like there was a weird to us moment when Calvus Didn't put himself forward. Is
Dr Rad 53:18 that weird or so? Isn't weird to us about taking action.
Dr G 53:22 I mean, yes, but it would also potentially if we had a scene where he actively declined.
Dr Rad 53:31 I don't think that's what happened. I think, I mean, it's Look, I can't, I don't want to give anything away about the following year, but it seems more that he was just minding his own business, racing around trying to manage the folds of his toga. And he was chosen because he demonstrated that moderate behavior, which they felt Rome was sorely lacking at this point in time. And he doesn't seem to have said No, exactly, okay.
Dr G 54:00 Well, he's coming across as a pretty bland character. Yes, yes. Doesn't say no. Just goes with the flow. I
Dr Rad 54:09 mean, look, there will there will come a moment which, which is going to complicate this story in the following year. But I don't think he is like a Cincinnatus type of character where he's like, you just leave me alone to farm. Well,
Dr G 54:21 in that case, I'm not seeing any clear signs of weird display. No.
Dr Rad 54:26 I mean, look again, there's the dealing with the raiders, the military tribunes with consular power. They do that. They deal with the Alban Lake situation. But I feel that's just politicking
Dr G 54:35 that is. I'm not necessarily seeing any standout figures of Roman weird to us. Yeah, all right. The final category perhaps the moment for redemption, because otherwise it's looking pretty grim, is the citizen score.
Dr Rad 54:50 Oh boy. Okay, we don't get a lot of insight in this year to what's going on with the citizens, apart from the fact that there is this ongoing tension between the. Patricians and the plebeians. And again, it's a very stalemate situation. While it doesn't seem to be going that brilliantly for them, the tribunes of the plebs are definitely holding their own, unnamed as they are. They
Dr G 55:15 are. They seem to have denied a levy, but we also have citizens who are volunteering to go on some counter raid. That's
Dr Rad 55:23 true. But from where are they? The ones that had their stuff stolen? Well,
Dr G 55:27 Give me back my blanket.
I want my shoes, damn it.
Dr Rad 55:31 How am I supposed to walk anywhere?
Dr G 55:35 They say, walk a mile in his shoes, and you understand him. Understand myself without shoes. Yeah? So anyway, I don't know. Yeah, that's what
Dr Rad 55:46 I mean. It's very confusing. We do have the military tribunes refusing a levy. We have them postponing elections until they get certain assurances, which seem to have been somewhat successful because of this Licinius Calvus person being resurrected again, vanilla as he is. He is a plebeian vanilla bean.
Dr G 56:06 Well, I mean, if you have to have vanilla beans, let them be plebeian.
Dr Rad 56:10 Yeah, yeah. So there's a little bit of success there, but there is still a lot of war going on, yes.
Dr G 56:15 So as a citizen, it doesn't seem like it's the worst time, because it's not like that Romans having terrible losses on the battlefield, where you can be like, it's a horrible time to be a Roman city. They don't seem to be winning a lot either, no, except for the misplaced booty situation. So maybe
Dr Rad 56:34 two, yeah, I think that is fair. I think we also need to rewrite that famous line from Charles Dickens. It wasn't quite the worst of times. It wasn't quite the best of times.
Dr G 56:50 397, mediocre at best. Yeah,
Dr Rad 56:54 and that means Dr G that we have a total of three out of 50 Golden Eagles for Rome. Well,
Dr G 56:59 that's quite low Rome, but maybe next year will be redemption.
Dr Rad 57:04 It's one of those things because I'm like, actually, this was an interesting year in some ways, but it just wasn't really going anywhere. It was like the holding pattern. Look this once again, could be Livy padding the narrative a little bit, until we get to the very big year of 396, he's in a holding pattern. He's circling. He's circling a very big story not ready to come into land yet.
Dr G 57:29 Yeah. He's like a little vulture just waiting for the 10 years to be up so he can start telling this tale about how
Dr Rad 57:36 How dare you He's an eagle.
Dr G 57:39 Either way, either way. Yeah,
Dr Rad 57:41 all right. Dr, G, well, that is 397 wrapped up, and I am extremely excited to talk to you about 396 because I have indicated a number of times I have you it's going to be a big one.
Dr G 57:53 Oh yeah, looking forward to it. You.
Dr Rad 57:55 Music. Thank you for listening to this episode of the Partial Historians. You can find our sources sound credits and an automated transcript in our show notes. Our music is by Bettina Joy De Guzman. You too can support our show and help us to produce more fascinating content about the ancient world by becoming a Patreon or buy us a coffee on ko fi. In return, you receive exclusive early access to our special episodes. Today, we would like to say salve to Taurus, Vicky, the Mercian People's Front and Gail some of our recent Patreon and Ko fi supporters. Thank you so much for joining the partial band. However, if you lost all of your money betting on the wrong Gladiator, please just tell someone about the show or give us a five star review. And if you're looking for something delightful and rumin to read over your holiday break, you can grab yourself a copy of our latest book, your cheeky guide to the Roman Empire out now Until next time we are yours in ancient Rome. You
It's a brand new edition of the Partial Historians covering the Early Roman Republic™! And as the title ‘A Fabian Abroad' hints, the Fabians are back in the political scene!
The main playersConsuls for c. 467 BCE
Titus Aemilius Mamercus (cos. II), previously consul in c. 470 BCE
Quintus Fabius Vibulanus
Consuls for c. 466 BCE
Spurius Postumius Albinus Regillensis
Quintus Servilius Priscus (Structus) (cos II), previously consul in c. 468 BCE
Triumvirs for the granting of land… triumviri agro dando
Titus Quintius Capitolinus
Lucius Furius / Publius Furius Medullinus Fusus
Aulus Verginius
There's nothing we enjoy more than some controversy in the source material and oooo boy does the narrative get hazy with the return of a Fabian back in the scene. We explore some of the challenges with this situation in order to get a better sense of what might be happening in the family history.
It's Retro Year
The Fabians are not the only blast from the past worth considering in this year, but land reform is back on the agenda. The patricians have a great new plan for land re-distribution. We'll explore just what the plebeians seem to have thought about this and consider some of the consequences as they play out.
Stay tuned for the appearance of the Roman allies,the Latins and Hernicans!
What's Going on with Antium?
It's a good question and there are some issues with our sources about just how Rome is managing their recent conquest of Antium.
Antium is one of theimportant port cities of the Volscii to the south of Rome, so the conquest of this region is bound to have some far reaching implications.
If your suspicion is that things are about to get messy, you'd be right. We're on hand to sift through the controversies as Aemilius heads out towards Sabine territory and Fabius heads towards the Aequians…
Things to look forward to:
The challenges Rome faces with her relationship with neighbouring territories continues apace in the following year.
The increasing divergence in our source material
General diplomatic mayhem including the possibility of kidnapping!
Hear it all here! Episode 89 – A Fabian AbroadThomas Cole 1836 The Consummation of Empire from The Course of the Empire Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
It's getting quite tricky to find period-specific artwork for the early Republic, so instead of another map, we've gone for this gorgeous example of classical reception.
What kind of drama could follow the career of uber patrician Appius Claudius? As it turns out, those Romans are really all about battle after battle! We've reached a hazy period in our historiography where the narratives of Livy and Dionysius start to diverge on specifics; some events play out over different years depending on the author.
The general consensus amongst historians is that these narratives are a reworking backwards from the period in which they were written. The argument follows that they become less and less reliable the farther back they go. Be that as it may, it is clear that Rome and her neighbours are each struggling to expand and hold the territories. Rome's position of superiority in the region by the mid-Republic requires some explanation. And that's where we come in 🙂
Look Out for these Characters!
Consuls of c. 470 BCE
Lucius Valerius Potitus (cos. II)
Tiberius Aemilius Mamercus
Consuls of c. 469 BCE
Titus Numicus Priscus
Aulus Verginius Caelimontanus
Consuls of c. 468 BCE
Titus Quintius Capitolinus Barbatus (cos. II)
Quintus Servilius Priscus
Battle after Battle, you say. Yes, yes, we do say.
We pick up the narrative deep in c. 470 BCE with the military exploits of the consuls Lucius Valerius Potitus and Tiberius Aemilius Mamercus. Both have a mission:
Valerius takes on the Aequians;
and Aemilius heads toward Sabine territory.
The most significant event amongst these campaigns is a great storm, considered an omen by the augurs. This disruption effectively puts an end to the Roman's ambitions against the Aequians for this year.
New Year; New Rome?
c. 469 BCE is the consulship of Titus Numicus Priscus and Aulus Verginius Caelimontanus. Both are patricians, though the Numicii are later known as a plebeian family. Details about domestic politics are thin on the ground, but what we can be sure about is Rome's continuing tussle with the surrounding peoples. There are Volscii incursions into Roman territory, and the consuls sally forth to meet the threat:
Numicius heads south towards Volscian territory;
while Verginius heads east for the Aequians.
Antium – just a big old town full of Volscii?
The shoreline position of Antium means its a strategic city for Volscian operations. So its not surprising to see the Romans move in closer, taking smaller coastal settlements along the way. It's clear the Romans mean to take Antium…but not before the end of the year!
Vote? For a consul? Never!
c. 468 BCE sees Titus Quintius Capitolinus Barbatus and Quintus Servilius Priscus come into the consulship. Our sources differ on the election of these consuls and the also on the significance of agrarian reform in this year. Did the plebeians turn out for the election of the consuls or not? And if not, why not? Is land reform on the agenda this year or the following year? We consider the details!
Foreign threats continue to dominate proceedings:
Servilius marches against the Sabines;
Quintius takes on the Aequians and the Volscii.
There is a growing sense in our sources that the Aequians and the Volsci are banding together to fend off Roman aggression and this requires some special tactics from Quintius.
We are deep in the conflict between between patricians and plebeians. One of the important consequences of the current struggles seems to be an increase in the number of tribunes. Dates for these kinds of things are very hazy indeed and there's good reason to think that our sources, Dionysius and Livy, are both invested in offering a coherent narrative for why things are the way they appear to be by the late Republic.
With those sorts of caveats in mind, there appears to be five tribunes according to Livy: Gnaeus Siccius, Lucius Numitorius, Marcus Duellius, Spurius Icilius, and Lucius Mecilius!
We jump back into the narrative part way through c. 471 BCE. Our consuls are Titus Quintius Capitolinus Barbartus and Appius Claudius Sabinus and they represent different approaches to political engagement with the plebeians.
Ideological Differences?
Quintius is moderate in his outlook while Appius Claudius is staunchly in favour of tradition. This has evident implications which we'll explore in detail! Quintius leads forces against the Aequians in the east and Appius leads his forces against the Volscians in the south east. We explore just how differently things go for the two consuls in the field. This discussion includes:
the role of antesignani troops who go “before the standard”;
the importance of the standards;
decimation, its implications and Roman attitudes towards it;
booty (treasure) in terms of size.
New Consuls, New Problems?
c. 470 BCE kicks off with new consuls, Lucius Valerius Potitus (consul for the second time) and Tiberius Aemilius Mamercus consul. Both these consuls come with a bit of history to bring to the table and this makes things much more intriguing.
It's at this point that our sources start to reveal something of their agendas. We tousle with the potential holes in Dionysius' account about the rationale for people's actions.
It will come as no surprise that agrarian reform is back on the table! The tribunes are interested in seeing the audit of the public land, first proposed in 486 BCE, take place. With new impetus with new consuls, the idea of reform is taken up by the Senate.
Speakers in the Senate
Notable speakers in the senate on the issue of land reform include:
Lucius Aemilius Mamercus, father of the consul possibly still bitter about being denied a triumph in 478 BCE
Appius Claudius, everyone's favourite patrician to hate on
We delve into the details of their arguments and explore the most intriguing consequence of them, which is the tribunes levelling a number of charges against Appius Claudius. You'll want to listen closely to learn just how things go from there: The Rise and Rise of Appius Claudius
For this episode, Dr G is reading Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 9.50-54 and Dr Radness is reading Livy 2.57-61.
This map covers Rome through a number of historical periods. In the 5th century BCE, Rome was the dark red area. Map of Rome during Antiquity 1886. Source: G. Droysens Allgemeiner Historischer Handatlas. Image Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.