Did the Romans do fundamental math too, & if so, what kind?

This question comes from a philosopher (@PhiLoThough) and a physicist (@ThePhysicsMill). People interested in The Big Questions. Questions about the nature of reality itself. About the universe. About fundamentals. They think about gravitational waves and universal truths and everything in between. And both are (I assume, which I shouldn’t do but it fits where I’m going with this so I hope I’m broadly right) part of massive international academic systems, based on centuries old ideas of curiosity, inquiry, scientific philosophies and the unending desire of man to understand his world. And so, they wonder how the Romans thought about their questions and – perhaps – wondered why there are no Roman Pythagorases or Euclids or Archimedeses (there’s a word that was never meant to be a plural). Because there aren’t. You never learnt a formula in GSCE maths that was named after a Roman, or memorised a rule that was named in classical Latin. And why is that?

If the Romans had made the Matrix

The short answer to this is very simple. They did no maths that wasn’t basically adding up, and literally did not care one bit beyond that. Indeed, a mathematician once said that if you read world history through contributions to maths, you’d not know that the Romans existed. And it’s true. The Romans had a staggering lack of interest in the fundamentals of mathematics, or of the universe or really of anything. The Romans were so poor at maths – and this is also the reason that we now use an Arabic number system and a Latin alphabet – that they didn’t have a zero. The mathematical concept of zero literally never occurred to them. No use for it. Admittedly the concept of 0 is bloody complicated. I’m certainly not touching it because – as I learnt from dating 2 theoretical physicists – maths scares me and makes me want to lie down under a blanket with a glass of wine and possibly cry a bit. But still, I’m just one woman with self diagnosed dyscalculia (like all the cool kids); an entire civilization and they didn’t even bother with it? That’s poor Romans. Poor.

Which answers that question doesn’t it. NOPE NO MATHS. Next. But there are two interesting things in that short answer. 1. Given that the Greeks were really good at fundamental maths, why were the later, superior (don’t @ me) Romans so bad at it? And 2. If they were so bad at maths, how were they so good at engineering?

So let’s deal with these shall we. Take up some of your afternoon.

Question 1. Given that the Greeks were really good at fundamental maths, why were the later, superior (seriously, don’t @ me), Romans so bad at it?

The most complicated rule in Roman maths.

The Romans were bad at maths because they absolutely didn’t care about it. The Romans were a staggeringly practical people. Just astonishingly uninterested in Big Questions. As far as the Romans were concerned, there was absolutely no need to question things because God did it. Or more specifically, innumerable gods did it. Infinite numbers of big and little gods and spirits. If gods couldn’t be immediately ascribed something, then it was probably magic.

This is something that is vastly underestimated now about the Romans, now we’ve reconceptualised them as either sex crazed, syphilis ridden knobbers or white toga’d British men with neat hair, paragons (*cough*) of the Glorious Empire (*cough*). In our imaginations, they’re still basically like us, by which I mean academics of western history. They’re white, they’re middle class and they’re pretty secular. They’re completely wrong. The Romans were religious and superstitious as fuck. To a weird degree. You know that woman your mum knows who wears a lot of purple and reads books about crystal healing and says she has an angel on shoulder and that some places have bad energy? She’d be considered to be borderline atheist by the Romans. Religion – by which I mean a true faith in the existence of supernatural, immortal beings, spirits, and powers who interacted with the physical world – permeated every facet of Roman life whether we acknowledge it or not.

Pliny the Elder wrote the greatest scientific work of the entirety of Roman civilisation: the Natural History – considered science simply because it’s got no ACTUAL gods in it(1). It Does however contain 12 entire books on plants and trees, one on magic, one on how great painting is, and chapters titled things like“Remarkable Circumstances Connected with the Menstrual Discharge,” Instances of Striking Resemblance,” and “The Most Chaste Maidens”, and not one mention of numbers.(2) The Roman concept of science was pretty damn different to ours is what I’m saying, and included painting. And grammar. And cool anecdotes that predominantly come from mythology. But if you don’t straight up say God Did It then it’s science. As far as the Romans were concerned everything was already explained. Gods. Or magic. Or both. Probably both. The Roman view of the world is basically the same as that of Battlestar Galactica.  And why bother asking any more questions than that! The Romans mostly thought that the Greek preoccupation with such things that seemed to have no practical application was more than a bit suspect and probably bad for you.


Which brings us to question 2:

If they were so bad at maths, how were they so good at engineering?

The Pantheon outside

For all their embarrassing rubbishness at fundamental maths, Romans were spectacularly good at engineering and this is what I think is very cool and interesting about them. Without ever having the concept of 0 or any access to any maths higher than arithmetic, Roman civilisation invented spectacular feats of civil and military engineering, including aqueducts, dams, watermills, massive paved roads, hydraulic mining, and all kinds of mad shit for killing large amounts of foreigners as quickly as possible. In addition to this, they managed to work out some pretty impressive physics, basically inventing the freestanding arch and dome. The dome of the Pantheon in Rome, first built by Agrippa and rebuilt by Hadrian, is a staggering feat of architecture and engineering. It is a PERFECT 43.3m sphere made out of concrete. In order to reduce the load so it stayed up, the concrete gets progressively lighter as it rises, and hidden chambers throughout the dome support it. The Pantheon impresses civil engineers and physicists today as a work of brilliant engineering. But they did it without mathematically working out anything at all. Because fuck it, this is practical stuff, we can bludgeon our way through.


And just think of how COOL and impressive aqueducts are. Water is drawn out of a source – possibly many miles away – and run through miles of stone using gravity alone, supplied to homes through piping, then run back out again, put through a sewage system and dumped into a different body of water. The gradient were carefully worked out so that the flow of water didn’t overwhelm the aqueduct and to keep the speed slow and steady. All done with finger arithmetic and a dodgy looking spirit level. Could you do that? I couldn’t do that. I couldn’t do that if you gave me a youtube tutorial and a scientific calculator. And not just because I’m afraid of all the buttons on scientific calculators.


Engineering is the kind of problem solving the Romans liked. Theory and abstract concepts and intangible things were fancy-pants things that only rubbishers got involved in. Engineering a way to move water or make something cool or fire flaming balls of stone at a disobedient city was failing to recognise how much better it would be for them to be ruled by the Romans was the kind of thing REAL MEN did. In a way, Romans are like the people who write tabloid headlines that say BOFFINS or a deeply stereotypical “working man” who doesn’t see the point of university, deeply distrusts the concept of education or theory but by god can he put up a shelf. Basically, they’re a certain type of reddit commenter who thinks that certain types of education are just a waste of everyone’s time.  Not painting though, that’s important.

So the Romans broadly ignored the underlying principles that allowed them to build arches and calibrate aqueducts and fling big flaming stones and small flaming clay thingys really far, they just worked out how to do them with knowledge of tools and materials and spaces and assumed it was magic if something confusing happened.






  1. The other that is often mentioned is Lucretius’s Poem On the Nature of Things  because it seems to have physics in it. Lucretius is an Epicurean and his aim was thus to demonstrate that the gods had no impact on human life or natural events (in contradiction with deterministic philosophies like Stoicism which denied free will). He does not argue against the existence of deities, merely that they don’t impact humanity on the observable world. He is a naturalist and his science is broadly at the level of a 6 year old or an internet fan of Richard Dawkins.
  2. These are most of books 12-27, excluding the 5 about remedies; book 35; book 30. The chapters are 7.13; 7.10 and 7.35. It’s worth noting the Pliny himself was very sceptical of magic and astrology and considered it hokum, but the fact that he felt the need to include a discussion of it – and the striking similarities between the magic and medicine described – show how very pervasive it was amongst the Romans. The menstruation chapter is a great read for the ladies including insights about womb moles and the effects that menstruation have on women:

screenshot-www.perseus.tufts.edu 2016-02-16 10-57-03

Who Was the First Emperor?

Today’s question comes from Conor in Belfast, who is too shy to be on Twitter but likes to ask a lot of questions about the Romans anyway. Just follows me about asking questions. I’ve had to let him move in so he stops sitting outside my door. He asked this question because he knows that I have a willfully annoying, pedantic personal answer to it and because it lets me talk about two of my absolute favourite Romans. And Julius Caesar.


So let’s crack on. Who WAS the first Roman emperor? And why is this even a difficult question. I suspect that half of you have immediately scoffed at the premise and said Augustus, some have said Julius Caesar, some have got no idea at all and a few have seen that I’ve got someone else on this page already and are baffled. Which is good. That means you’ll read on. But the first issue that needs to be addressed is why is this even a question. It’s because the concept of the principate is considerably more complicated that perhaps you think. For a long time, there is not really such a thing as the throne as a singular thing that is inherited, because the principate isn’t one thing like a royal throne, it’s an enormous and complex collection of honours, topped by two invented specifically for Augustus, that set the holder of them all above everyone else. The honours themselves are not special, it is the simultaneous holding of them all that makes the emperor the emperor. This is where the term principate originates from, from the idea that the emperor is not REALLY a despotic tyrant with total autocratic power, but is in fact just agreed by everyone to be the Best and Most Trusted Senator. Principate derives from princeps senatus first used by Augustus, which broadly translates to first senator. Which is clearly hilarious, because there was no point in Imperial history that an emperor didn’t have a massive army at his back. But ho hum. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s consider our options.


Julius Caesar



Good old JC. Arrogant and pompous, incapable of writing about himself in the first person (like a berk), wearer of loose belts and red boots. JC is occasionally called the first emperor, partly out of misunderstanding and partly because Suetonius has him at the start of the Twelve Caesars. And in fairness, Caesar becomes a synonym for emperor so no one can be blamed for thinking that the one guy we still regularly call Caesar was an emperor. It’s yet another way that the Romans are unnecessarily complicated. But JC was never anything that could be considered an emperor in the Roman fashion. He was many thing, including perpetual dictator, and he was absolutely integral to the construction of the principate, but he was not himself an emperor.


The principate could not have existed without JC’s astonishing gall and arrogance, and his mistakes. JC constructed around himself massive amounts of military power, political power and (often overlooked) religious power. He set himself up as the descendent of a god (Venus), as an exceptional military genius and as a political powerhouse. It was his combination of these things that allowed him to eventually crush all his rivals for power, including poor old Pompey who was rather lacking in the terrifying, single-minded ruthlessness department. JC crossed the Rubicon and declared war on Rome which is a really quite astonishing thing to do. There’s no real modern day equivalent to this. Unless Prince Harry decided to attack Buckingham Palace with a load of his army mates. But this underlines both what was special and important about JC, but also what his massive problem was: a total lack of subtlety and tact. Marching into Rome with your army because the senate won’t do what you tell them (or because they’re threatening to prosecute you for all the illegal things you did) is a very unsubtle move. It screams that JC thought he was above the senate and above the law and a lot of people HATED that. Fairly reasonably.

JC exacerbated this anger and hostility after the whole “marching into Rome” thing had died down in two ways: firstly by giving himself a preposterous and dubiously legal title of Perpetual Dictator, a title that even Sulla (whose purge Caesar himself had fled from) hadn’t been daft enough to try.(1) Perpetual Dictator meant that JC had the power to do basically whatever he liked, and everyone openly knew it because it was his job title. It was, as I said, unsubtle. His second act of headdesk levels of tactlessness came with the infamous moment where Mark Anthony, in front of everyone at a religious festival, offered JC a crown. Again, this is an appalling and horrifying moment. the fact that the Romans revolted against kings and set up a republic was absolutely fundamental to their self image. The IDEA that JC could even be OFFERED a crown absolutely revolted the Roman people. And that’s what got him totally stabbed.


So Julius can’t be our first emperor, because any time he tried to exert a little imperial power, he did it awkwardly and got himself killed. He also wasn’t technically able to install a successor. Augustus had to take that for himself.




Augustus is a much better answer and it is definitely much easier to argue that Augustus was the first emperor. Augustus saw what his adoptive (posthumously)father did wrong and learnt from it. And he made sure that every drop of power he gained for himself was legal, had long precedent and was normal. Until Augustus took the name Augustus, every other office and power he held was technically granted by the senate (albeit sometimes with menaces) and he turned down a lot of powers that were allegedly offered to him, including perpetual dictator. That’s why he could say, with an apparently straight face, despite it being laughably and blatantly untrue that he “refused to accept any power offered me which was contrary to the traditions of our ancestors.” Notably, Augustus would deny vehemently and to his death that he was an emperor or that he was an autocrat of any kind. As far as Augustus was concerned, he had just HAPPENED to be the best Roman and everyone just kept INSISTING that he have all the power and doing whatever he said just because they RESPECTED him so much, and no don’t look at the army back there behind him, everything is fine and normal and the republic has been restored. And gosh does he put a lot of effort into reminding everyone that he’s not in charge unless they want him to be.


Augustus’s public autobiography is the centre of his reimagination of himself (which I’ve talked about with awe before) and he carved it on stone and bronze in two languages and put it on temples. Because you know, he was just an ordinary bloke. Doing things ordinary blokes do. It’s called the Res Gestae (broadly, Things Done) and is a cracking read if you enjoy spin.(2)


Now, a lot of the things that make Augustus the first emperor are the things he doesn’t quite say, in the Res Gestae, but the things he sort of implies. He collects a huge amount of honours, official positions and powers over a long period of time. He is consul, imperator, tribune, censor, pontifex maximus, oversees the morals of the Roman people, oversees the corn supply, holds a long list of priesthoods and religious offices. All this he admits. But more importantly, he starts handing out these powers to members of his family, like his wife. And anyone he thinks he could make his successor, so his right hand man, his grandsons, literally any male that is in the same room as him, and then right at the very bottom of that list, written in pencil and deeply grudgingly, Tiberius. It’s this process of picking a successor to his position as Princeps Senatus that sets him apart from any of his autocratic predecessors and marks his power out as different and as the beginning of an imperial family.


So Augustus was the first emperor in a lot of ways: he created role of the principate as something that – in name – was entirely constitutional and legal with the Republic, but at the same time was entirely new and concentrated power in his hands. Equally, he constructed his powers in such a way that they were something that could be – gradually – handed over to a successor. Augustus starts planning Tiberius’s (again, his absolute last choice as an heir) succession a full decade before he died so that Tiberius will have many of the necessary powers before Augustus dies. But, all this happens because Augustus has to constantly pretend that he was not an emperor or monarch of any kind. He pretends, as hard as it is possible for a man to pretend, that he is an equal citizen. And for that reason, I have a deliberately contentious argument for the REAL first emperor…




Now I can immediately feel at least five people wrinkle their foreheads and scoff, maybe because I’ve skipped Tiberius and maybe because they know of my near obsessive love for Caligula and think I’m grasping at straws to include him in literally everything I write regardless of appropriateness. Well I fi on your doubts, because I have good(ish) reasons for this.


My first reason is that Caligula is the first emperor who is given all his powers in one lump at the start of his reign. While Augustus and Tiberius had to work for years to gradually build up their stock of offices and powers so as not to tip anyone off that they were in charge, Caligula overnight goes from living on an island with no power, no access to the senate and nothing but a name to holding all the powers that Augustus held. For the first time, the Princeps stops being a name for someone who holds a lot of positions, but a position in its own right, that has its own powers. Caligula earns nothing, and does not get to be princeps by doing anything (even Tiberius was an exceptional general). He is just an heir, who inherits his throne because of his great-uncle.


My second reason is that Caligula is the first emperor who has absolutely no experience of the Republic or of working with the senate, and so he is the first emperor who ACTS like an emperor. Caligula was born in 12AD, two years before Augustus died, and grew up in a world that was already getting used to the idea of a monarchy in practice if not in name. Caligula only experienced a world where his family ruled the world and everyone bowed to them. By the time Caligula becomes princeps in AD37, the monarchical system had been going for over 60 years, the throne could be properly inherited without too many lies, and he saw no reason for pretense anymore.  


In addition, Caligula had no experience of the pretense that Augustus lived for 40 years and that Tiberius got so bored of that he ran away to an island. Caligula was kept as a legal minor until he was 19 and was given his toga virialis after he was called to Capri (more on that and Caligula in general here).He then spent years pottering about a tiny rocky island doing essentially nothing and definitely not being involved in the politics of Rome or the running of an empire. And he’s with Tibby, whose opinion of the senators is roughly the same as my opinion of the slug that hangs out in my living room when I’m asleep. So Caligula doesn’t even know how to do the pretense that he’s not an emperor. He’s never seen anyone do it. Which is why Caligula goes a bit overboard with the tyranny thing. Caligula has no time or patience for senatorial bullshit or letting them pretend that they still have any real power or really listening to them whinge on at all (with which I empathise. Just stuck in a room with 500 very rich dude banging on for hours. I’d have them all killed too).


So, Caligula is the first person to inherit all the imperial powers in one go, he’s the first person to have never experienced the world before the principate, and he’s the first to act like a proper emperor without any of the performance of a republic. This is what makes him, in a way, the first real emperor. It’s also what gets him killed, but hey. There’s always risks.


  1. Sulla was a precursor to JC and Augustus. He was a military man, fought in the East and then marched on Rome twice, terrorised everyone into letting him rule as a dictator, made a lot of constitutional changes and then – crucially – retired to a comfortable private life in the countryside, allegedly living a happy wee three-way with his wife and his boyfriend until his natural death in his own bed. Two further good facts about Sulla: his epitaph read “No friend ever served me, and no enemy ever wronged me, whom I have not repaid in full”. Which is #goals tbh. And he was kinda banging hot: 8051797

2. The Res Gestae is a very boring read if you think it’s honest and absolutely hilarious when you know what he’s referring to. Like when he says he restored liberty to the Republic. Or the bit where he claims that he was happily given the consulship at the age of 19 as if he hadn’t terrorised the senate into doing that. Also he had it carved on bronze and nailed to temples across the empire which is really quite BREATHTAKING as a move. You can read it in Latin, Greek or English here.


My Life, In Romans

The thing that I know most about in this world is Romans. I love the Romans with the kind of fiery passion that most people reserve for their children, pets and members of One Direction. I started studying Romans by chance, because my Sixth Form College offered trips to Greece and Italy as part of the A-Level course and that seemed like fun (it was), and in the first couple of weeks was introduced to Suetonius, Bob Guccione’s Caligula and the first Triumvirate and I was falling. By the time we went to Italy six months into my A-Levels I had fallen so hard for the Roman world that I could never be saved. Twice since then I have tried to stop studying my beloved Romans. I tried to do a psychology degree, and lasted a mere 8 weeks before I quit to return to Augustus’s sweet embrace. At the end of my BA, I tried to be a librarian. I hadn’t even started the MA course before I realised that I needed the Romans more than libraries would ever need me and did a Masters and a PhD in Late Antiquity instead.

The Romans have everything I like about humans and the world. They are brutally ruthless, to an extent most people can’t believe; they have an ambition and belief in their own greatness which is awe-inspiring; they have an inventiveness and verve and fizzing, continual activity throughout the empire that – to me – gives them a level of humanity that is exciting and hilarious and frightening. They are nothing like us and everything like us. They complained about the young people, and wrote novels about men becoming donkeys. They crucified dogs and buried men and women alive. They wrote poetry and philosophy and terrible plays. They accused their leaders of everything from incest to forgery to the premeditated murder of houseflys (trufax). They conquered the world in the first century and, in so many ways, they still rule it today. I named my fish after the First Triumvirate (they died in reverse order). I have a cat named after Augustus’s wife. I visit the bust of Augustus in the British Museum as often as possible, sometimes weekly, just for a chat. I like them, is what I’m saying.

Now, I’ve completed a PhD on the end of the Roman empire, written a bunch of articles, given more than enough conference papers, bored anyone who’ll stop to listen to tears talking about my research, read thousands of books and articles, am writing two books and have consumed every piece of Roman themed media I can get my tiny little hands on and I can’t stop. So, I thought, one day at my desk (bed), why not turn this into entertainment. I get a lot of odd questions when people find out that I am a Roman historian and I answer them as best I can while tipsy or eating or on OKCupid. But here, I can do that with references! And who doesn’t love references, right? So bring me your questions, your queries, your huddled misconceptions and I shall apply my years of education and angry devotion to answering them. It won’t be funny, but it will be fun. 

Julius Caesar

> Why is Julius Caesar better known to “us non Roman studies PhD people” than other emperors? – @Daveycam89

Right, first things first: Julius Caesar was not an emperor. I know this contradicts everything you were taught in school, and I know his name is LITERALLY Caesar and we’ve all been told that Caesar is Kaiser is Tsar is Czar and that means emperor all the time, but trust me on this one. Julius (or JC as I like to call him, because I’m fun) was at various times pontifex maximus, consul, proconsular provincial governor, general and dictator for life (and was impressively, relentlessly corrupt in all these roles) but never emperor in the Roman sense. Got that? Good. I’ll do a post on how to become, and what defines, an emperor (it’s more complicated than you think) and then you’ll all agree with me.

But JC is still the most famous of the Romans. From over 1000 years of history, counting from the founding of Rome by Romulus in 753BC to the fall of Rome as a significant power in 476AD(1), and all the consuls, emperors, generals, men and women and children who lived during that time are remembered only in the shadow of Julius Caesar. And @daveycam89 wants to know WHY. And my answer is, lots of reasons, complicated reasons. But here are the main ones:

  1. JC is the winner of a war fought during the one of the most significant periods of Roman history;(2)
  2. There are lots of helpful, detailed narrative sources about Julius Caesar;
  3. He wrote about himself, which was rare;
  4. His great – nephew and adopted son Octavian, later Augustus, made a big deal out of his relationship with JC in order to create the illusion of legitimacy for his own power.

1. Significant period

JC is alive from 100BC – 44BC. His active period is 69-44BC. During that time he, and a few others, destroyed Roman Democracy through a combination of astonishing corruption, deeply selfish civil wars (JC pretty much invaded Rome because he was scared of being prosecuted for crimes he had committed while Consul a decade earlier and had a lot of debt. Wuss), pigheadedness and ego. This period therefore has it ALL. It has sex (3), it has wars, it has intrigue, stabbings, beheading, incest, gayness, bitchiness and pithy one liners (‘the die is cast’), and on top of all that, it has widespread, tangible, lasting effects. What all these things mean is that contemporary and successive writers love to write about it when examining how they got from the idealised Republic to the state of total imperial control. Which is an issue they really really like to write about.

2. Lots of sources

Which brings us to the second point. Not only did later Romans (& Greeks) like to write about JC and the crew with awe, so did his contemporaries. Mostly because they were horrified by JC’s behaviour. Even more importantly, people wrote lots of nice narrative histories of Caesar’s time, with a chronology and specifics. This is a significant issue with a lot of the rest of Roman history: the only detailed sources we really have are biographies by men like Suetonius and Plutarch. And while these biographies are illuminating in a lot of ways, the Roman approach to biography was neither chronological or honest but “thematic”. This means that piecing together whether things happened, when they happened or in what order or why is difficult and sometimes impossible. But not for Caesar, partly because…

3. Caesar’s Writing

Caesar wrote about himself. In the third person, like the egotistical nut he was, but nonetheless. This means we know what Caesar did, why Caesar says he did it, how Caesar wanted to present himself and be remembered (as a badass general mainly), all of which gives us an intimate insight into Caesar’s personality and mind that we don’t have for any other leaders of the Roman empire. We know first hand his side of the story,(4) and that is – when we think about it – facemeltingly exciting for Roman historians. Certainly it was great for historians in the olden days, before postmodernism happened, when a large part of academic history was rewriting ancient sources in English and making some statements with an authoritative tone. But even more significantly for this question it is IRRESISTIBLE for popular historians, for the kind of authors you find on the non-fiction tables in Waterstone’s who write history like novels, and indeed for the novelists themselves. The first hand account of a vitally important war? Why, I can rewrite this in my own words and call it historically accurate and let it sell itself!

On top of JC’s own writing, there are an enormous number of contemporary poems, stories, histories, speeches, letters and plays by people like Cicero, Lucretius, Pliny the Elder, Catullus, Virgil, Ovid, Horace and Sallust that give the first century BC a colour and life and detail that is sometimes missing from other periods of the Roman world. All of this adds up to make JC and the gang a very alluring prospect for writers, film makers and historians alike in the modern world.

So Caesar wrote himself to fame. But he also had help…

4. Use of Caesar by Augustus.

Mainly, his help came from his great-nephew Gaius Octavius, aka Octavian aka Gaius Julius Divi Filius Caesar Octavianus Augustus. Those of you who know a little Latin will spot the important bit here: Julius Divi Filius Caesar. Julius Son of God Caesar. This is central to Octavian’s rise from skinny 19 year old with sticky out ears to emperor of the world (along with a powerful ego, a relentless dedication to himself and a big army): he had Julius deified. Which, given that JC had been murdered by several state actors was pretty damn impressive for a kid. He also declared that he was JC’s adopted son (illegally as he was adopted posthumously in JC’s will), thus making himself a son of a God, and who can compete with the son of a God? May as well try to fight Aeneas himself. Damn Octavian was good. This use of Caesar’s dictatorial and military power as the legitimising mechanism for Octavian’s power, which then becomes Augustus’s Imperial power, places JC at the idealogical centre of Imperial power for the rest of the empire’s lifetime. In the 4th Century, when Diocletian decided to institute radical reforms by splitting the empire between two co-Emperors, each with a sub-emperor, the emperors were given the title Augustus, and the sub-emperors were titled Caesars. So, this bold (and, had it gone wrong, completely mad) decision by Octavian to use JC’s name so overtly in his bid for ultimate power is what makes Caesar the modern byword for imperial power in three languages and most modern fiction.


(1) The date is of course open to interpretation and there are at least three other dates which could be used (312, 410, 526AD). This marks the date that Odoacer, king of the Ostrogoths, quietly and politely stripped the Western Roman emperor Romulus Augustulus of his power and sent him out of Rome thus marking the official administrative end of the Roman empire in Rome.

(2)I know that Romanists are going to argue with me on this one and talk about Tarquin and the end of the kings (maybe mythical), and Late Antiquiarians are going to splutter about either Diocletian or Constantine and you’re both right, ok.

(3) Caesar and Cleopatra mainly, but Pompey also caused a scandal by falling too heavily in love with his wife, JC’s daughter and embarrassing himself. The Romans weren’t a particularly romantic people, ironically.

(4) We also know that he was killer tedious: all together now Latin students “Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres”

The Best Roman

Who was the best Roman? @higginsmark

Naturally, this is a much more complicated question than it seems. How are we defining ‘best’ for a start? Most famous? Most revered? Most influential? Or my favourite? So I’ve decided to break this into categories: the person the Romans thought epitomised Roman-ness the best; the person I think was the most brilliant Roman.(1) It’s basically a super niche awards ceremony. With only two awards. And they’re both the award for Best Roman. Let’s begin!

Best Roman One: The Most Roman Roman.


Aeneas, Aeneas. Trojan prince, son of Venus, rescuer of fathers, loser of wives, abandoner of Carthaginian queens, founder of Lavinium and star of his own epic poem. That overachiever. And on top of all that, he got to epitomise everything the Romans thought was good about themselves. Aeneas was a Trojan hero in The Iliad, who escaped the sack of Troy with his father on his back and his household gods in his pocket  (his wife gets lost in the smoke and dies, but that’s ok because she would have held him back). Then he travels about, knobs Dido, leaves Dido, nips to the underworld, does some dueling over a lady and founds Lavinium in Italy. And each of these deeds underpins an aspect of Roman identity. Convenient! So, his descent from Venus makes the Romans the descendants of Gods, and his Trojan identity gives the Romans an ancient heritage which is very important to them. Newness and innovation are not cultural ideas that the Romans are into.

In his saving of his father, carrying the old man on his shoulder away from burning Troy, and bringing the Lares and Penates (household gods) he embodies the concept of pietas. Pietas is a virtue which is CRAZY important to Roman self definition. Cicero (super helpfully) defined it as “the virtue which admonishes us to do our duty to our country or our parents or other blood relations.”(2) Aeneas is the walking personification of this virtue from the earliest presentation of his story. Aeneas also upsets the Carthaginians by banging the queen and breaking her heart, causing her to cast a curse of perpetual enmity between Carthage and Rome. Therefore, Aeneas’s actions explain the Punic Wars, which were long, painful and scarring for the Romans. And finally, he founded Lavinium, from where Romulus and Remus came, thus is a father of Rome.

Aeneas is a centre of Roman self identity and idealised Roman-ness from around the 3rdC BC. But, to make this all the more convenient, Julius Caesar also claimed him as an ancestor and therefore got to claim, loudly and frequently, to be a descendent of Venus.(3)  Which meant that Augustus got to claim him as an ancestor, which is very, very useful to him. And when Virgil produces the Aeneid, it fits so perfectly into Augustus’s construction of himself and his Rome – and is such a gorgeous piece of literature – (4) that it cements Aeneas as the first true Roman and most Roman of Romans for the rest of time.

Best Roman Two: Most Brilliant Roman


I talked a bit about Augustus before, and I will talk about him again because the man was frankly amazing. It doesn’t feel like an exaggeration to say that there was barely an aspect of public life where Augustus didn’t excel to an awe inspiring degree.(5) In fact, if you’re over 19 and feeling a bit bad about yourself today, maybe don’t keep reading. Now dear Augustus, nee Octavian, leads a fairly unexciting life until he is 19. He lives with his grandmother, Julia Caesaris (this is what I’m saying about the Romans not being very innovative), until she dies, pootled about for a while until he crosses some enemy territory in Gaul, blows JC’s mind in the process and gets made Caesar’s primary heir. And shortly after that, JC gets accidentally brutally stabbed to death by all his friends, Octavian inherits lots of money and a dangerous name and all is well for Octy. Now a normal 19 year would perhaps mourn their beloved great-uncle, take the cash and maybe spend some time frolicking in one of their nice new houses hoping not be the next to fall onto 23 knives, but not Octavian. Octavian sees an opportunity.

Octavian travels to see JC’s troops, thieves some money from the state and starts building himself a loyal personal army, at 19. Which is obviously nuts. Especially as Romans have no respect for youth and energy. At the same time, he starts schmoozing senators and worthies at Rome, both the Caeserites and the anti-Caesars (6) because that’s how good at diplomacy Octy was – he managed to get JC acknowledged as a God AND befriend the men who had murdered JC. Except Brutus of course, who he sicked his army on. And won. And then having won, he marched into the senate, aged 20, and told them he was consul now. So, 20 years younger than the legal age, he took the highest office in the empire with an army at his back and a successful foreign campaign (*cough civil war cough*) under his belt. And if any of that had occurred to any of you as a viable option after the death of JC, I’m scared of you.

Once settled, he set up what is called the Second Triumvirate, splitting the empire in three between himself, Marc Antony and dude no-one remembers called Lepidus and to seal that deal executed up to 300 Roman senators and 2,000 equestrians (7) in a series of proscriptions against “traitors” but which also conveniently meant that the triumvirs got a huge amount of money from the proscribed’s estates. Which was quite spectacularly brutal and cold blooded way of funding your own personal bid for power. It make JC crossing the Rubicon look measured.

Having done all this, Octy sets himself up in Rome, and starts a campaign of diplomacy and propaganda against Antony, who has control of the east and is living in Egypt, so subtle and beautiful and effective that we still believe it unhesitatingly today. Octavian was such an extraordinary strategist and PR guy that he makes Don Draper look like an embarrassing rube in a stupid suit. Charles Saachi would cut off his own arm to have a thousandth of the skill that Octavian deployed to swiftly and effectively turn Antony from beloved son of Rome, general and statesman to wicked Eastern king who must be crushed in battle. Then he deploys his trusty sidekick, and genius military commander in his own right, Agrippa to squish them. And squish them he does.

Now, in just a decade or so, Octavian has raised an army at 19, insisted on ratifying an illegal adoption, taken over command of several Roman legions, led several civil wars across the empire, defied the will of the senate repeatedly, illegally taken the highest available office twenty years too early, carved up the empire openly and illegally between his allies, murdered innumerable Roman citizens for their money, broken into the temple of Vesta to undermine Antony (an appalling act of impiety), stolen the pregnant wife of a leading senator, (8) consolidated all the power of the Roman state and empire into his hands, and basically been a talented, single minded, terrifying upstart war-lord. And now he’s won, at 32 he has no-one left to fight. But this is Octavian, and he’s awe-inspiring and he;s been planning for this so he keeps promoting the idea that he is a man of peace (!) and conciliation and benevolence and sweetness and lollipops. And he succeeds. The teenage warlord becomes the elder statesmen (at 32), he’s given so many honours he can barely remember them. The senate love him so much they make up two new titles for him to emphasise how great he is: Princeps meaning first citizen, and Augustus meaning the illustrious, or most pious one. And in this way Octavian bested Julius Caesar by getting as close to being deified while still alive as it’s possible to get in Rome.

And this is how Octy stayed, as Augustus, leader of Rome and first emperor, until he died naturally in his bed in his 80s. The man who changed the world, invented the Principate, controlled the empire with an iron fist, while gently whispering to everyone that it was ok, they were in charge, he was just the kindly grandfather pottering about with his honours not doing anything. Augustus is the teenage warlord who crushed everyone using every tool he could, being brilliant at all of it, and then convinced everyone he was a teddybear. Augustus is the best Roman.


(1) I will do another post later about Romans I think are the most entertaining, and therefore best. This was originally included here, but I got over excited talking about Augustus and had no more room for my beloved Publius Clodius Pulcher.

(2) De inventione 2.22.66 This is the kind of incredibly useful thing that Romans loved to do because they were constantly trying to define what Roman-ness was and what the virtues which defined Roman-ness really were. This is because, for all our belief that the Roman world was some kind of static unchanging culturally hegemonic empire, it was actually in perpetual flux and therefore “Roman-ness” needed to be constantly reaffirmed.

(3) The Julian family claimed connection to Aeneas through his son, Ascanius aka Julus aaka Ascanius Julius. See where they’re going…

(4) Not the story, which is honestly a bit tedious. It’s very tedious. And I’ve yet to find a translation that allows me to enjoy it in English. But the construction of the Latin, the poetry and the beauty of the language are almost supernaturally perfect.

(5) He left a fair amount to be desired in his fathering though. I don’t think any of his natural or adopted children would buy him a Number 1 Dad t-shirt.

(6) They called themselves the optimates which basically means the best men, because they were the worst kind of boring bastards. Imagine calling yourself the best men.

(7) A sort of upper middle class. Today would be businessmen’s kids who go to Harrow, while the senate would the old money guys who become prime minister. Basically the senate: David Cameron; Equestrians:  Alan Sugar’s kids.

(8) Livia. It is said that she went with him willingly, having fallen for each other at a party, and certainly they stayed together til he died. Because apparently Augustus was great with ladies too.

Where Was The Roman Empire?

Where was the Roman Empire in relation to modern countries? @daveycam89

Another one for Cameron, because man that guy has a lot of questions. And because it’s quick and that’s important to me. Now, as we discussed previously, the Roman empire is not a static entity however much we try to insist it is by refusing to acknowledge how vast it was.  In terms of geography, the empire grows and shrinks over time by a variety of methods. Some by conquest, obviously, such as Gaul and some by more diplomatic means such as client kingships.(1) Judea is the most famous example of this, led by King Herod the babykiller but a Roman territory. And many rulers willingly entered the Roman empire, surrendering the autonomy because being in the empire was actually pretty enticing. I KNOW RIGHT! this is the opposite of everything the films taught us about imperialism!  Finally, a good conquest or two is always a fun way for an emperor to make a name for himself and a good excuse for some good architecture.(2) This means that the borders and boundaries of Roman power and influence are actually more porous and changeable than they first appear. But first off, a map. This is a very cool animated map showing the growth and shrinkage of the empire over 2000 years or so which I found on Wikipedia and wish I could take credit for.



As you can see the empire had a rapid growth. The Romans started crushing their Etruscan and Latin neighbours in the 4thC BC, and seemed happy with just that small amount of growth until some Gauls invaded and damaged their city. And that pissed the Romans off. For a really long time.(3) So they started messing up the rest of Italy to protect themselves. And once you control one area, well there’s another bit just across there isn’t there. What if they’re dangerous?  And now you’re drawing attention to yourself and pissing off locals by militarily crushing them and ruling their land. Better tidy up around here too so no one threatens you. And so it snowballs. Real fast. Then the annexing of Sicily brought them into conflict with Carthage, now Tunis, forcing them to develop a navy and fight a 120 year war with the North Africans which they EVENTUALLY won, giving them control of the Carthaginian empire. This covered Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Iberia, Libya, Cyprus,Sardinia, Corsica, the Balearic Islands, Crete and Sicily. A huge expansion that set them on the world stage as the leading Western imperial force and in control of the seas and trade routes.

This gave them a foothold in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and in Greece and Macedonia, allowing them to expand through the territories using a combination of military might and smart diplomacy. By this time the Romans were getting a little high on the thrill of conquest and beginning to fight for the joy and glory of winning all the time. So they start to turn on empires and kingdoms just for the fun of it marching happily through Europe, including Switzerland, Austria, the Dalmatian coast, now Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Slovakia and all those other wee countries that do badly in Eurovision.

Naturally this couldn’t last, and they were drawing attention to themselves and pissing off everyone around them. And as they were everywhere, there were a lot of people around them. There was constant trouble on the Western borders of Gaul and later the Eastern borders of Greek Turkey. After many long wars with Pontus, Pompey the Great(4) defeated Mithridates IV and gained control of the Pontic empire covering Turkey, Cyprus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, the Nackchivan Autonomous Republic, Georgia and some smidges of where Russia and Ukraine border the Black Sea. At the same time, our friend JC is conquering Gaul, causing the deaths of millions, and bringing the whole of mainland France and Belgium and also invading Britain for the first time.

The Period of Empire

And there expansions broadly stopped for a while. After Antony and Cleopatra died, allowing Egypt to be absorbed into the Empire, and some low level skirmishes on the German frontier around the Rhine Augustus decreed that the empire’s limits should not be expanded and nothing happened of significance for many decades. Until Claudius invaded Britain in 43AD and managed to control up to central Scotland on and off. Hadrian’s wall marks almost the northernmost point which was ruled by the Romans.

After Claudius’s great triumph, the Romans had to wait until Trajan became emperor in 98AD and worked relentlessly to expand the empire in the East until 117AD when he died. Under Trajan, who incidentally also had the silliest haircut of any Roman emperor and potentially any emperor ever, the empire reached its greatest extent. In particular he conquered the Dacians, centred in Romania, and their empire bringing Northern Macedonia, Bulgaria, Moldova, Romania and the rest of the Balkans under Roman control. He also brought in Nabatea, which spread as far south as Petra in Jordan and Syria, conquered Mesopotamia (Iraq, a little of Iran, Syria and Kuwait), and Assyria (the rest of Armenia) and Judea (Israel and the Palestinian Territories) became a full Roman province after a revolt. Mesopotamia and Assyria were both lost upon Trajan’s death and the empire shrank back to what felt like its ‘natural’ borders. 

The List

So here is the full, insane, very, very long, list of countries currently recognised by the UN (thanks Pointless) encompassed by the Roman empire at one point or another during this period:

  • Portugal
  • Spain
  • Andorra
  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Monaco
  • Luxembourg
  • Belgium
  • Netherlands
  • Germany
  • Switzerland
  • Liechtenstein
  • Italy
  • San Marino
  • Azerbaijan
  • Syria
  • Iraq
  • Kuwait
  • Cyprus
  • Lebanon
  • Jordan
  • Israel
  • Palestine
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Egypt
  • Sudan
  • Libya
  • Tunisia
  • Algeria
  • Morocco
  • Malta
  • Austria
  • Czech Republic
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Croatia
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Hungary
  • Yugoslavia
  • Albania
  • Greece
  • FYR Macedonia
  • Romania
  • Bulgaria
  • Turkey
  • Georgia
  • Armenia

And for those of you who read this far, here is a picture of Trajan’s laughable hair as a reward

Marble Bust in the British Museum

From a marble bust in the British Museum.


(1) where a territory has the image of autonomy and it’s own leader, but is politically and economically subordinate to the larger power.
(2) See Trajan’s Column, Marcus Aurelius’s column, The Arch of Titus (celebrating the subjugation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the second temple) and so on and so forth.
(3)  They were still talking about it centuries later as though it were recent. This is how into their heritage the Romans were.
(4) You may remember him from such moves as being a member of the first triumvirate, marrying Julius Caesar’s daughter and being beheaded on an Egyptian beach.


If you ask anyone with a degree in classics or ancient history about Troy, chances are they’ll tell you they hate it. Ohh it’s terribly inaccurate, they’ll say, coins weren’t even INVENTED in the bronze age! The Trojan war lasted for ten years not 3 days and it had gods in it, and no-one says rosy-fingered dawn even ONCE! Homer must be turning in his grave! They may shake their heads at this point and look sad. They may, if they’re an undergraduate and a bit hyperbolic, say it hurt to watch. Secretly however, most of them are lying to you. Professional classicists and historians bloody love Troy because it’s a ridiculous pile of tosh and it’s thus absolutely hilarious. Most of us gave up caring about accuracy a long, long time ago because worrying about “accuracy” is killer boring. Who REALLY wants a story to be told the same way every single time?(0) Even the Greeks didn’t bother with that. We WANT to see what people have done with the worlds and people and stories we love. We like it. (shhhh)

What’s appealing for people like me (aka, institutionalised overthinkers) is that Wolfgang Petersen and David Benioff decided to make a film that pins its heart on its sleeve, then spends three hours pointing at that sleeve and shouting “look look, my heart is pinned to my sleeve!” Which is brilliant for people like me, because it means we can write about it, and that’s our favourite thing. See look, I’m writing about it now. I could probably write a book about Troy, hell people HAVE written books about Troy, but for now I’m going to focus on things that I found most interesting when I watched last week during the train journey from hell.

In part, Troy’s openness about its intentions is because of Homer’s original text. It, along with the Odyssey (a better book, *cough cough*), ends up being a sort of codification of Greek culture and identity: what a good Greek person does in certain situations, what is important to Greeks and how to deal with things. Here’s an incomplete list of things that are important according to the Iliad and the Odyssey: Gods, correct religious observance, male honour, female chastity, wrath as a virtue, being a good host and being a good guest. One of the main reasons that the Trojans are bad guys in the book is that stealing your host’s wife is very poor guest behaviour.(1) And is a terrible, terrible insult to your host’s honour. Now, because the Iliad contains so much narrative that acts to provide examples of good or bad behaviour for Greeks, these exemplars have to be adapted for modern audiences with modern mores. Which means that any adaptation of the Iliad that is even tangentially faithful ends up being an accidental manifesto of idealised behaviour in a specific culture by the writer/director.

And so it is with Troy. And weirdly, as a result of this, the heroes and villains of the Iliad are flipped. Achilles becomes a selfish, oversexed bag of dicks, all threesomes and crop tops and waxing and being mean to small children. He is still a warrior, but now he’s described as a warlord and that’s definitely not a good thing. He is consumed with his honour, but personal and familial honour are now selfish and silly and pointless. Attributes the Greeks desired are, in Troy, reviled. The true villain though is Agamemnon, a power mad imperialist tosspot whose favourite things are crushing kingdoms beneath him, receiving presents from subject kings and raping ladies. All frankly weird(2). The Trojans meanwhile, spend their time being perfect kings (Priam), perfect sons /husbands/fathers/hairy hotties(Hector) and declaring that they’ll never be ruled by another nation while resisting the mad imperial desires of Agamemnon. This is the kind of narrative jiggering that is making Homer turn in his grave. The reason Petersen/Benioff had to come up with all this Greek imperialism silliness is that gathering a huge army, sacrificing your daughter and then spending a decade sitting on a beach staring at a city just for a girl seems totally bloody ridiculous to modern eyes. But Agamemnon does it, so we’re going to have to come up with a better reason. What’s the only reason Petersen can think of for doing such a thing? Money. But Money is bad? So the Greeks must be bad. Logical for sure, but also hilarious. And frankly, an uncomfortably intimate look into Petersen’s mind.

Which brings me to my second point. Petersen has to do all this because he has decided for some reason that he wants to make a “realistic” version of the Trojan war. One that conforms to his ideas of realistic rather than, say, a Greek’s or mine or yours. Which results in a tangle of plot wrangling and a whole lot of weirdness for a classicist. The first thing he does is take the gods out. If you’ve read the Iliad then you’ll know that this is the height of hilarity, because the gods in Homer aren’t just disinterested sky pixies, they’re characters. Main characters. Whose whims and arguments and powers have huge effects on the narrative. Several times, in order to save the lives of their favourites, they PICK PEOPLE UP AND MOVE THEM OUT OF THE WAY. Their interactions with each other and with the mortals are fundamental to the Iliad. But Petersen wants this to be “real” and “human” so gone they are, and with them half the book. Though the characters still talk about the gods plenty, as mystical forces unreachable and disinterested. Achilles himself is borderline atheist and openly irreligious (cutting the head of a statue is the kind of thing that would get you exiled in classical Athens incidentally), while at the other end of the spectrum is Priam, the doddery old man listening to omens and priests instead of good mortal logic. Hector fills Petersen’s ideal spot, as the agnostic who honours the gods but doesn’t let them dictate his life. As presumably Petersen does and in a way that is laughable in the context of the Iliad itself. But this is “real life” and the “real” Trojan war. And real life for Petersen doesn’t really include religion. Indeed, he has his Hector tell Paris that “Gods won’t fight this war for us.” Which, had he read the book, he would know wasn’t true.

The next bit of “realism” is that Paris and Helen have to be deeply in love with one another, properly. In a tragic, Romeo and Juliet, “I’m not afraid of dying, I’m only afraid of tomorrow, when you leave…” way. This means that they take up a good portion of the first bit of the film. You’d think the film was about them and their love affair from the first hour as Petersen desperately tries to convince us that they are a fated couple, crazy in love on both sides, both willing to die for the other; that Menelaus is a terrible child rapist that Helen has to escape from(3), and that Paris is a good catch despite being wimpy eyelinered twerp that only a Directioner could possibly fall for. Still, better than his Greek incarnation which is deranged woman stealer who sets out on a mission specifically to abduct Helen because Aphrodite said he could have her, thus massively pissing off Menelaus and Agamemnon and letting a war happen. Agamemnon’s mercenary imperial ambitions are linked to this new “realism” too, as I already said, if you were paying attention. A war for a girl is a rubbish reason once the idea of honour is cast as being petty. Again, Hector tells the audience what Petersen wants us to believe: “Only children and fools fight for honour” he tells Achilles, “I fight for my country.”(4) So Menelaus and Agamemnon have to have a “good” and “realistic” reason.

Which all brings us back to the beginning: as a result of all these little choices and decisions, a big decision was made to make the Greeks the bad guys. As the invading force,(5) led by the man Helen is running from and is frightened to return to, whose main warrior is horrible to children and refers to himself as inhuman. And then the Greeks win, and Petersen gets a bit pornographic with the gore. How many children do we really need to see thrown down stairs and women snatched up? The destruction of Troy is total and horrific, and we empathise with the fleeing Trojans (including Aeneas, who is given the special Trojan sword by Paris and manages to mispronounce his own name. Paris has to pronounce it right for him, and Paris is a complete moron so that doesn’t give one much confidence for Rome. Or for any imaginary Petersen adaptation of the Aeneid). Quite what the point of this is, I have no idea. Unless its the theory posited in footnote five, in which case Petersen is even more tedious than I suspect he is.(6)

All this comes together to make a ridiculous film, full of mad lines like “IMMORTALITY! TAKE IT! IT’S YOURS!” and “LOOK UPON ME AND DESPAIR!” and the repeated insistence that Patroclus is definitely definitely Achilles’ cousin and not his boyfriend, god I can’t believe you’d even think that how gross what’s wrong with you. Because apparently Petersen, and the culture he is representing here, is really, really uncomfortable with gay people. And for people like me, who have attempted to make their obsession with a dead world into a viable career, it’s brilliant, full to the brim of things to think about and fascinating new interpretations of a millennia old story. And while I could pretend to care about the general public’s reception of it, right now I don’t. And I’m going to watch it again. With a notebook.

(0) For a good recap of Troy, with comparisons to the various Trojan war myths, see my good friend Juliette’s blog.
(1) Of course, if you know your Greek mythology, you know that this isn’t entirely poor Paris’s fault. it was brought about by the Judgment of Paris. He was asked by the goddesses Hera, Athena and Aphrodite which was the most beautiful, because he was considered by the gods to be the fairest mortal alive. Each naturally offered him a bribe, because who doesn’t want to be the hottest goddess: Hera offered to make him king of all of Europe, Athena offered to make him a great warrior and Aphrodite offered him the most beautiful woman in the world, who was Helen. Paris picks Aphrodite, gets to take Helen home with him and causes a massive fuss for a decade and the deaths of thousands. Regrets, he’s had a few…

(2) Worth putting next to 300 too, which is fantastical but which I think the Greeks would have prefered as an image of themselves: they resisted imperialism fiercely and were independent to a fault. They rarely trusted the people from the next city over, and it took drastic threats like the Persians or the theft of a woman to unite them. This is the image you get in 300, while in Troy you are told that the Greeks united involuntarily, under the command of a dictator-king, an image the Greeks would have violently rejected. While we’re at it, I think the Greeks would have enjoyed the 300 depiction of the Persians as giants, literal monsters and sex fiends too.

(3) Interestingly, Petersen and Benioff have Helen declare that she was 16 when she was married to Menelaus. To an American audience, this likely sounds terribly young and is two years below the American age of consent. In much of Europe, 16 either is or is above the age of consent, and is the legal age of marriage. So, this throwaway line is a fascinating little glimpse into the way that Troy has been constructed to reflect the morals and mores of one specific culture and a specific point in time.

(4) Another little pointer that this film is a snapshot of a specific form of American culture. Honour is weird, Gods are distant and uncaring, patriotism above all.

(5) Only the laziest of viewers would suggest this was some kind of commentary on the Iraq war so I won’t.

(6) I’m pretty sure 5 is right. I could make a case for it, but I think I’d die of boredom. Was anything made between 2004 and 2006 that wasn’t an ill-informed, reactionary  commentary on Iraq?