Just watching the first season now (NO SPOILERS!) and I remember lots of people here had issues with it. So far I'm really enjoying it. I think they get the fundamental unknowability of Caesar perfectly. Their portrait of Mark Anthony's also pretty much what I imagined. I like the young Octavian, hints of the later prig, clearly thinking and ambivalent enough towards violence, as is right. I also think the depiction of the Roman religion and pleb-life is really interesting and fun.
What did everyone else think, or object to?
Loved every second of it. Deadwood without Milch but a more interesting subject.
The casting was brilliant; Ciarán Hinds and Kevin McKidd were perfect.
Loved almost every aspect of it. Kevin McKidd as a hardnosed centurion pulling out the desiccated genitalia of a German Sueboi warrior and placing it on the kitchen table, while casually remarking on their personal bravery was a very nice touch.
Quote from: Legbiter on April 11, 2009, 08:08:09 PM
Loved almost every aspect of it. Kevin McKidd as a hardnosed centurion pulling out the desiccated genitalia of a German Sueboi warrior and placing it on the kitchen table, while casually remarking on their personal bravery was a very nice touch.
I thought that was some kind of iron German religious phallus? It made a distinct "clank" sound on the wooden table, iirc.
Oh the character I'm least happy with (in terms of how they're being played and the acting) is Brutus <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2009, 07:42:39 PM
(NO SPOILERS!)
Caesar gets stabbed by Brutus and Cassius.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2009, 08:13:15 PM
Oh the character I'm least happy with (in terms of how they're being played and the acting) is Brutus <_<
He's better in the second season; but you're right, I was never really happy with the character Brutus.
Quote from: Savonarola on April 11, 2009, 09:04:41 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2009, 08:13:15 PM
Oh the character I'm least happy with (in terms of how they're being played and the acting) is Brutus <_<
He's better in the second season; but you're right, I was never really happy with the character Brutus.
Actually upon repeated viewing Brutus' character arc is the most interesting in Season 2.
Brutus was well-played and written. You guys are just uncomfortable because you see yourselves in Brutus. :D
Season 1 is better than season 2 but overall it's fun to watch. Brutus does improve in season 2.
Love the gladiator episode / scene with Pullo, Vorenus, and the Jew.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2009, 07:42:39 PM
I also think the depiction of the Roman religion and pleb-life is really interesting and fun.
Wiki has a pretty good episode guide going, which also explains the historical/social background of each episode and what they got right or wrong:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Stolen_Eagle
There's also a chronology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Rome_(TV_series)
(Not sure if those are the "old" Roman dates or "modern" ones, though; their calendar at the time was several months out of wack with the seasons already, I think)
I stopped watching after a couple episodes, not because I didn't like it, but because I borrowed the box to a colleague for copying. <_<
Quote from: Syt on April 12, 2009, 12:41:29 AM
I stopped watching after a couple episodes, not because I didn't like it, but because I borrowed the box to a colleague for copying. <_<
You mean you loaned it?
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on April 12, 2009, 12:54:16 AM
Quote from: Syt on April 12, 2009, 12:41:29 AM
I stopped watching after a couple episodes, not because I didn't like it, but because I borrowed the box to a colleague for copying. <_<
You mean you loaned it?
Yes, whatever.
I've received it back since then, but have yet to be back in an Ancient Rome mood.
I enjoyed it as well, understanding it to be a drama based on history, but historical per se.
I think most of us did like it...the only ones that didn't were the history grognards who demanded that it doesn't stray from any historical fact; and that there weren't enough battles. But, and it has been a while since I've seen it; there were some nice lesbian scenes in Season Two.
Enjoyed it alot. Keeping in mind that it was a historical drama, not history helps.
Quote from: Josephus on April 12, 2009, 07:49:21 AM
I think most of us did like it...the only ones that didn't were the history grognards who demanded that it doesn't stray from any historical fact; and that there weren't enough battles. But, and it has been a while since I've seen it; there were some nice lesbian scenes in Season Two.
I fell into the "not enough cool battles" camp. Too much jaw-jaw, not enough Legions.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 12, 2009, 07:49:21 AM
I think most of us did like it...the only ones that didn't were the history grognards who demanded that it doesn't stray from any historical fact; and that there weren't enough battles. But, and it has been a while since I've seen it; there were some nice lesbian scenes in Season Two.
I fell into the "not enough cool battles" camp. Too much jaw-jaw, not enough Legions.
Plenty of nekkid women though.
Quote from: Tamas on April 12, 2009, 10:06:45 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
I fell into the "not enough cool battles" camp. Too much jaw-jaw, not enough Legions.
Plenty of nekkid women though.
Even that gets old. And the giant wang didn't help.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 12, 2009, 10:05:29 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 12, 2009, 07:49:21 AM
I think most of us did like it...the only ones that didn't were the history grognards who demanded that it doesn't stray from any historical fact; and that there weren't enough battles. But, and it has been a while since I've seen it; there were some nice lesbian scenes in Season Two.
I fell into the "not enough cool battles" camp. Too much jaw-jaw, not enough Legions.
I'm a fan of I, Claudius which couldn't even afford more than 4 sets so the lack of battles and lots of talking isn't an issue for me :lol:
Over halfway on the first season. Brutus is growing on me, I like the sense that he's weighed down by his family name. I love Pompey.
giant wang or no giant wang, not to mention lack of battles, awesome series.
I also liked Brutus and Pompey, and in general I think all the major actors were successful in giving you a sense of the characters motives. I could not really name any which was a real disappointment.
Like Sheilbh, I am a big fan of I, Claudius, so also don't need a lot of bells and whistles to be happy. One thing though that annoys me in today's historical series (see: Tudors) is that some of them adopt a sort of "modern people in historical costume" approach, where everyone has perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin etc. How does "Rome" address this?
That doesn't hugely bother me. But, for what it's worth the characters here seem to look right as far as I can tell.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Like Sheilbh, I am a big fan of I, Claudius, so also don't need a lot of bells and whistles to be happy. One thing though that annoys me in today's historical series (see: Tudors) is that some of them adopt a sort of "modern people in historical costume" approach, where everyone has perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin etc. How does "Rome" address this?
Like today's historical series, and yesterday's, the characters have perfect teeth, skin, hair, etc. This doesn't annoy me, though. That's the way things have been done since acting became as much about looks as skill; i.e. since "Hollywood" began.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
where everyone has perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin etc. How does "Rome" address this?
Not a problem, most of the cast are British.
I enjoyed Rome after a while. It took me some time, though. First couple of episodes, I was really more interested in Polly Walker (Atia) and her boobs than the plot.
The casting was perfect, the plot better than average and I for one did not miss seeing lots and lots of battles just for the sake of it. The driving forces and development of the story was better served by keeping it somewhat low-key. And by that I don't mean the series were low-key, because it must have cost a fortune.
Also, Cicero isn't portrayed very flattering.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Like Sheilbh, I am a big fan of I, Claudius, so also don't need a lot of bells and whistles to be happy. One thing though that annoys me in today's historical series (see: Tudors) is that some of them adopt a sort of "modern people in historical costume" approach, where everyone has perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin etc. How does "Rome" address this?
Maybe. But the majority of people will probably not watch a tv series where the people were short, bald, and ugly with saggy tits and brown teeth.
The people need to be good looking, or the naked bits would be wasted. I mean really, when I see Octavia naked, I don't want to see underarm, leg hair and pubes that come up to her navel....
...but arguably, that's just me.
Indeed, I don't want to see ugly people.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2009, 10:17:30 AM
Like Sheilbh, I am a big fan of I, Claudius, so also don't need a lot of bells and whistles to be happy. One thing though that annoys me in today's historical series (see: Tudors) is that some of them adopt a sort of "modern people in historical costume" approach, where everyone has perfect hair, perfect teeth, perfect skin etc. How does "Rome" address this?
Do you mean just in the way they look or in the way they think and act? Because for the latter, IMO Rome does quite well, reflecting the totally different morality and way of life.
Good show by and large, though season 2 was weaker than season 1 (partly because Octavian 1 was better than Octavian 2, not just in acting presence but in the actual writing of the character). Still, the whole thing was good, it's a shame they canned it.
Quote from: vinraith on April 12, 2009, 12:07:05 PM
Good show by and large, though season 2 was weaker than season 1 (partly because Octavian 1 was better than Octavian 2, not just in acting presence but in the actual writing of the character). Still, the whole thing was good, it's a shame they canned it.
The writing was hurried in Season 2 because they had to end the series far sooner than they had planned. At least they
got to end it, unlike what happened to
Deadwood.
Interestingly, the series was supposed to shift to Judea in the third season.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2009, 07:43:29 AM
I enjoyed it as well, understanding it to be a drama based on history, but not historical per se.
Yep, that was my feeling as well. I liked it a great deal, and would watch it again.
Quote from: The Larch on April 12, 2009, 11:35:32 AM
Do you mean just in the way they look or in the way they think and act? Because for the latter, IMO Rome does quite well, reflecting the totally different morality and way of life.
Yeah this is what really impresses me, especially about the pleb characters. There's no ironic 'wink, wink' stuff about people behaving weirdly (as in the first couple of episodes of Mad Men). They present an utterly alien world and mindset with little to no explanation. I have a Classicist friend who loves it for the way they've tried to place what we think Roman customs and morality were into a real setting. In that sense I'd say it's better than I, Claudius which is primarily worth it for the acting (John Hurt as Caligula is a particular favourite of mine).
It's a shame they didn't continue. It really is a series that could run for some time more. Season 3 in Judea, season 4 about Tiberius and Sejanus and so on.
Quote from: Norgy on April 12, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
Also, Cicero isn't portrayed very flattering.
Yeah I noticed that. I think it's a good choice.
Generally the acting and the portrayals of these characters has been superb. I think Ciaran Hands as Caesar is brilliant. I love the characterisation of the young Octavian. Mark Anthony to me seems interestingly Shakespearean, but very good. I love Verinus (I think, the centurion) and his wife - that seems a really strong line.
As I say I have some issues with the way Brutus has been portrayed but I trust that it'll get more interesting.
Quote from: Norgy on April 12, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
Also, Cicero isn't portrayed very flattering.
The real Cicero was a hack and a dick.
We had a (long) thread about this in the 'other' forum, before the Change(TM); and I expounded at lenght about the various reasons why I detested the series. Though by the end of season two it had reached a unity of its own and I could bear Attia's antics, especially since they were alleviated by genuine drama (her last scene was poweful).
But I can't swallow the gratuitous liberties they took with what is known of the period:
Cleopatra whoring herself;
Octavia being used as a sex commodity;
the incest between Octavius and his sister;
etc
I have deleted the series from my hard drive but suffice to say that placating a modern american mindset on people dead for over 2000 years old is extremely annoying.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on April 12, 2009, 10:03:32 PM
I have deleted the series from my hard drive but suffice to say that placating a modern american mindset on people dead for over 2000 years old is extremely annoying.
G.
I guess Sheilbh has that modern American mindset since he enjoyed the show. ;)
Quote from: Grallon on April 12, 2009, 10:03:32 PM
Cleopatra whoring herself;
I don't think she's done that, in the first season.
QuoteOctavia being used as a sex commodity;
Well, she sort of was. A commodity to keep peace between families.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2009, 10:22:14 PM
I don't think she's done that, in the first season.
She fucked a ranker legionary... A Ptolemey smoking opium and getting banged by a common soldier - and not even a macedonian at that ! If you think english aristocrats were/are class conscious - try a queen of Egypt whorshipped by millions like a living godess. No, that was simply inconceivable ! And inserted there as a crass plot device.
Quote
Well, she sort of was. A commodity to keep peace between families.
You shouldn't confuse marriage commodity with sexual commodity. A daughter of the Julian house - albeit of a minor branch - paraded almost naked like a slave !?! And to another member of that very closed knit circle of roman aristocrats ? Yet another clumsy appeal to contemporary sensibilities fed with endless reality TV shows. :x
And don't get me started on how they portrayed Caesar !
Tcha !
G.
Grallon is exactly what I meant earlier when I said "grogrards and historical accuracy geeks."
I don't think anyone watches HBO to catch up on history. When producing a show, as others can attest, you have to appeal to as large a number of people as possible. Otherwise you're not going to get a return on your investment.
And the best way to appeal to the lowest common denominator (ie Languish) is to have lots of gratuitous sex...even if it's unhistorical. Hence all the outrageous historical inaccuracies in both the Tudors and Rome. But as long as there's lots of sex...and the babe's arent' historically hairy....who's complaining?
Quote from: Josephus on April 13, 2009, 06:41:26 AMand the babe's arent' historically hairy....who's complaining?
Why are people going on about this point? The Greeks, Romans, etc. did practice depilation.
Quote from: Norgy on April 12, 2009, 10:50:37 AM
I enjoyed Rome after a while. It took me some time, though. First couple of episodes, I was really more interested in Polly Walker (Atia) and her boobs than the plot.
:yes: :perv:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 07:26:07 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 13, 2009, 06:41:26 AMand the babe's arent' historically hairy....who's complaining?
Why are people going on about this point? The Greeks, Romans, etc. did practice depilation.
You have proof of that? I've seen modern day Italian and Greek women and if you're right,they certainly don't take after their ancestors.
Not handy, no. :blush:
Coincidentally, I'm re-watching it now - very entertaining, I think (though I still think I, Claudius is better ... though you gotta admit, Rome sure looks better!).
I love most of all the who feel of the piece, as someone already said the alien-ness of the culture. My least favorite bits are the roles of the female aristocrats - they did the whole woman-as-scheming-snake thing far better and more believably in I, Claudius.
The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me. I did sometimes wonder at how long stuff was taking - Vorenus' kids seemed to have unnaturally long childhoods! :lol: But my actual knowledge of the time-lines is pretty limited, so I was able to swallow that in the name of drama.
One thing that deserves mention is the opening credits, with the animated grafitti on the walls - I loved that. Very clever.
Quote from: Grallon on April 13, 2009, 05:54:14 AM
She fucked a ranker legionary... A Ptolemey smoking opium and getting banged by a common soldier - and not even a macedonian at that ! If you think english aristocrats were/are class conscious - try a queen of Egypt whorshipped by millions like a living godess. No, that was simply inconceivable ! And inserted there as a crass plot device.
No it wasn't. I think it was a suggestion of her Machivellian streak. Just before hand she talks about it being a pity that she couldn't be with Caesar given that she's menstruating and could have a child. She fucks a Roman for political not lustful reasons. I think that bits essential because without it she's just dippy and seductive, she's not calculating and manipulative - which Cleopatra needs to be.
QuoteMy least favorite bits are the roles of the female aristocrats - they did the whole woman-as-scheming-snake thing far better and more believably in I, Claudius.
Yeah. Atia and Servilia just don't hold a candle to Livia.
QuoteThe portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me.
I'm less annoyed now, the character's developed. But I don't know Brutus seemed too much of a flippant wag early on in the series. So I didn't find his stress at having to choose between Pompey and Caesar that believable.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
I'm less annoyed now, the character's developed. But I don't know Brutus seemed too much of a flippant wag early on in the series. So I didn't find his stress at having to choose between Pompey and Caesar that believable.
He does grow as a character as the series progresses. I have my problems with his portrayal - it's a bit of a spoiler though, so maybe I'll save it ...
So how does it compare to Tudors then?
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 08:40:49 AM
The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me. I did sometimes wonder at how long stuff was taking - Vorenus' kids seemed to have unnaturally long childhoods! :lol:
Yeah I think you're right. But it's probably best that they avoided the prosthetic ageing of I, Claudius :lol
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 09:41:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 08:40:49 AM
The portrayal of Brutus didn't bother me. I did sometimes wonder at how long stuff was taking - Vorenus' kids seemed to have unnaturally long childhoods! :lol:
Yeah I think you're right. But it's probably best that they avoided the prosthetic ageing of I, Claudius :lol
The price of having Derek Jacobi playing "Claudius" from a young teen to an old man ... a certain amount of willing suspension of disbelief over the makeup was worth it. ;)
In contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in
Rome.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2009, 09:36:04 AM
So how does it compare to Tudors then?
I haven't seen the Tudors, so I'm curious as well.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 09:03:32 AM
I think it was a suggestion of her Machivellian streak. Just before hand she talks about it being a pity that she couldn't be with Caesar given that she's menstruating and could have a child. She fucks a Roman for political not lustful reasons. I think that bits essential because without it she's just dippy and seductive, she's not calculating and manipulative - which Cleopatra needs to be.
There were plenty of other ways of showing this - other than turning her into a cheap whore. And btw the real Cleopatra was, by all accounts, quite plain. What made her interesting was her charm and intelligence. Instead, here we have a coy bitch that does nothing but sway her ass provocatively. If that's what you call Machiavellian then we'll have to agree to disagree.
In fact the way they chose to portray her touches what I've always detested about those historical recreation: hardly any effort is ever made to show us people that are different from us. Different and yet with whom we can ultimately connect because they remain human. No, far more easier (not to mention cheaper) to go for the most common denominator: sex. No mention of alien concepts such as "dignitas" (which drove Caesar's actions for instance), that would be potentially too offensive for an audience that beleives in the pseudo egalitarianism of our 'democratic' societies. But sex everyone understands. So let's throw in full frontal male nudity, incest and lesbianism and that should give the idiot viewers enough of a alien feel... <_<
But let me ask you the question: what makes it entertaining for you ? What exactly is entertaining in seeing people dressed in funny clothes behave exactly as they would in LA or London today ?
G.
Quote from: Grallon on April 13, 2009, 10:04:49 AM
There were plenty of other ways of showing this - other than turning her into a cheap whore. And btw the real Cleopatra was, by all accounts, quite plain. What made her interesting was her charm and intelligence. Instead, here we have a coy bitch that does nothing but sway her ass provocatively. If that's what you call Machiavellian then we'll have to agree to disagree.
What's Machivellian is that she's shown saying if she could be with Caesar now she would seduce him. Then she says she's menstruating and she just knows that they'd have a child. So she sleeps with a Roman, for the purpose of having a child, with whom she can then use with Caesar (and later Anthony).
And if your beef is with them not portraying the real, plain Cleopatra then bitch at Shakespeare and Plutarch not HBO :p
QuoteIn fact the way they chose to portray her touches what I've always detested about those historical recreation: hardly any effort is ever made to show us people that are different from us. Different and yet with whom we can ultimately connect because they remain human. No, far more easier (not to mention cheaper) to go for the most common denominator: sex. No mention of alien concepts such as "dignitas" (which drove Caesar's actions for instance), that would be potentially too offensive for an audience that beleives in the pseudo egalitarianism of our 'democratic' societies. But sex everyone understands. So let's throw in full frontal male nudity, incest and lesbianism and that should give the idiot viewers enough of a alien feel... <_<
I think there's plenty alien about it. The way religion is treated, the brutality of Roman life, I think the character of Vorinus who is almost an ideal Roman, the way slavery comes across, the importance, but also the cynicism of omens and auguries, but also that sense that Rome was an unruly demotic place that you get too rarely in depictions of the city. It may not be history but it's no worse than Suetonius or Plutarch.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 08:40:49 AMOne thing that deserves mention is the opening credits, with the animated grafitti on the walls - I loved that. Very clever.
Totally agree, I loved the credits sequence every time I saw it.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 09:59:34 AMIn contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.
That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.
Quote from: The Larch on April 13, 2009, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 09:59:34 AMIn contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.
That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.
I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 13, 2009, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 09:59:34 AMIn contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.
That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.
I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.
I thought they looked remarkably similar. :huh: Maybe my memory is slipping...
The second Octavius I thought looked remarkably like a younger Paul Bettany. I kept thinking of Dr. Maturin.. which is funny because when I looked at the first Octavius I kept thinking of Lord Blakeny.
Quote from: The Larch on April 13, 2009, 10:56:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 10:53:09 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 13, 2009, 10:44:32 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 09:59:34 AMIn contrast I found replacing young Octavian with older Octavian was a bit jarring in Rome.
That's something lots of people complain about, but I personally don't find it so outrageous, even if the aging is a tad abrupt.
I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.
I thought they looked remarkably similar. :huh: Maybe my memory is slipping...
I dunno, they look very different to me.
http://www.hbo.com/rome/img/cast/actor/season2/actor_simonwoods.jpg
http://www.hbo.com/rome/img/cast/character/character_octavian.jpg
Edit: one easy way to make them seem more similar would have been to give the second guy the same very distinctive curly blonde hair.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 10:00:21 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2009, 09:36:04 AM
So how does it compare to Tudors then?
I haven't seen the Tudors, so I'm curious as well.
I liked them about equally.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: The Larch on April 13, 2009, 10:56:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 10:53:09 AM
I'd have preferred the prosthetic make-up. After all, we've invested a lot of viewing time in the character, to have him replaced by another actor who doesn't look anything like him is a bit of a stretch - when all the other actors remain the same.
I thought they looked remarkably similar. :huh: Maybe my memory is slipping...
I dunno, they look very different to me.
http://www.hbo.com/rome/img/cast/actor/season2/actor_simonwoods.jpg
http://www.hbo.com/rome/img/cast/character/character_octavian.jpg
Edit: one easy way to make them seem more similar would have been to give the second guy the same very distinctive curly blonde hair.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F3%2F39%2FHBOoctavian.png&hash=c5063732df6aa00db204c09be6d59b2c88e43795)
I don't find them so dissimilar, save for the curly vs straight hair.
Your coding hurts my brain. :lol:
I agree that the hair is the most obvious and glaring difference (plus easy enough to change with a wig), but beyond that they do not really resemble each other much to my eyes at least.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 11:18:04 AM
Your coding hurts my brain. :lol:
I agree that the hair is the most obvious and glaring difference (plus easy enough to change with a wig), but beyond that they do not really resemble each other much to my eyes at least.
Corrected it. :P I still have to learn the ropes for the new board. :lol:
Quote from: Josephus on April 13, 2009, 06:41:26 AM
I don't think anyone watches HBO to catch up on history. When producing a show, as others can attest, you have to appeal to as large a number of people as possible. Otherwise you're not going to get a return on your investment.
Um yes they do. Most people do not read history so where do they get their history from?
I find it hard to believe that any big fans of Rome were not already history buffs to begin with.
"OMG this show is teh gross! Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker are nowhere to be found!" :bleeding:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:44:54 AM
I find it hard to believe that any big fans of Rome were not already history buffs to begin with.
"OMG this show is teh gross! Jennifer Aniston and Sarah Jessica Parker are nowhere to be found!" :bleeding:
I know plenty of people who love period movies and shows but otherwise do not have much interest in reading further.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 11:46:04 AM
I know plenty of people who love period movies and shows but otherwise do not have much interest in reading further.
:yes:
Maybe, but in my experience those types are into Shakesperean and/or Edwardian type shit.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2009, 09:36:04 AM
So how does it compare to Tudors then?
The Tudors is, for lack of a better word, a bit trashier. It also takes more liberties with the history. Still, the acting's quite good and it's entertaining enough to watch.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
Quote from: Josephus on April 13, 2009, 06:41:26 AM
I don't think anyone watches HBO to catch up on history. When producing a show, as others can attest, you have to appeal to as large a number of people as possible. Otherwise you're not going to get a return on your investment.
Um yes they do. Most people do not read history so where do they get their history from?
I wouldn't be totally horrified if the average person learned about Roman history from
Rome. It certainly isn't totally accurate but its
themes are not inaccurate.
Yeah, for example they'll come away with the impression that Cleopatra had a kid fathered by a random Roman centurion. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:50:52 AM
Yeah, for example they'll come away with the impression that Cleopatra had a kid fathered by a random Roman centurion. :)
Heh, I think the average person will have figured out that Vorinus and Pullo are
fictional characters. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 11:54:44 AMHeh, I think the average person will have figured out that Vorinus and Pullo are fictional characters. :lol:
Incorrect.... when I was doing reenacting a ton of people asked me to tell them more about the 'historical' figure of Maximus. :bleeding:
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 11:54:44 AM
Heh, I think the average person will have figured out that Vorinus and Pullo are fictional characters. :lol:
They are fictional but the names are not. There were two soldiers with those names mentioned in Caesar's Gallic War commentaries.
Quote from: PRC on April 13, 2009, 11:58:40 AMThey are fictional but the names are not. There were two soldiers with those names mentioned in Caesar's Gallic War commentaries.
Yeah, don't they come from some anecdote about how the one guy saved the other and Caesar commended him for that, or something? I have a dim recollection about this.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:56:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 11:54:44 AMHeh, I think the average person will have figured out that Vorinus and Pullo are fictional characters. :lol:
Incorrect.... when I was doing reenacting a ton of people asked me to tell them more about the 'historical' figure of Maximus. :bleeding:
That's a lot more understandable - the man is portrayed as being a prominent general (and indeed there were plenty of generals named "Maximus"). The liberty taken there is a lot greater.
Pullo & Vorenus are more like Zelig - they are always hanging around important people, but are not portrayed as themselves being particularly important.
Quote from: PRC on April 13, 2009, 11:58:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 11:54:44 AM
Heh, I think the average person will have figured out that Vorinus and Pullo are fictional characters. :lol:
They are fictional but the names are not. There were two soldiers with those names mentioned in Caesar's Gallic War commentaries.
Yup, I'd read that. But their names are all that is real.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:56:24 AM
Incorrect.... when I was doing reenacting a ton of people asked me to tell them more about the 'historical' figure of Maximus. :bleeding:
Yeah Gladiator is one of the most unfortunate historical epics ever...in that it is entirely fabricated. I wish they had at least had the decency to have made up the Emperors as well.
Even if you change around the details at least get the basic facts and tone right. I can forgive what Rome or the Tudors does because they get those correct.
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:09:02 PMYeah Gladiator is one of the most unfortunate historical epics ever...in that it is entirely fabricated. I wish they had at least had the decency to have made up the Emperors as well.
Given the incredible amount of drama that was recorded about the Roman Empire, I just can't understand why they had to make something up. Were they afraid of being sued by Zombie Suetonius?
Quote from: vinraith on April 13, 2009, 11:47:35 AM
The Tudors is, for lack of a better word, a bit trashier. It also takes more liberties with the history. Still, the acting's quite good and it's entertaining enough to watch.
The Tudors is good fun. The best part is is it introduces figures like Charles V and Francis I to my friends who enjoy the series.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:10:39 PM
Given the incredible amount of drama that was recorded about the Roman Empire, I just can't understand why they had to make something up. Were they afraid of being sued by Zombie Suetonius?
Further I just cannot believe you would include a gladiator movie involving the Emperor Commodus and not have one of the most famous Gladiator moments in Imperial History: when Commodus lept into the stands and starting slaughtering the spectators.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:50:52 AM
Yeah, for example they'll come away with the impression that Cleopatra had a kid fathered by a random Roman centurion. :)
She didn't? :mad:
Quote from: Josephus on April 13, 2009, 12:13:12 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:50:52 AM
Yeah, for example they'll come away with the impression that Cleopatra had a kid fathered by a random Roman centurion. :)
She didn't? :mad:
I dunno... the evil liberals in Hollywood have confused me. :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 11:56:24 AM
Incorrect.... when I was doing reenacting a ton of people asked me to tell them more about the 'historical' figure of Maximus. :bleeding:
Yeah Gladiator is one of the most unfortunate historical epics ever...in that it is entirely fabricated. I wish they had at least had the decency to have made up the Emperors as well.
Indeed, it's very different from
Rome in that basically everything in it is fiction, rather than being a fiction based on true events.
It's unfortunate, because the story of how the philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius had as his son and successor someone as horrible as Commodus must surely be interesting ...
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:12:31 PMFurther I just cannot believe you would include a gladiator movie involving the Emperor Commodus and not have one of the most famous Gladiator moments in Imperial History: when Commodus lept into the stands and starting slaughtering the spectators.
:lol: Great example. Hell, the historical Commodus was FAR more interesting than movie Commodus, and the entire movie could have been based on him.... but to be historically accurate someone other than Joaquin Phoenix should have played him. Back in his heyday, Ahnuld would have been a good choice if he grew a beard.
I really would like for someone to make a good historical epic about the fall of Rome to the Germans. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:17:22 PM
I really would like for someone to make a good historical epic about the fall of Rome to the Germans. :cool:
I'd love to see some kind of nearly post-apocalyptic film set maybe a few decades after the Fall, with a few thousand people living in the ruins of a city meant for millions. Never been attempted on film, maybe it is too depressing?
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:16:20 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 13, 2009, 12:12:31 PMFurther I just cannot believe you would include a gladiator movie involving the Emperor Commodus and not have one of the most famous Gladiator moments in Imperial History: when Commodus lept into the stands and starting slaughtering the spectators.
:lol: Great example. Hell, the historical Commodus was FAR more interesting than movie Commodus, and the entire movie could have been based on him.... but to be historically accurate someone other than Joaquin Phoenix should have played him. Back in his heyday, Ahnuld would have been a good choice if he grew a beard.
He seems to have been a trifle ... eccentric.
QuoteCommodus did raise the ire of many military officials in Rome for his Hercules persona in the arena. Often, wounded soldiers and amputees would be placed in the arena for Commodus to slay with a sword. Commodus' eccentric behaviour would not stop there. Citizens of Rome missing their feet through accident or illness were taken to the arena, where they were tethered together for Commodus to club to death while pretending they were giants.
:lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodus
See what I mean? Hilarious.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:18:38 PMI'd love to see some kind of nearly post-apocalyptic film set maybe a few decades after the Fall, with a few thousand people living in the ruins of a city meant for millions. Never been attempted on film, maybe it is too depressing?
I dunno what exactly the drama would be in that scenario... but yes.
Oh, I know... Mad Max can show up and run everyone over with his Interceptor. :cool:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:21:45 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:18:38 PMI'd love to see some kind of nearly post-apocalyptic film set maybe a few decades after the Fall, with a few thousand people living in the ruins of a city meant for millions. Never been attempted on film, maybe it is too depressing?
I dunno what exactly the drama would be in that scenario... but yes.
Oh, I know... Mad Max can show up and run everyone over with his Interceptor. :cool:
I think the paralells between Sci-Fi post-apoc film and a hypothetical western dark age film. Reasonably civilized characters (say Christian of mixed Lombard-Roman descent) fighting against utterly barbaric foes (Huns) and now truly alien, decedent civilized peoples (Byzantines). It is most of the way to Beyond Thunderdome already.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:20:31 PM
See what I mean? Hilarious.
I imagine the footless guys' struggles to escape must have made for great physical comedy. :D
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:31:29 PM
I think the paralells between Sci-Fi post-apoc film and a hypothetical western dark age film. Reasonably civilized characters (say Christian of mixed Lombard-Roman descent) fighting against utterly barbaric foes (Huns) and now truly alien, decedent civilized peoples (Byzantines). It is most of the way to Beyond Thunderdome already.
What time period are you talking about now? Didn't the Lombards not invade Italy till the 8th century? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:31:29 PM
I think the paralells between Sci-Fi post-apoc film and a hypothetical western dark age film. Reasonably civilized characters (say Christian of mixed Lombard-Roman descent) fighting against utterly barbaric foes (Huns) and now truly alien, decedent civilized peoples (Byzantines). It is most of the way to Beyond Thunderdome already.
What time period are you talking about now? Didn't the Lombards not invade Italy till the 8th century? :huh:
This is Hollywood we are talking about. The Huns will all be super-lithe, bisexual Eurasian chicks while the Byzantines will be nine foot tall monsters with giant axes for hands. I very seriously doubt we will ever see Huns with full body tattoos and ritual scaring anally raping their dying enemies.
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
the Byzantines will be nine foot tall monsters with giant axes for hands.
I'm hard now.
"Attilla and Aetius" would make a good movie.
Quote from: saskganesh on April 13, 2009, 12:51:22 PM
"Attilla and Aetius" would make a good movie.
Powers Boothe already did a fairly serviceable Aetius in that godawful Attila miniseries.
We need more Powers Boothe in movies in general.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:10:39 PMGiven the incredible amount of drama that was recorded about the Roman Empire, I just can't understand why they had to make something up. Were they afraid of being sued by Zombie Suetonius?
Of course Suetonius is hardly history, or truth, or fact :lol:
Quote from: Grallon on April 13, 2009, 05:54:14 AM
She fucked a ranker legionary... A Ptolemey smoking opium and getting banged by a common soldier - and not even a macedonian at that ! If you think english aristocrats were/are class conscious - try a queen of Egypt whorshipped by millions like a living godess. No, that was simply inconceivable ! And inserted there as a crass plot device.
I take it that you just didn't get it. It wasn't crass, but rather scheming on Cleopatra's part. She needed Caesar's kid to save her life, and any kid born at the right time would be Caesar's kid. She wasn't boffing for the sake of boffing.
Next time, watch the series without closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, or humming loudly. You will miss fewer of the plot points and thus see fewer perceived plot "devices."
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:37:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 12:34:44 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 12:31:29 PM
I think the paralells between Sci-Fi post-apoc film and a hypothetical western dark age film. Reasonably civilized characters (say Christian of mixed Lombard-Roman descent) fighting against utterly barbaric foes (Huns) and now truly alien, decedent civilized peoples (Byzantines). It is most of the way to Beyond Thunderdome already.
What time period are you talking about now? Didn't the Lombards not invade Italy till the 8th century? :huh:
This is Hollywood we are talking about. The Huns will all be super-lithe, bisexual Eurasian chicks while the Byzantines will be nine foot tall monsters with giant axes for hands. I very seriously doubt we will ever see Huns with full body tattoos and ritual scaring anally raping their dying enemies.
Heh we got to see the Persians as both in
300. :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 01:04:58 PMOf course Suetonius is hardly history, or truth, or fact :lol:
Wrong, it's 100% accurate. Just like
Weekly World News. I dunno if you know this, but there's a Bat Boy living in West Virginia. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 01:38:11 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 01:04:58 PMOf course Suetonius is hardly history, or truth, or fact :lol:
Wrong, it's 100% accurate. Just like Weekly World News. I dunno if you know this, but there's a Bat Boy living in West Virginia. :)
Why are people down on Suetonius?
The man did write "The Lives of Famous Prostitutes". He can't be all bad. :D
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 01:51:28 PM
Why are people down on Suetonius?
The man did write "The Lives of Famous Prostitutes". He can't be all bad. :D
Oh he's great. But in terms of history the TV series is probably more accurate :p
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 01:08:12 PM
... I take it that you just didn't get it. It wasn't crass, but rather scheming on Cleopatra's part. She needed Caesar's kid to save her life, and any kid born at the right time would be Caesar's kid. She wasn't boffing for the sake of boffing.
Next time, watch the series without closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, or humming loudly. You will miss fewer of the plot points and thus see fewer perceived plot "devices."
One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere; it should prove entertaining. ^_^
But since you bleet about it, I'll explain the point to you - again.
We all understood the character was scheming, that's how she was written. What was crass was the method employed to show us that, as well as the implied motivation of the queen. The method was having her take the first roman around in order to bind Caesar to her - when in fact it was nothing more than a contrivance to tie in our two nobodies with the greater story. As for the implied motivation, her so called desperation, not even that would have made a Ptolemey demean herself. And I'm not even talking about the sheer stupidity of giving her brother the ammunition to brand her as a whore sleeping with a low born foreigner; especially when there were slaves all around to babble about it.
Hopefully you 'got it' this time ?
G.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 01:51:28 PM
Why are people down on Suetonius?
The man did write "The Lives of Famous Prostitutes". He can't be all bad. :D
Oh he's great. But in terms of history the TV series is probably more accurate :p
What were his inaccuracies? I'm curious, because I always assumed he was a reasonable source, if very gossipy - but I'm no expert.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:06:45 PM
What were his inaccuracies? I'm curious, because I always assumed he was a reasonable source, if very gossipy - but I'm no expert.
I'm not sure. I base this on talking with a couple of people who study Ancient History. They said that he is basically so gossipy and circumstantial that he just isn't trustworthy. Apparently quoting Suetonius or Plutarch is an excellent way of padding out essays because you have to spend about 500 words explaing the inherent difficulties of using Suetonius or Plutarch as a source, how unreliable they are and so on before you get to the quotation.
In comparison with Tacitus and Sallust, for example, who are apparently seen as pretty trustworthy. From what I can gather I think Suetonius is viewed as a sort of Roman political version of Herodotus. So he's fun to read but if you're looking for facts stick with the ones like Thucydides.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 02:14:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:06:45 PM
What were his inaccuracies? I'm curious, because I always assumed he was a reasonable source, if very gossipy - but I'm no expert.
I'm not sure. I base this on talking with a couple of people who study Ancient History. They said that he is basically so gossipy and circumstantial that he just isn't trustworthy. Apparently quoting Suetonius or Plutarch is an excellent way of padding out essays because you have to spend about 500 words explaing the inherent difficulties of using Suetonius or Plutarch as a source, how unreliable they are and so on before you get to the quotation.
In comparison with Tacitus and Sallust, for example, who are apparently seen as pretty trustworthy. From what I can gather I think Suetonius is viewed as a sort of Roman political version of Herodotus. So he's fun to read but if you're looking for facts stick with the ones like Thucydides.
Heh, some people evidently feel differently:
QuoteIt has often been said that Suetonius, a former archivist, used sources from the Roman state archive. This is probably not true. Suetonius' sources are authors like Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, and a collection of letters by the emperor Augustus. As far as we can see, he treats his subject matter more or less objectively. His biographies contain much gossip, but Suetonius does not ignore or misrepresent information from his sources. This is more than we can say about his contemporary Tacitus.
http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html
What a hideous website!
I was reading about Constatine I. I think his story would make a great Rome II series. Don't you think?
Dude, you can tell from Suetonius's very words that alot of his stories are tongue-in-cheek, and either meant to be humorous or politically-motivated slander. For example, there's the hilarious story of a fisherman who scaled Capri to give a fish to Tiberius, and Tiberius was so angry that he took the mullet from him and rubbed it in his face till all of the skin was sloughed off. I think his men then threw the guy off the cliffs back into the sea. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 02:23:21 PM
Dude, you can tell from Suetonius's very words that alot of his stories are tongue-in-cheek, and either meant to be humorous or politically-motivated slander. For example, there's the hilarious story of a fisherman who scaled Capri to give a fish to Tiberius, and Tiberius was so angry that he took the mullet from him and rubbed it in his face till all of the skin was sloughed off. I think his men then threw the guy off the cliffs back into the sea. :lol:
Consider some of the crap that Roman emperors are supposed to have done, that's pretty mild. ;)
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 02:23:21 PM
Dude, you can tell from Suetonius's very words that alot of his stories are tongue-in-cheek, and either meant to be humorous or politically-motivated slander. For example, there's the hilarious story of a fisherman who scaled Capri to give a fish to Tiberius, and Tiberius was so angry that he took the mullet from him and rubbed it in his face till all of the skin was sloughed off. I think his men then threw the guy off the cliffs back into the sea. :lol:
If the fisherman was 8, Tiberius would have fucked him. Then rubbed his mullet on him.
I know, but it's just that I find that particular story impossible to believe. For one, having been to Capri and seen the site of Villa Iovis, I find it hard to imagine someone scaling the sea cliffs leading up to it (unless erosion has changed them considerably since then), not to mention hard to believe this guy could have just walked up to Tiberius unimpeded by guards. I do see Tiberius rubbing the guy's face off with a fish though :menace:
Quote
One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere; it should prove entertaining.
You see Grallon, some people have this thing called
empathy. It means that intelligent people can choose to spend their life trying to help young people rather than trying to molest them.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
I know, but it's just that I find that particular story impossible to believe. For one, having been to Capri and seen the site of Villa Iovis, I find it hard to imagine someone scaling the sea cliffs leading up to it (unless erosion has changed them considerably since then), not to mention hard to believe this guy could have just walked up to Tiberius unimpeded by guards. I do see Tiberius rubbing the guy's face off with a fish though :menace:
The way I heard the story (admittedly in Graves' book
I, Claudius) the difficulty of the ascent explains why he wasn't guarded from the sea-cliff side - no point. But this guy, living in the area, knew a path. When the guy appeared, he scared Tiberius so much that he reacted by having him tortured & killed when his guards arrived.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:19:29 PM
QuoteIt has often been said that Suetonius, a former archivist, used sources from the Roman state archive. This is probably not true. Suetonius' sources are authors like Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, and a collection of letters by the emperor Augustus. As far as we can see, he treats his subject matter more or less objectively. His biographies contain much gossip, but Suetonius does not ignore or misrepresent information from his sources. This is more than we can say about his contemporary Tacitus.
http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html
That may be true but with Suetonius and Tacitus I think it's impossible to judge the degree they used sources. The other sources generally haven't survived and the Classical practise was to use the words of another if you agreed with them and only cite a source if you wish to take issue with what they've said. This makes attributing sources very difficult.
I imagine the preference for Tacitus within the academic community comes from the observation that he treats Tiberius and the year of the four emperors in a way that's more more congruent with what else we know about those figures and that period. There are other periods too that they overlap and, generally, I think Tacitus's version better gels with other sources we have and what we've learned from other techniques.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 02:32:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:19:29 PM
QuoteIt has often been said that Suetonius, a former archivist, used sources from the Roman state archive. This is probably not true. Suetonius' sources are authors like Cluvius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, and a collection of letters by the emperor Augustus. As far as we can see, he treats his subject matter more or less objectively. His biographies contain much gossip, but Suetonius does not ignore or misrepresent information from his sources. This is more than we can say about his contemporary Tacitus.
http://www.livius.org/su-sz/suetonius/suetonius.html
That may be true but with Suetonius and Tacitus I think it's impossible to judge the degree they used sources. The other sources generally haven't survived and the Classical practise was to use the words of another if you agreed with them and only cite a source if you wish to take issue with what they've said. This makes attributing sources very difficult.
I imagine the preference for Tacitus within the academic community comes from the observation that he treats Tiberius and the year of the four emperors in a way that's more more congruent with what else we know about those figures and that period. There are other periods too that they overlap and, generally, I think Tacitus's version better gels with other sources we have and what we've learned from other techniques.
Fair enough - I don't know enough to say. I suspect that the seemingly widespread notion that he's inaccurate comes more from his inclusion of salacious gossip though.
Quote from: Malthus on April 13, 2009, 02:35:06 PMFair enough - I don't know enough to say. I suspect that the seemingly widespread notion that he's inaccurate comes more from his inclusion of salacious gossip though.
I think you're right. His biographies of the Caesars are certainly thorough, though.... so I don't feel he can be totally dismissed. Plus, he is funny as shit.
Quote from: Grallon on April 13, 2009, 02:04:49 PM
One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere; it should prove entertaining. ^_^
I appreciate the compliment about my intellectual capabilities, but the answer isn't so much "amusing" as it is that i had the choice.
QuoteBut since you bleet about it, I'll explain how I missed the point to you - again.
FYPFY
QuoteWe all understood the character was scheming, that's how she was written. What was crass was the method employed to show us that, as well as the implied motivation of the queen. The method was having her take the first roman around in order to bind Caesar to her - when in fact it was nothing more than a contrivance to tie in our two nobodies with the greater story. As for the implied motivation, her so called desperation, not even that would have made a Ptolemey demean herself. And I'm not even talking about the sheer stupidity of giving her brother the ammunition to brand her as a whore sleeping with a low born foreigner; especially when there were slaves all around to babble about it.
Again, you miss the point. She felt that she had to get pregnant, with a baby that would be acceted by Caesar has his, or she would be killed. The fact that she took the second Roman around (because he was of higher rank) first, and only went with the only other Roman around when the first turned her down, proved that she was desperate for
any Roman kid. You claim to know what would and wouldn't motivate a Ptolemy is unpersuasive, as is your assumption that her brother wouldn't accuse her of just that, no matter what.
Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story. Asking for
Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking
The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.
QuoteHopefully you 'got it' this time ?
I have always gotten it. I suspect that you still don't, even though I have explained it twice.
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 03:19:20 PM
Quote from: Grallon on April 13, 2009, 02:04:49 PM
But since you bleet about it, I'll explain how I missed the point to you - again.
FYPFY
Really, you claim to fix his post, and don't correct "bleet" to "bleat?"
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 03:19:20 PM
Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story. Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.
There is a hell of a lot more plausibility within the story in Rome than there was in BSG. :D
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 13, 2009, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 03:19:20 PM
Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story. Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.
There is a hell of a lot more plausibility within the story in Rome than there was in BSG. :D
:lol: A-fucking-men. At least the writers of
Rome knew what the hell they were doing. Then again, I've taken to comparing everything to the ending of BSG simply because it makes
everything look better by comparison.
If people want to really rag on someone for producing crap out of Caesar/Rome/Brutus/Octavian and being more than a little light-handed with historicity, they should hunt down and kill Conn Iggudden.
Brutus is presented as an adopted Julii, Servilia as Brutus whorehouse-owning mother, Octavian is a foundling, Gaius Marius is the finest person evah, Sulla is Darth Sulla, Suetonius is Caesar's boyhood rival and neighbour. It is really quite messy and mostly good for kindling. <_<
Quote from: ulmont on April 13, 2009, 03:24:05 PM
Really, you claim to fix his post, and don't correct "bleet" to "bleat?"
I don't speak French. :bowler:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on April 13, 2009, 03:30:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 13, 2009, 03:19:20 PM
Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story. Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.
There is a hell of a lot more plausibility within the story in Rome than there was in BSG. :D
Don't even try to get Grallon started on BSG! We'll be here forever hearing about how great it was and how those who pick at it are morons!
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 11, 2009, 07:42:39 PM
What did everyone else think, or object to?
No Sian Phillips. :contract:
This can not be bourne.
Quote from: Norgy on April 13, 2009, 03:36:51 PM
If people want to really rag on someone for producing crap out of Caesar/Rome/Brutus/Octavian and being more than a little light-handed with historicity, they should hunt down and kill Conn Iggudden.
Brutus is presented as an adopted Julii, Servilia as Brutus whorehouse-owning mother, Octavian is a foundling, Gaius Marius is the finest person evah, Sulla is Darth Sulla, Suetonius is Caesar's boyhood rival and neighbour. It is really quite messy and mostly good for kindling. <_<
But these books are presented as pure fiction, kinda like King Arthur books or Lest Darkness Fall, no?
I prefer the McCullugh books and the stuff by Graves, myself.
Well, Igulden or Igudden at least has the decency to sum up what he made up and what is based on historical evidence.
The Emperor series, I suspect, were also written for a young audience, and resembles fantasy literature more than "historical novels".
I think most would know it is fiction and not fact.
As an aside, The Tudors will end after the current Season 4. At least they're not going to give Henry some more wives just to keep the series going. ;)
I had hoped Elizabeth I would be covered. :(
Then again, I can always watch some Blackadder 2. It's at least more entertaining than the last movie about Elizabeth.
I find grallon's outrage over the portrayal of Cleopatra amusing - as most of our knowledge of her comes from histories written long after her death (and the contemporary source material is mostly propagandistic in nature) - the truth is that we basically have no idea about Cleopatra's personality or sexual habits, or indeed much of anything else beyond a few bare facts concerning events and some archaelogical material.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 14, 2009, 09:04:52 AM
I find grallon's outrage over the portrayal of Cleopatra amusing - as most of our knowledge of her comes from histories written long after her death (and the contemporary source material is mostly propagandistic in nature) - the truth is that we basically have no idea about Cleopatra's personality or sexual habits, or indeed much of anything else beyond a few bare facts concerning events and some archaelogical material.
Well, according to some, she was
Black ... neat trick for an inbred Macedonian. :D
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 13, 2009, 02:32:55 PM
That may be true but with Suetonius and Tacitus I think it's impossible to judge the degree they used sources. The other sources generally haven't survived and the Classical practise was to use the words of another if you agreed with them and only cite a source if you wish to take issue with what they've said. This makes attributing sources very difficult.
I imagine the preference for Tacitus within the academic community comes from the observation that he treats Tiberius and the year of the four emperors in a way that's more more congruent with what else we know about those figures and that period. There are other periods too that they overlap and, generally, I think Tacitus's version better gels with other sources we have and what we've learned from other techniques.
I don't think either is particularly reliable - it is safe to say that historiographic method at the time had little in common with our present understanding.
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2009, 09:17:06 AM
Well, according to some, she was Black ... neat trick for an inbred Macedonian. :D
You are assuming that the reported geneologies are an accurate reflection of what really happened. A highly questionable assumption
(That isn't to say I am supporting the "Black Cleopatra" hypothesis). :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2009, 09:17:06 AMWell, according to some, she was Black ... neat trick for an inbred Macedonian. :D
Well those same dudes think Aesop was black too, so I guess they think the ancient Greeks were all black. :cool:
Hey, did you know the Vikings were actually Chinese? :)
Quote from: Josephus on April 14, 2009, 08:46:17 AM
As an aside, The Tudors will end after the current Season 4. At least they're not going to give Henry some more wives just to keep the series going. ;)
Pity. I was looking forward to King Edward.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 14, 2009, 09:04:52 AM
I find grallon's outrage over the portrayal of Cleopatra amusing - as most of our knowledge of her comes from histories written long after her death (and the contemporary source material is mostly propagandistic in nature) - the truth is that we basically have no idea about Cleopatra's personality or sexual habits, or indeed much of anything else beyond a few bare facts concerning events and some archaelogical material.
When you say "we" you are not including Grallon; he claims to
know what a Ptolemy would and would not do. I believe him as much as I believe those who claim to know that "Jesus hates gays."
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 14, 2009, 09:26:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 14, 2009, 09:17:06 AM
Well, according to some, she was Black ... neat trick for an inbred Macedonian. :D
You are assuming that the reported geneologies are an accurate reflection of what really happened. A highly questionable assumption
(That isn't to say I am supporting the "Black Cleopatra" hypothesis). :)
It would have been pretty remarkable for someone who *claimed* to be an inbred Macedonian to have *actually* been visibly Black - someone would have, you would think, noticed this discrepancy. :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2009, 09:32:48 AM
Pity. I was looking forward to King Edward.
He's a very interesting character.
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 09:27:38 AM
Well those same dudes think Aesop was black too, so I guess they think the ancient Greeks were all black. :cool:
Which is exactly the claim made in Black Athena which, if we were to pick a starting point, is probably the start of the whole White is Black craze.
Others had made the claims that Ancient Greece owed much to Ancient Egypt (something which is not itself all that surprising) but Bernal went on to make the claims that a) Egyptians were Black (something the ancients didnt seem to care much about but which is a loaded statement in today's world) and b) that these Black Egyptians first settled Greece and gave birth to Greek culture.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2009, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2009, 09:32:48 AM
Pity. I was looking forward to King Edward.
He's a very interesting character.
There is a fairly recent book out making the claim that he set the stage for Elizabeth's rule, including creating the framework for religious reform (which had to be put aside from Mary's brief reign.)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 11:14:32 AM
There is a fairly recent book out making the claim that he set the stage for Elizabeth's rule, including creating the framework for religious reform (which had to be put aside from Mary's brief reign.)
That is hardly a recent claim. His reign was when the reformation really got rolling in England, Henry VIII was too conservative and held back the reformers.
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 09:27:38 AM
Well those same dudes think Aesop was black too, so I guess they think the ancient Greeks were all black. :cool:
I've known Greeks who claimed that all Greeks were tall, blond, blue-eyed ... before they were occupied by the Turks.
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2009, 11:20:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 11:14:32 AM
There is a fairly recent book out making the claim that he set the stage for Elizabeth's rule, including creating the framework for religious reform (which had to be put aside from Mary's brief reign.)
That is hardly a recent claim. His reign was when the reformation really got rolling in England, Henry VIII was too conservative and held back the reformers.
:yes:
Quote from: Valmy on April 14, 2009, 11:20:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 11:14:32 AM
There is a fairly recent book out making the claim that he set the stage for Elizabeth's rule, including creating the framework for religious reform (which had to be put aside from Mary's brief reign.)
That is hardly a recent claim. His reign was when the reformation really got rolling in England, Henry VIII was too conservative and held back the reformers.
I dont know if the cliam is recent or not. I said there is a recent book that makes the claim. Since recent books have the advantage of reviewing material that has already been published I thought that might be of interest.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 11:12:10 AMOthers had made the claims that Ancient Greece owed much to Ancient Egypt (something which is not itself all that surprising) but Bernal went on to make the claims that a) Egyptians were Black (something the ancients didnt seem to care much about but which is a loaded statement in today's world) and b) that these Black Egyptians first settled Greece and gave birth to Greek culture.
The reconstruction of Tut's face, as well as other mummies which have been reasonably authenticated, suggests to me that the ancient Egyptians were... Egyptian. I know that's a CRAZY, OUT-THERE suggestion to alot of folks, but I think they're just going to have to accept it. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
I dont know if the cliam is recent or not. I said there is a recent book that makes the claim. Since recent books have the advantage of reviewing material that has already been published I thought that might be of interest.
Like 1421?
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 11:12:10 AMOthers had made the claims that Ancient Greece owed much to Ancient Egypt (something which is not itself all that surprising) but Bernal went on to make the claims that a) Egyptians were Black (something the ancients didnt seem to care much about but which is a loaded statement in today's world) and b) that these Black Egyptians first settled Greece and gave birth to Greek culture.
The reconstruction of Tut's face, as well as other mummies which have been reasonably authenticated, suggests to me that the ancient Egyptians were... Egyptian. I know that's a CRAZY, OUT-THERE suggestion to alot of folks, but I think they're just going to have to accept it. :(
Yep, I dont think Black Athena did much for Bernal's academic career.
Wasn't there a Black Athena Talks Back or somefink too?
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2009, 11:48:40 AMLike 1421?
I own a copy of 1421. I consider it a great fantasy adventure story. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 12:17:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 14, 2009, 11:48:40 AMLike 1421?
I own a copy of 1421. I consider it a great fantasy adventure story. :)
You do realize it's alt-fantasy, right?
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2009, 12:17:42 PM
Wasn't there a Black Athena Talks Back or somefink too?
Are you thinking of "Not out of Africa." Bernal generally got the worst kind of response you can get in Academia - silence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 14, 2009, 12:23:47 PM
Quote from: The Brain on April 14, 2009, 12:17:42 PM
Wasn't there a Black Athena Talks Back or somefink too?
Are you thinking of "Not out of Africa." Bernal generally got the worst kind of response you can get in Academia - silence.
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Athena-Writes-Back-Responds/dp/0822327171
Bernal's argument that 19th and early 20th century archaeology and ancient histiorophy was rife with dubious theories grounded in racist and racialist assumptions is fine as it goes, though far from innovative. To the extent he repeats their error by importing back the contemporary social concept of race into vastly different times and places, he commits similar errors of anachronism.
That European material culture had "Afro-asiatic" roots is close to being a geographic truism - since agriculture, animal domestication, urbanity, metal-working techniques, brewing, viticulture, writing, etc. originated in what is now western Asia and Egypt and diffused out to the continent of Europe from there. But Bernal's agenda is not simply to make this obvious point but to make similar (if more politically correct) mistakes to the earlier scholarship he decries - ie use a canned analysis of ancient history to fit a contemporary political agenda.
Quote from: Syt on April 14, 2009, 11:23:08 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 09:27:38 AM
Well those same dudes think Aesop was black too, so I guess they think the ancient Greeks were all black. :cool:
I've known Greeks who claimed that all Greeks were tall, blond, blue-eyed ... before they were occupied by the Turks.
Amusing.
The opposite is much closer to the truth. A lot of depictions of the Early Altaic pictures show them with blond or red hair and blue eyes, and all of them were tall. Genghis Khan had red hair and green eyes, for instance, and even today in Greece blond hair is considered a Turkish trait.
On the other hand, the Greeks in contemporary art tended to have Jewfros and big noses. They'd probably look quite a bit like the contemporary people, though there has undoubtably some admixture with migrant Assyrians, Armenians, Slavs, Italians, Turks and Normans since the 500 BCs, you'd probably have a reasonably similar mixture in Ancient Greece (just replace them with Egyptians, Phonecians, Phrygians, Anatolians, Dacians, Thracians, Sythians, etc...).
Its actually really, really hard to change the genetic makeup of an area without a huge catastrophe (like Smallpox in the Americas). The vast majority of linguistic-cultural shifts in Eurasia were adoptions of the conquering culture by the vast majority of natives rather than genocide or large scale colonization.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on April 13, 2009, 02:20:43 PM
I was reading about Constatine I. I think his story would make a great Rome II series. Don't you think?
no love for constantine?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 14, 2009, 02:28:09 PM
The opposite is much closer to the truth. A lot of depictions of the Early Altaic pictures show them with blond or red hair and blue eyes, and all of them were tall. Genghis Khan had red hair and green eyes, for instance,
Really? Never heard that one, got a source handy I could have a look at?
Quote from: Queequeg on April 13, 2009, 02:28:14 PM
Quote
One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere; it should prove entertaining.
You see Grallon, some people have this thing called empathy. It means that intelligent people can choose to spend their life trying to help young people rather than trying to molest them.
I wish I had some of that. Also I still confuse Grallon and garbon. I'd probably be nice to garbon if I didn't keep confusing him with a child molestor.
Quote from: Caliga on April 13, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
I know, but it's just that I find that particular story impossible to believe. For one, having been to Capri and seen the site of Villa Iovis, I find it hard to imagine someone scaling the sea cliffs leading up to it (unless erosion has changed them considerably since then), not to mention hard to believe this guy could have just walked up to Tiberius unimpeded by guards. I do see Tiberius rubbing the guy's face off with a fish though :menace:
I've been there to. I figured he just took the road like everyone else.
Quote from: Grallon on April 13, 2009, 02:04:49 PM
One of these days you'll have to explain to us how is it someone so 'vastly intelligent' managed to remain a high school teacher in the middle of nowhere
As the father to two boys who are not too far from attending high school I am grateful that people as intelligent as Grumbler do indeed choose to be teachers.
Quote from: vinraith on April 14, 2009, 04:25:14 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on April 14, 2009, 02:28:09 PM
The opposite is much closer to the truth. A lot of depictions of the Early Altaic pictures show them with blond or red hair and blue eyes, and all of them were tall. Genghis Khan had red hair and green eyes, for instance,
Really? Never heard that one, got a source handy I could have a look at?
Rashid-al-Din for a description of Genghis.
The Early Altaic peoples would have been a collection of recently Turkified peoples, most of them of various Indo-European (Iranian, Gothic or Tocharian) or Uralic peoples. There is a ton of evidence for this and I'm not sure how much you want/need.
Off the top of my head;
The Huns, the first (probably) Altaic people to make it to Europe, had among their host people with Iranian, Tocharian, German and Uralic names, and a few different types of Turkic groups. Some of the initial Turkification would have happened then, resulting in a mixed people. Every succeeding wave would have been more "Asian" looking in all probability, as the latest Steppe people is forced to conquer settled people due to pressure from the East, and the slaughter of Genghis would have made a big impact.
That said, even today you get a hint of it: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Uyghur_girl.jpg
Also, the "asian" look of the Anatolian Turks is (surprisingly) a modern development, as Ottoman commentators talk about the spread of the "Tatar Eyes" with the massive migration in the wake of the Russian conquests. Just 500 years ago Anatolia would have looked a lot different ethnically.
Anatolian Turks look Mediterranean to me. I've actually always assumed they are at least 50% Greek and/or Armenian in 'genetic' origin.
Quote from: Caliga on April 14, 2009, 06:56:17 PM
Anatolian Turks look Mediterranean to me. I've actually always assumed they are at least 50% Greek and/or Armenian in 'genetic' origin.
Generally speaking, yes, Turks look like the nation closest to them; Greeks in Edrine, Armenians in Kars, Syrians in Diyarbakir, and the genetics reflect this (most Turks around Izmir are genetically close to the people there in Homer's time).
That said, you run into some incredible diversity, presumably some of it from the Tatar migration into Turkey which massively changed society (disturbing the balance in Anatolia, partially responsible for the Armenian/Assyrian/Greek genocide). So you have Turks who could be Romanian (Attaturk) and those who could be mixed Japanese-Iranian (Mehmet Kurtulus).