Rome Season II (1 Viewer)

[RyanTSI]

Ceasar would not have been living with Calpurnia at the time. Cleopatra was in Rome at the time of his death and with his new son, Calpurnia was all but a thing of the past.

I have never heard Ceasar referred to as the first Emperor. Imperator as a title was granted to him the same as it had been to any other victorious general before him. His title was dictator for life. Neither was Octavian in Rome at the time of Ceasars death.

You can nit pick the history all you want. The creators are very aware, probably moreso than most about the history. They need to create drama not a documentary.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

Somewhere out there, there are people watching Rome without the benefit of Joe's excellent commentary to go along with it. Shame.

 

[JonZ]

Mikah,

Yes its based on history, but with liberties taken. Like Deadwood.

One thing I read was that they planned on going quite a bit into the future and the HBo Atia would have lived to be a old woman, which supposedly the real person didnt.

So what I meant was really more in line of what will they do with the charaters.

What was the significance of breast milk?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

It had never been given to any other Roman as an official and permanent title, as I mention above. The Senate specifically granted him to right to use Imperator as a permanent title and part of his name, just as they gave him the right to wear the regalia of a triumphing general at certain events and gave him the rights of a Tribune of the Plebs, despite his being a plebian. His official name included the word "imperator" during his lifetime and after. This was not true of Scipio Africanus, Marius, Sulla or even Pompey.

When Caesar's status as a god was ratified after his death, "divus" was officially added to his existing titles. An inscription from 42 B.C. reads as follows: Imperator Gaius Iulius Caesar Divus (in inscriptions IMP•C•IVLIVS•CAESAR•DIVVS), in English, "Imperator Gaius Julius Caesar, the deified one".

And of course Octavian was not at Rome when Caesar died. This point was dealt with in the Season One thread, and I'm still not persuaded that the producers gained anything dramatically from altering the real events. Turning Atia and Servillia into true witches and rivals (OK, this may not have been that much of an exaggeration in Servillia's case) pays dramatic dividends, albeit of the Dallas or Falcoln Crest variety. (Still, it was funny to see Atia's head turned by the chance to be the mother of the richest man in Rome when in fact she had urged her son to reject Caesar's money for his own safety - and that before anyone knew that Caesar had also adopted the boy in his will.)

Certainly they're doing a drama, not a documentary. Characters need to be combined for clarity's sake, events streamlined to make them easier to follow and keep the story flowing. But I completely reject the idea that there is a kind of blanket "dramatic licesnse" that allows writers of historical fiction to do any damned thing they feel like, or that exempts them from criticism when they deviate from history for no apparent reason.

To say "this isn't a documentary" is a straw man argument. I never said it was a documentary. You aren't arguing with what I've said, you're arguing with words you've put in my mouth. You're also setting up a false dichotomy. It isn't as though the only two options are "documentary" and "ignore the facts and make stuff up." You can have historical fiction that is very accurate historically, very successful as fiction, and which makes its reason for deviating from history (or for choosing one version of events over another) clear to the reader/viewer. Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series is a sterling example. (In fact, her need to have the story make sense dramatically has led her to propose a couple of historical theories that I think are very plausible and in some cases make more sense than "official" history.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[todd s]

I missed the last 5 minutes of the episode. The last I saw was The guy said he raped and killed Vorenus' kids and then Vorenus kills him
What happened after?

Thanks!

 

[RyanTSI]

Nothing reallly.

Vorenus and Pullo walk out of the building carrying the head. Wide shot and it goes to credits.

 

[Dheiner]

Regarding the above spoilered info, 2 questions:
1). Why is it a spoiler?
2). Does anyone else think he was lying?

 

[RyanTSI]

Why would I not make it a spoiler. For the sake of having to click a button someone might thank me.

He probably was, he was just resigned to the fact that he was going to die anyways so he figured he might as well piss him off and go out quickly.

 

[TheStever]

Nothing says "badass" like walking through the street with your enemy's head in hand!

quoted from PaulWozniak from AVSforum, to funny not to repeat.

 

[Dheiner]

Well, if people that don't read spoilers don't want to discuss events that have already happened on the show, why are they reading this thread? Isn't discussion of the show the whole point of the thread?

 

[RyanTSI]

Did it ruin your day that you had to click on a spoiler button or something? Does it really matter?

 

[todd s]

Re: Why I put it in spoilers? I figured better safe than sorry. It doesn't take a lot to add the tags or open the spoiler. But, if it saves one person from seeing a spoiler before they see the show...Its worth it.

On a different note. Its cool to see how the relationship between Vorenus & Pollo has changed since the first episode....From utter contempt for each other to a close brotherly bond. Also, to see their roles reveresed. Whereas Vorenus used to be the protector of Pollo..Now, Pollo is the protector of Vorenus. And not just physically...But, emotionally.

 

[JediFonger]

vorenus had lost it all. he's got no reason to stay in rome... i wonder how that story thread intersects with the intrigue in the senate?

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Well, as I noted, Vorenus is still technically a member of the Senate. Also Pullo will no doubt join Octavian when Civil War breaks out again. I'm more interested in how the producers are going to deal with the absurdity of Mark Antony's affair with Atia and his trying to escape with her and Octavian.

The whole reason that Octavian was able to start his rise to power was that the Senate saw him as a weapon to use against Antony when the latter decided to renew the Civil War and take on the tyrranicides. After Ceasar's death, Antony had gone north to his province and then organized his forces for a march on Rome. Octavian had been in Greece, organizing supplies and transport for Caesar's planned invasion of Parthia. He arrived in the south of Rome and, learning there for the first time of his adoption and of the political situation at Rome, immediately raised an army from among his "father's" men awaiting transport to Greece and colonies of retired veterans in the region, using the magic name of Caesar.

Precisely because the two men didn't know each other and were not allies (and, indeed, were rivals for the title of Caesar's heir - Antony had tried to prevent having the part of Caesar's will that made Octavian principle heir and adpoted son invalidated by the Senate), the Senate accept Octavian's illegal act, granted him imperium and command of his army and sent him off to deal with Antony.

The rest, as they say, is history....

This is television, so I have no idea how they're going to write themselves out of the muddle they've created.

I don't know why writers always think they can "improve" on stories that are so dramatic to begin with. (I also wish someone would do a story about the late Republic, of Marius and Sulla, Pompey and Crassus, and the young Caesar before the Rubicon. Those are all men who were such characters and lived such lives that no novelist or screenwriter would have the nerve to invent them. Octavian, Brutus and even Mark Antony are much less interesting figures, quite frankly.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[RyanTSI]

I would be up for seeing Marius and Sulla done well, we would also get to see Caesar in his formative years. Very interesting. Mariu's reforms arguably (not really they did) are what gave Caesar the ability to do what he did. Also they pretty much sounded the death knell of the Republic.

IIRC the reason (on the surface) Antony and Octavian went to war was that Antony was living in Alexandria with Cleopatra. Octavian convinced the senate that Cleopatra was a threat and declared war on Egypt. Antony had to support Cleopatra and was finally drawn into open war.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I should also have mentioned that Suetonius, one of our principal ancient sources on the early empire, begins his book on the first twelve emperors with - Gaius Julius Caesar. Suetonius was born somewhere in the late 60s or early 70s C.E. and died around 130. He was a friend and collegue of fellow historians Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. He also served the emperors Trajan (as director of the imperial archives) and Hadrian (as secretary), so presumably his inclusion of Caesar reflects the understanding of at least some of the Dictator's successors.

De Vita Caesarum ("Lives of the Caesars", usually rendered in English as "The Twelve Caesars") is Suetonius's only work to survive mostly intact. The opening section dealing with the Dictator's early life is miissing, and the work begins, unlike all the other biographies in the work, with the subject in his teens. ("In the course of his sixteenth year he lost his father..." in the text of the Loeb Classical Library translation by J.C. Rolfe.) Oddly, our other major source for information on Caeser's life before he entered politics, Plutarch, is also missing the opening few paragraphs and begins its story at about the same point in time. So we have no direct information about the Dictator's childhood.

An English translation of De Vita Caesarum is available on-line at Project Guetenberg and at other sites, in the Penguin Classics paperback (translation by Robert Graves, who used it as source material for his novels I, Claudius and Claudius the God, introduction by classical historian Michael Grant) and as two red dust jacketed (Latin) volumes in the aforementioned Loeb Classical Library. (Greek works in the series get green jackets.) These paperback-sized hardcover books feature the text in the original language on the left-hand page and English on the facing page and are useful even for those like myself who don't know the ancient languages. They do let you see the original words and phrases used, and note where the same word in Latin or Greek is rendered by different words in English. This is especially useful in comparing translations of difficult passages.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Well, that was a large part of the reason for the later Civil War between them, after they had initially carved the empire up and agreed to share it But before they came to terms and formed the Second Triumvirate (to the bitter surprise of the Senate) they were presumptive enemies and rivals and Octavian was given the job of destorying the traitor (and presumed would-be tyrant) Antony. The Senate thought Octavian a tool they could use and discard. He recognized this and decided that an alliance with Antony - joining the name of Caesar and the troops he already had to the army of Antony the superior soldier - would allow them to overcome the Senate, which had no army save the one Octavian commanded. Then they could hunt down the tyrranicides (in yet another Civil War), avenge Caesar, and work out the details of governing later. (One of Caesar's former legates, Lepidus, was the third member of the Triumvirate, since he also held imperium and commanded troops, but he was very much the junior partner and was soon quietly pushed aside. Antony assumed he would be able to do the same with Octavian, whom he consistently underestimated. Octavian was no soldier and no general, so Antony dismissed him. But Octavian was a master politician, whereas Antony was anything but, and that's what made the difference in the end. Octavian was able to find good generals to command his armies, and use his political skill to turn virtually the whole Roman world against Antony. Importantly, as you note, he was able to present the war that finally came as one against a foreign enemy, one whom Antony was treasonously supporting, rather than yet another Civil War between rival dynasts.)

Regards,

Joe

 

[RyanTSI]

The issue still is though that in his time Caesar was not emperor in the term it is coined towards the latter emperors starting with Augustus.

Suetonius is a secondary source. Its fine to say Caesar was pretty much the first emperor but in fact he wasn't.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

Ah your getting them from the same source as Me I see.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

That's what I said and those two statements remain true. (But you continue to ignore the fact that Caesar's being named "imperator" permanently was as unique as his being named dictator for life or Prefect of Public Morals and was one more foundation stone of the Augustan Principate that was in fact laid down in Caesar's time.)

The transition from a Republic with freely elected consuls to a permanent tyrrany with one man ruling the whole was not a sudden switch from white to black, where one day there was a Republic and the next and emperor. It was a continuum in which white slowly faded through grey to black, and arguably went back as far as Tiberius Graachus. But even the shocks to the system caused by Marius's unprecedented string of consulships, his war with Sulla, Sulla's later dictatorship, Pompey's unorthodox carreer and all the other unrest of the period didn't do what Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon and victory in the Civil War did. They had broken a few windows and knocked a few holes in the walls of Rome's political house. Caesar arrived like a bulldozer.

Caesar knocked over the teetering edifice of the Republic and even ripped up some of the foundations. Whatever followed was not going to be the Republic he had been born into, which was already beginning to show cracks. (He probably witnessed some of the madness of Marius's 7th consulship as a small boy.) It is unlikely that he had a plan in mind for what would follow the Republic, but long before March of 44 it must have been clear that something would have to and that he'd have to figure out what shape this new thing would take. That's probably one reason he was taking Octavian east with him on the Parthian campaign, to see to the boy's education and introduce him to the army.

The white really starts to fade to grey in Caesar's time, and it doesn't really become solid black until August is able to hand over power to Tiberius on his own death. That's the moment the principate becomes fixed and hereditary. Arguably Tiberius, then, is really the first emperor, the first named heir to simply step into the office upon the death of his predecessor. Because that is the real difference been the principate and all the things that had preceded it - the dictatorships, the serial consulships, the consulships without colleague and all the other measures taken to provide one-man leadership for the Republic in the now near-permanent states of emergency - it could be inherited as a piece of property.

Caesar's will hints that he might have had some such vision of his own position, although. like Augustus, he new the name "king" could never be used. It also hints that he expect to have years to sort things out, hence his singling out Octavian who probably wasn't much more than 17 when the will was written, and hedging his bets with a Brutus in case the sickly boy died first.

Augustus did not create the principate out of whole cloth and he did not even really create it as a single "thing". Like his great uncle, he amassed a number of separate honors and titles, not all of which he held simultaneously or for long periods, which together gave him absolute authority even if they didn't always give him the appearance of absolute power. Even Tiberius didn't automatically inherit all of Augustus's titles and powers. The principate was still a work in progress through the first several emperors.

But its outlines were clearly sketched out in the last five years of Caesar's life. Augustus formalized much of what Caesar had done, and what the powers the senate had voted him, and gave it the force of law. But he also found a way, as Caesar had not, to disguise what he had done. He performed a bit of taxidermy on the carcass of the Republican eagle, restoring its form while replacing its innards with sawdust. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that it was Caesar who gutted the bird in the first place, and that he therefore deserves at least the honorary title of Emperor.

Regards,

Joe