Leaderboard

It wasn't until 2012 when I watched HBO's "Rome" for the first time. I saw it a second time then bought the DVD set. I have watched the full series five times, and season 1 six times. The past couple times I've paid particular attention to the details of the settings. I've read Mary Beard's SPQR and other modern books on Rome and found the HBO series' attention to detail in the costumes, sets, everyday life and locations to be fascinating. I believe HBO's "Rome" is the best reproduction of that era I've seen on film. It stands in stark contrast to the early film imagery of a premature Imperial era presented in films like 'Cleopatra' (still fascinating, regardless). This series is important because no matter how great a writer describes an era, the film representation reveals a great deal about the era. The composite characters threw me at times, but I recognize that when too many characters are active it makes a story overwhelming. I liked Ciarán Hinds as Caesar, but I wish he could had resembled the images we have of Caesar; also, I wasn't left with the impression that I'd seen the 'real' Caesar portrayed. Today, Hinds could have been physically altered with CGI if he'd permit it. Regardless, it was a great portrayal, but every actor who has played Caesar comes up with something different. James Purefoy did an incredible job as Anthony and looked near perfect for the part, although I suspect the real Anthony would wish to look as good a Purefoy. One other thing, I found both young Octavian and older Octavian far too likeable. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Caesar Augustus, but I tend to see him more like Roddy McDowell in 'Cleopatra'. And perhaps, Cicero was a just a tad too squirrelly (heh). Nonetheless, virtually every actor delivered outstanding performances. When I got the DVD set, I discovered the hundreds of footnotes and other materials; a really nice feature. Top notch production in my book. Five stars.

The Romans themselves answered those questions many times. Active campaigning tended to make better soldiers, idleness created the worst. There's a letter from Lucius to Fronto that describes Syrian legions as always wandering off their posts, always getting drunk, and basically making a poor show of military service, and for that matter, Nero ordered Corbulo to march to Armenia with Syrian legions that had never done any military duties at all. That ought to point to a major possibility in legionary excellence - the presence of a commander who is capable of leadership, motivation, and training. Also note that Plutarch mentions in the Life of Marius that legionaries love commanders who share their food and labour - we can read how the airs and graces of senior men contributed to the mutinies in Pannonia. Josephus describes the legion, without meaning to be complimentary, by the famous phrase "Roman drills are bloodless battles; their battles are bloody drills". In other words, the installation of relentless training made better soldiers, though clearly this was dependent on the commander not being especially lazy himself. Underlying all of this was the divorce that Marius gave the Legion. After him, they were no longer loyal to the state but effectively independent and loyal to their commanders whom they saw as responsible for their welfare. Thus later, legions became aware of their potential political clout and tended to use it - thus generals sometimes found themselves being urged by their men to march on Rome and take over by virtue of popularity. Bear in mind that almost half the major battles fought by Roman legions were against each other. Roman legions were not regiments in a state army - don't be fooled by modern thinking - there was no army organisation above legion level. Each legion was a separate packet of military power assigned to politicians to further their interests in security (or as often happened, personal ambition)