Skarr

I thought the reaction of Antony to Cleopatra's death was overdone and perhaps could have been cut a little. However, I agree with PP that the scene with Antony and Vorenus getting drunk was probably one of the best and I liked the interchange where Vorenus dismisses Greek notions about the afterlife in a summary fashion. The disdain that certain Romans felt for Greek theories about the nature of the world is apparent in that scene, especially those Romans who sincerely believed in the power of their gods over their fates. Octavian was very wooden in most of the scenes and I didn't care much for the older Octavian. By contrast, the younger, precocious Octavian was probably one of the best characters of the show. Antony was also very well portrayed by Purefoy, who is a fine actor. I do think the casting fell by the wayside in the second season and I just could not relate to Agrippa, Livia or the other sidekick of Octavian (I forget his name). Comparing the two seasons, the first one was brilliant and the second, quite mediocre, with many forgettable episodes. Somehow, the death of Caesar cast a shadow on everything and things appeared to have taken a dramatic slide after the final episode of Season 1.

I guess HBO had to write something about Pullo and Vorenus, as they are the principal actors in the series, apart from those playing Antony and Octavian. I think the Timon sub-plot could have been cut out though, as it didn't really play out well and I don't think it was that interesting either. Vorenus, in his new role as Antony's aide in Egypt seems a little more mellow and subdued and I'm not sure how his character will end up in the final episode. Maybe he'll defect to Octavian at the last moment, as a number of Antony's senior officers did abandon him in his final days, probably disgusted at the way he was conducting himself, despite oaths of loyalty et al. Pullo may try to rescue Caesarion, in the belief that he is his son, not Caesar's, as is commonly believed. Who knows what twists and turns await us tonight ? We'll see.. I do hope that the writers come up with something good for the finale and while Season 2 has not been as good as Season 1, I'll still take "Rome" over any other series. All in all, while not completely satisfying, it has had its moments. I do think Pullo has come off as a far more interesting character in Season 2 than Season 1, where he played second fiddle to Vorenus. If there's a Season 3, I would like them to focus on Tiberius, Caligula and Nero - three of the most demented Emperors who would offer viewers a new perspective on what it meant to be "Roman", with their extragavance, their depravity and ultimately, a kind of madness that seized the Empire after the death of the "divine" Augustus.

I thought last night's episode was pretty weak and poorly written. The scenes between Antony and Cleopatra were way over the top and perhaps, this was the intention of the writers, to show how the once noble and proud Antony had now fallen into an abyss and lost all respect, especially for things that Rome considers sacred or intrinsic to the Roman way of life. Cleopatra, who looks quite boyish in many of the scenes, succeeds in totally subduing Antony to her will and reveals an unexpected enthusiasm for rough sex, much like Octavian dominating Livia in a very graphic scene of masochistic passion. Who is the real monster here ? Cleopatra or Octavian ? Either way, the republic loses in the end. I think some of the redeeming scenes were those with Pullo in the Aventine, as he deals with the Roman mob followed by some tragic revelations. All in all, I don't expect a resounding finish, maybe a rushed one, with some pitiful scenes possibly with Antony, as the proud man bites the dust in inglorious fashion.

I guess the writers are probably hampered by various things - limited to cast on hand, quickly wrap up the series to a finale, ensure that viewer interest is focused on sex, shocking revelations, etc. etc. Clearly, this is history twisted to suit HBO's vision of how it would have liked things to have actually happened, regardless of other historical sources which may exist. I thought the bit about Octavian's need to whip Livia for sexual pleasure a little tacky but perhaps they wanted to show that he was, after all, a deviant himself at heart with a penchant for cruelty (his scene with Pullo, for example, where they torture Evander. Even Pullo, who is no stranger to blood and violence, balks at the cold ways of Octavian, pointing to his ruthless nature). I think there is a clear underlying thread in the series, possibly an attempt to de-humanize Octavian, to show that he lacked some basic human qualities, falling way short of the greatness he aspired to. I have a feeling that Atia will shortly be killed, possibly by Octavian (just a guess, based on how the writers are proceeding), which will reveal him to be the "monster" that he is in the process of becoming, in his quest for power. Maybe the writers want to convey a generic idea, using Octavian as a model, that absolute power is absolutely corrupt and that everything is permissible to a man who has it. After all, the concept of emperor is similar to that of god, but bereft of any kindness, which would be anathema to a despot. In summary, I think the writers want to show that the real effect of the conspiracy against Caesar was to replace a benign ruler (tyrant would be a more extreme characterization of Gaius Julius Caesar) with a real tyrant, one who would change the world order forever, for centuries to come.

I thought that Colleen's first book "The First Man in Rome", which focused more on Marius and Sulla was her best one. The ones that followed were not as good as that one and as the series drew on, it became more about Caesar than anyone else. In any case, I did like Pompeii and haven't found time yet to read "Imperium" (on my "to read" list). As far as Roman historical novels go, there is a real dearth of real good reading out there and the previous posts have covered most of the important ones. I'm currently reading a novel called "Centurion" by Peter W. Mitsopoulos. Haven't got far though. It seemed interesting but after the first chapter or so, is becoming really tedious and hasn't sustained my interest.

All I can gather is that Agrippa's family was from the Italian countryside and not much is known about them. There are repeated references to Agrippa's humble origins and while some sources cite his "equestrian" rank, not much is really known about his father, Lucius Vipsanius Agrippa. Who was Lucius descended from is the key question ? We'll never know the truth of this until someone finds some other source. There are tons of papyrii yet to be translated and perhaps one day, the truth will be known. Until then, HBO's version of his ancestry may yet be another version of the "truth".

The portrayal of Antony is seen as too "one dimensional" in my opinion, compared to the real Antony, who was a complex man, showing many facets, from utter boorishness to something almost noble, when you read about how he treated Brutus' corpse (as PP points out). Antony even learned rhetoric while he was in Greece and was quite a good orator, contrary to popular thinking, which is that he could not deliver a speech well, like Octavian Caesar. I'm also not pleased that they have not brought Fulvia into the series. Possibly, this is because Atia will have to disappear and she may have already been contracted for two seasons. Cicero's hands were nailed as well as his tongue, which was transfixed by Fulvia's golden hairpins. Later, the martial Fulvia even raises legions in Antony's absence, while he is cavorting with Cleopatra in Egypt. Maybe Atia will do this, as she seems to be fulfilling the role of Fulvia. I wonder where the second season will end ... battle of Actium possibly?

If Vin Diesel is a true history buff, as someone claims, it seems to me that at some point or the other, doing an Internet search would have revealed the existence of this site or at the very least, references to Livy or Polybius. However, it seems to me that sometimes, projects are undertaken with a definite agenda in mind and to lend this a measure of authenticity, someone suggests - "in order to really propagate these ideas, we need something more tangible ... why don't you search history for someone we could use". "Aha", comes back the reply, "why not Hannibal? He would be a perfect vehicle for our agenda and all we'll need to do is to use a broad creative brush"... Well, I could be wrong, rather, I hope I'm wrong about this and ultimately, we will get a half decent portrayal, with some real historical research being done before the final script is approved. Let's hope Vin Diesel does the right thing. As someone already pointed out, he did a good job as Riddick and hopefully, he'll do a better one as Hannibal and I don't see the need either to eulogize him as a hero who fought for a chimeral "freedom", a modern twist on an ancient story, which would be enough to make even the average historical buff cringe in horror and disgust at the travesty being offered on screen. Some parts of "Rome" also make me cringe, especially the most recent one where Brutus is disappointed he cannot offer a "birthday cake" to Cassius. Give me a break, guys, if there's one thing that Brutus would have avoided talking about at Philippi, it would have been "cake" for Cassius, a man he grew to despise but was forced to tolerate, because of the bed they jointly made together. But here they are, bonding like brothers on the eve of battle, laughing in the face of death instead of pissing their pants like the cowards they were.

That flame thrower looked like a pretty mean weapon, wouldn't have fancied coming up against that! But I wouldn't have turned down a cruise on Caligula's royal barge, well as long as he wasn't on it at the same time Interesting clip, no doubt. However, what is most revolting is the other clip on Caligula's extravagant palace and temple ships which must have severely drained the carefully accumulated resources of the Empire in the pursuit of "hedonistic" pleasures, as one commentator notes. What a waste of money and time! This was the real downfall of the Roman system when one insane monarch could hold the entire empire to ransom with his childish pursuits as he sought to bring reality to many of his fantasies or I would rather say, delusions. If that act of building such ships didn't prove him to be completely insane, I wonder what else would.

Thanks, Decimus, for your vote of confidence in my writing abilities. I just submitted my entry and hopefully, it will live up to your expectations.

I've read about this before, on the link between Rome and China. It seems quite possible to me that some legionaries from the defeated army of Crassus would have been captured, maybe then later freed and used as mercenaries for the Chinese side and eventually settling down, after taking the local women as their wives. I've heard about a similar village in a remote area of Pakistan where Greek soldiers from Alexander's army may have settled down as the residents of that village have similar Caucasian features - blue eyes, blond hair, well above average height (six feet and over) etc. etc. They have local features as well and all in all, a very similar story. If I recall, it was once featured in National Geographic some years ago with some photographs of some of the striking local residents of the village. It's a good thing they are doing DNA testing, which could conclusively prove the links and I wonder if someone would do a similar exercise with the residents of the Pakistani (or maybe Afghani, I'm not sure exactly - it was in the North West frontier of the Indian pensinsula - formerly the British North West province which encompasses today most of Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan). Coming back to Crassus, each time I think about him, I can't imagine the horrendous fate that he ultimately met at the hands of the Persian general, who "fed" him with molten gold. A terrible end to the richest Roman of his time. Although he was vain, greedy and possibly responsible for the deaths of many ill fated Roman citizens unfortunate enough to become the tenants of his toterring, fire prone insulae in the crowded Subura, I don't think anyone deserves to die the way he did. An ignoble end to a less than noble man. I do believe that if Caesar had not been assassinated by the short sighted senators (who were vain and greedy in their own way), he would have made his last campaign against the Parthians and would have taught them a terrible lesson. Anyway, it was not to be and perhaps the course of history might have changed completely if Caesar had just a few more years.

That one more nail in Richard Rudgley's theory that the Stone-agers were a peaceful bunch. He also said the same about Otzi the Iceman in the early days, before it was revealed that Otzi had indulged in some violence. Wasn't he actually killed by an arrow in the back? Any theory that says ancient people were less violent ("peaceful" is a modern, utopian concept) needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Human civilization and its history is mainly about survival, a little more than what Darwin envisages but no less evolutionary in that it was dictated by something far more than basic survival or adaptability to the local environment. One can just imagine the effects of a bad winter on a population that has exploded (relatively speaking) during so called "peaceful" times. More mouths, dwindling resources, hunger gnawing at the belly - it doesn't take a math genius to figure out what's going to happen. I have a hard time imagining an altruistic approach - hey, I'll starve but I'll see that you get your share of whatever wild animal they managed to capture. Violence is a key survival mechanism and the ancients used it far more often than is conceived.

Interesting... PP, I always thought that Pompeii was founded by the Etruscans and was a major haven for them as they fled away from the capital city as they were getting "romanized" and thoroughly absorbed into Roman society at all levels. The Etruscans had their own culture / traditions etc. many of which were adapted or "romanized" and over time, lost their original identity. The arch, haruspicy, the practice of lictors, various other customs -- all were of Etruscan origin.

Like Andrew, I think I must have read the Penguin translation myself (so many years ago). I do recall that it was eminently forgettable and uninspiring and that's probably the reason I never searched around for a better translation. I do have the translations of both the "The Odyssey" and the "Iliad" by Robert Fagles and what a difference it is when compared to the other translations. I do hope that he does translate this one too like Virgil's "Aeneid", which is on my "to read" list.

Indeed... I also did not recall that Brutus ever went to Bithynia, which I always associate with Caesar (due to the rumor that was probably spread by Bibulus, his junior colleague when they were consuls together). I also noticed another curious thing about the scene. It was unthinkable for a Roman out on the field, riding a horse especially, without wearing a protective subligaculum. Brutus appears to have gone "native", something that Antony was accused of, while he was busy empire building in the East with Cleopatra. I think the writers are trying to improvise his character and in the scene with Cassius, it appears that he, not Brutus, is in control of his senses. His appeal to Janus, the God of beginnings, shows that Brutus wants to put Caesar behind him and start life anew. I think he knows he is a coward and when this fact was bluntly pointed out to him, it is too much for him to bear. I think the writers are attempting a Shakespearean tact here, by pointing out that Brutus is a noble man, one who sincerely believed that killing Caesar was the best thing for the Republic, as it removed a tyrant. However, the obvious conflict here is that as time progresses, Brutus begins to have doubts and even remorse over what he's done and far from being "noble", he just acted like a coward, a man of weak will and strength, something completely opposite from that of a true Roman. Hence, the drive to be re-born and seek the help of Janus. Anyway, let's see what happens to his character. I'm sure they will be other interesting twists.

Cicero's speech was done quite well, I thought, with a dramatic, albeit violent end as Antony is compared to a "woman" by the frightened senator. I wonder where all the long haired Gauls were in the senate, those who were newly appointed by Caesar. Were they all absconding as there were only a few senators, barely enough to make up a quorum ? Although Cicero sided with Octavian, Antony did have a number of supporters in the senate and in fact, when things got pretty bad some years later between him and Octavian, a number of them fled Rome to join him. Season 2 has so far been pretty entertaining although I found there were a number of gratuitous scenes which could have been avoided or maybe toned down. I think people get it without being too much in your face.

I believe there were two types of pila - a light one, which could be thrown farther to slow down an advancing enemy and a heavier one, which would be thrown just before engaging the enemy with the traditional gladii or short sword that the infantry favored. The light pila were modified in their design by Gaius Marius, who found that if the pila bent at the part where the metal joined the wood, the enemy could not retrieve and throw it back at the advancing legion. I think this must have been the lighter one and while I doubt they threw it when the enemy was at about a 100m apart, 30m or even a little closer sounds more reasonable. As far as the trajectory is concerned, I think anything more than 45 degrees would have been difficult and a higher angle, as someone pointed out here, would result in loss of distance. Even at 45 degrees, a hail of the light pila thrown at the enemy would cause them to instinctively raise their shields and possible catch many of the pila and since they could not easily get them out because of the soft metal which broke off the pila and left it useless and dangling, they had to probably throw away their shields, which made them easy targets for a stabbing gladius. Anyway, I'm not a military expert and maybe I've got everything wrong, but this is my 2 sestertii on this...

It is truly amazing to think that a "palace" was built at the site and is so old, based on the carbon dating. I do hope we get some more detail on the find and it will be probably some months before a comprehensive article or TV show is produced with some of the highlights of the dig. Judging from its size, it is clear that the early rulers of Rome wanted something impressive, as they were on the brink of a new civilization, a new way of life that was not only novel but would change the entire economic balance of the Mediterranean. It is as if the legend has taken new wings now and I'm expecting to see a flood of material on this dig, as it progresses. Of course, there are many things to be verified before we start changing our history books. The current impression is that a lowly "hut" was the only building on the Palatine hill but now, it seems we have a precusor of sorts to the grand buildings that would ultimately be erected on the site.

Episode 2 was even more interesting than the first. The woman rummaging through the kitchen utensils in Vorenus's home was a neighbor of Niobe. She is there in many scenes in Season 1, including the very first scene where Vorenus returns home after his campaign in Alesia (with the defeat of Vercingetorix), where he is surprised to see Niobe with an infant in her arms. She is also there to counsel her about Pullo and his interest in the affair between her sister's husband (killed / tortured by Pullo / Octavian sometime in Season 1) and Niobe. Vorenus has crossed over to Hades (or the "dark side", to borrow a phrase from "Star Wars") and is in a dangerous place now. Pullo, as someone predicted here, will be the voice of reason and I think will join up with Octavian to battle against the raging Vorenus / Mark Antony combination. As someone already stated here, I think Vorenus's family will be taken as hostages in a truce / reconciliation between Octavian / Antony with possibly Pullo and Vorenus acting as go betweens (as Vorenus now controls Rome in the name of Antony). Interesting stuff.. I wonder who will play Agrippa.

My favorite is Ciaran Hinds as Caesar in "Rome". However, I think Rex Harrison did a good job in "Cleopatra". I also liked John Gavin as the young Julius Caesar in "Spartacus". Somehow, I didn't care much for Gielgud's performance and I thought he was an excellent Cassius in the movie with Marlon Brando as Antony. I don't recall who played Caesar. I believe that performance was the worst Caesar I've ever seen. James Mason played Brutus in that film.

I've read all the Asterix comics when I was young. It's a fantastic series and I'm encouraging my daughter to read them as well, as it does give you some history and is also entertaining and quite funny. Brutus especially is quite amusing as he's always with a knife in his hand, ready to stab Caesar, who doesn't notice his murderous intentions. The fights with the gladiators are hilarious and Obelix, because of his super strength (from a magic potion), just smacks them around.

I looked at the preview and I have a feeling that it's going be long on action, short on story / drama ... I generally prefer the latter (although I don't mind action scenes, provided it fits in with the context and is portrayed with intensity). Anyway, let's wait and perhaps it may turn out to be a good film... It's too early to tell. My gut says it is going to be pretty bad but let's see how it turns out.

I wouldn't say that necessarily Skarr. In no particular order: Troy, Braveheart, Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven Alexander, Last Samurai, Master and Commander.... Those are just quickly off the top of my head. The real problem is not that the era of making historical is dead, but rather most of those that are made just aren't very good. Perhaps I should have stated a little differently... I meant the real elaborate kind of movies like "Ben Hur", "Cleopatra" etc.. Most of those kind of movies cannot be produced today. Braveheart didn't have many sets and England has many castles still which can be converted easily enough. Gladiator / Alexander used a lot of CGI and so did Kingdom of Heaven. Although the Last Samurai and Master and Commander are historicals, I don't think they really qualify for the epic scale I'm talking about .... Recreating a Japanese village and a ship are not that difficult as compared to say, shooting a film set in ancient Rome, where you have to show the city. This is the point I was trying to make and it didn't come across clearly. My apologies.

I have the graphic novel version and it is pretty good, especially the final battle scenes with the Persians. Like "Sin City", I think the movie will be shot in the same style that was used for Miller's drawings. Instead of building elaborate sets, most of the film will be shot on blue screen, like a play. Later, they will add CGI and literally paint in every missing detail of the scene, using computers and Miller's drawings / sketches / artwork. While I'm not really against this style of filmmaking, I don't know if I would rather prefer the old fashioned way of making a historical action movie with actual sets and a cast of thousands. Of course, there is the cost issue involved and the era of making historical epics such as "Ben Hur" is long dead.

Swords of Rome - Click here I wasn't aware that the excellent graphic novel series set in ancient Rome, called "Murena", by Jean Dufaux was available in English. I do have the entire series in French and highly recommend this to all fans of ancient Rome. The graphics and designs are great and I would urge everyone to check this out. The story is set in Nero's time and I think the character of the young Nero is well portrayed. However, the real star of the series is his mother, Agrippina, whose lust for power is unbridled as she seeks to not only control her husband Claudius but also every aspect of her son's life. He feels stifled by her and the change in Nero's character, as he loses every friend that he has formed in his childhood, on his road to power, is shown with great detail and a number of interesting incidents. Although there is a lot of historical fact behind the actual incidents / stories covered in the series, as you can expect, the writer has taken considerable liberties with each of the characters. However, the end result is quite lively and even believable, although it is based solely on the imagination of the writer / artist. All in all, this is a very enjoyable series and you can order this directly from Amazon. (I have posted a link at the very top). Here is a link to an image from the series (this is in French): http://www.fnac.com/shelf/ZoomBD.asp?PRID=...=1&typ=1520