Hbo Rome and... BBC too

[DanM]

Roman men could be bisexual, and Caesar most likely was. What Roman contemporaries objected to was not his bisexuality per se, but the degree of his promiscuity with both genders.

 

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but wasn't there some distinction along the lines of whether you were the active or passive partner in a homosexual relationship? If my memory is correct, then I believe there was much less of a stigma for giving than for receiving. And accusing someone of being th submissive partner was how you would slander or denegrate a Roman man.

 

Also, the thing about promiscuity even fell upon married couples. I think there were some literary sources that even rebuked men for loving their wives too much. Does anyone have any references they can give along these lines? Was it somehow tied to a philosphical or religous value? I think I read it in one of my Peter Brown books, but its been a long time and I may be mistaken.

 

I am getting a little more nervous with each passing episode. While subtle, the plot advances more and more rather odd notions. (in episode 5 Octavian accompanies the legionary Pollo on a mission to find out if the centurion Vorenus' wife is faithful). I am still disappointed in Caesar's rather apparant lack of a direction or motivation, but that has been present from the beginning and is building up my rather slight frustation. Yes, I am very much still enjoying the show, I am just expressing concern and hope it doesn't stray too far from a 'historic' chain of events.

 

But thats what a historically-based fictional story is supposed to do. It should be true to what is documented and fill in the undocumented areas in an entertaining, plausable manner. Unless you have some documented proof that Pollo and the young Octavian did not torture and kill a man in the middle of the night and dump his body into the sewer while Ceasar occupied Rome, I don't see the problem.

 

As for the part about Ceasar, I agree. I really expected to see more until I realized that he was not the primary character of the story. Yes he was the primary character of the historical event, but the story is far more about Pullo, Vorenus and Octavian up to this point than about Ceasar, Mark Anthony, Pompey or Brutus. Maybe things will change, but thats what I see so far.

 

The historic chain of events is the background and nothing more.

[Primus Pilus]

But thats what a historically-based fictional story is supposed to do. It should be true to what is documented and fill in the undocumented areas in an entertaining, plausable manner. Unless you have some documented proof that Pollo and the young Octavian did not torture and kill a man in the middle of the night and dump his body into the sewer while Ceasar occupied Rome, I don't see the problem.

 

As for the part about Ceasar, I agree. I really expected to see more until I realized that he was not the primary character of the story. Yes he was the primary character of the historical event, but the story is far more about Pullo, Vorenus and Octavian up to this point than about Ceasar, Mark Anthony, Pompey or Brutus. Maybe things will change, but thats what I see so far.

 

The historic chain of events is the background and nothing more.

 

Agreed, its why I only say that I am getting nervous and not overly bent out of shape about anything yet.. There haven't been any blatant obsurdities yet, and I'm holding out hope that there won't be any. The series is too good so far to allow a major breach of protocal methinks.

[Ursus]

Caesar nor Augustus was a homo period! Where is the proof for this? Quotes by political enemies just DO NOT cut it! The number one means of character assinination by the ancient sources were accusations of homosexuality, incest, paricide etc... Is a quote such as "Every woman's man and every man's woman" what you base your post on? Really, lets stick with documented fact not documented slander!

 

 

 

First of all, let's use "homosexual" rather than "homo." Sounds less derogatory. Don't want to get all PC, but...

 

Second, what we're talking about in this context is bisexuality, not homosexuality. While it's true Roman society would not have much use for a full blown homosexual, bisexuality was far more condoned and common.

 

Thirdly, bisexuality was fairly common among Roman upper class males (though not to the extent it was in Greece), so it's not entirely out of question.

 

 

To say so-and-so Joe Roman was bisexual was not inherently slander, not to the Romans. It was in context and degree where problems arose among the Romans. I think you're taking the rampant distaste for same-sex acts of later monotheist society and projecting them backward onto a pagan society that didn't quite share them.

 

 

"Every woman's man and every man's woman" .... that quote pretty much sums the heart of the matter ... it was not that Caesar slept with both genders that was the problem, it was that he was (allegedly) excessively promiscuous with both genders. He was (allegedly) a slave to his hormones, in other words, something Republican scruples didn't tolerate in Roman men.

 

 

 

Maybe my memory is playing tricks on me, but wasn't there some distinction along the lines of whether you were the active or passive partner in a homosexual relationship? If my memory is correct, then I believe there was much less of a stigma for giving than for receiving. And accusing someone of being th submissive partner was how you would slander or denegrate a Roman man.

 

Also, the thing about promiscuity even fell upon married couples. I think there were some literary sources that even rebuked men for loving their wives too much. Does anyone have any references they can give along these lines? Was it somehow tied to a philosphical or religous value? I think I read it in one of my Peter Brown books, but its been a long time and I may be mistaken.

 

Your memory is pretty good, actually. In male-to-male pairings, the social superior had to take the, um, top position, while the social inferior had to take the bottom position. Sexuality was an extension of power to the Romans, thus the more socially powerful person had to be in the more poweful position. If this were reversed, if the social superior let himself be passive for the social inferior, it was considered unmanly and he could be mocked.

 

Also, the bit about Roman men not loving their wives too much is also correct. Can't remember where, but the fact that Pompeii was openly affectionate with his wife was mocked by his peers. Marriage in upper class Rome was not about love, it was about familial politics. If a man fell under his wife's affections too much, he was considered henpecked, under her spell. For a Roman male to be overly influenced by his wife was considered unmanly.

[Jordon Harriman]

Re Episode 5 itself: The scene with Evander, Titus and Octavian was simply chilling. I was watching it pursuant to my 21st Century moral code. When Titus hesitates about torturing Evander, I think to myself, "he has scruples about this, he doesn't want to torture an innocent man." But no, he just doesn't know how to go about it, and is happy for the suggestion from Octavian about the thumbs. The long shot with the screams and Titus tossing the thumbs in the sewer was especially sobering and harrowing.

 

That scene contrasts significantly with Vorenus's scene where he hesitates to break the businessman's arm, and refuses to kill him. Did Vorenus refuse because he thought killing that man was wrong, or because he did not want to be a hired killer? He then rejoins the Legion, where he will be ordered (and paid) to kill people he has no personal quarrel with. Vorenus is clearly a man of faith - He undergoes a religious rite when he re-enters the Legion. But he is a man of Roman faith, believing in Roman gods.

 

I think the show's creators wanted the viewers to compare and contrast those two scenes, and think about how we view Titus and Vorenus as a result. I like that there is a lot to chew on, and no easy answer. I don't think we are being led to any one answer. Both characters are becoming fully realized, and look at reality from a Roman point of view instead of a modern one. That is one of the reasons I am really enjoying the show.

 

Regarding Octavian being in that situation, I think it is more that the writers needed to create something for him to do. He is obviously an important character for the future of the series, but has no important position or authority right now. The scene keeps him in our minds, and illustrates again his ability to judge and see through other people. It also illustrates that he is not squeamish about torture or bloodshed. I was fine with the scene for that reason.

[Primus Pilus]

When Titus hesitates about torturing Evander, I think to myself, "he has scruples about this, he doesn't want to torture an innocent man." But no, he just doesn't know how to go about it, and is happy for the suggestion from Octavian about the thumbs. The long shot with the screams and Titus tossing the thumbs in the sewer was especially sobering and harrowing.

 

I had the exact same impression with the scene. At first I was thinking... 'Pollo has shown that this sort of thing wouldn't bother him in the slightest, why would it bother him now.' It was good to see that it truly was a lack of knowledge and not a form of scruples as you suggest. He does seem to be developing a fondness for Vorenus for reasons that I'm not entirely sure, but torture as a means to an end certainly doesn't strike me as something to give him pause.

 

As for Vorenus, my impression is that he has no problem killing as a soldier for the greater glory of Rome, but private assassination for the gain of an individual seems to be against his nature. I wouldn't worry too much about this being a bastardized Christianization of ancient Rome... murdering someone was still against the law long before Christ and Vorenus is simply a rather lawful man. (or so it seems as evidenced by his reluctance to serve Caesar due to his own view of current events').

 

At any rate I think they are doing a wonderful job with the recreation of religious symbolism. I'd be interested in the comments of some of you who are more attuned to such things than I am.

[Taximus]

I love the fact that the Octavius character is being developed... it gives me hope that the series will continue into Augustus' reign!

 

 

P.S. - someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Augustus known as "Octavius" as a youth until his adoption by Juilius? It's a simple detail I know... but so far the show has been pretty meticulous to detail, I'm surprised correct naming isn't reflected...

[DanM]

One of the striking points I remember when watching the "Making of Rome" was that interviews with different actors kept coming back to the theme of how this was a very different society with different values and different expectations for its people. I think the scene with Pollo and Octavian is a great example of that fact.

 

In addition to the examples you guys have been giving, don't forget Octavian. Remember when he was talking to Pollo about his poor abilities with a sword and he said that he had no problem with killing people. He only had problems with the physical side of swordplay. Also, he was the young child who calmly told Evander he would die and it was only up to Evander to decide how much pain would be involved. In today's society we would label such a kid as a sociopath and give him an intensive program of drugs and therapy to alter his behavior. By the time modern psycology was through with him, he would be making fingerpaint pictures and crying along with selected Bett Midler songs. In his time, however, he was the greatest man of his era who ruled the known world. By the time of his death, he was Rome. The entire show is a very sharp constrast in cultures (Roman vs Modern) if you allow yourself to look at it that way.

 

I love the fact that the Octavius character is being developed... it gives me hope that the series will continue into Augustus' reign!

 

I heard this series cost 100 million dollars to make. And since HBO is very savy from a marketing standpoint, I am sure they would not enter into such a project unless they left open the possiblity of a sequel if it were a commerical success.

 

Also, the bit about Roman men not loving their wives too much is also correct. Can't remember where, but the fact that Pompeii was openly affectionate with his wife was mocked by his peers. Marriage in upper class Rome was not about love, it was about familial politics. If a man fell under his wife's affections too much, he was considered henpecked, under her spell. For a Roman male to be overly influenced by his wife was considered unmanly.

 

Do you remember if a particular school of philosophical thought pushed the ideal of not having too much sex or too much emotional attachment to a sexual partner?

 

If so, and we can accept the fact that the early Christian Church borrowed heavily from many of the philosphical ideals in practice throughout the Empire, then it might be possible to look at ancient Greek philosophy as the ancestor of later Christian Puritanism. Its just a theory, but its kinda funny to think about.

 

.....and I know that most people like to link Egyptian and Syrian ascetic traditions to Christian tendencies towards puritanical beliefs, but that doesn't mean its the only possibile explanation. Especially when you look at the development of the western branch of the church which I believe was more influenced by Augustine than by the Egyptian fathers.

[Guest Sertorius]

Greetings from Hispania, where thank to Mercurius (god of thieves and p2p networks) we can enjoy this wonderful series. Sorry for my English! By the way, does anybody know of some site where i can find the subtitles?

 

I

[Primus Pilus]

P.S. - someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Augustus known as "Octavius" as a youth until his adoption by Juilius? It's a simple detail I know... but so far the show has been pretty meticulous to detail, I'm surprised correct naming isn't reflected...

 

Indeed, Augustus was born Gaius Octavius (some add Thurinus as cognomen shortly after his birth) and would have been identified largely as Octavius until his adulthood. Upon Caesar's adoption he became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus and would've been largely known simply as Caesar. To avoid confusion in the historical record though, historians mostly use Octavian rather than a Caesar Minor or some other butchering. Why is Octavian seemingly more popular than Octavius... perhaps simply because it was the adult signification.

 

PS> welcome to the forum Taximus and Guillermolo.

[Skarr]

PP, I think Octavian wants to somehow get even with Vorenus and feels obliged to him for saving his life.

 

 

He doesn't want this obligation and is looking for ways to discharge this debt as he knows that sooner or later, with his uncle Julius trusting him (with his affliction), in a few short years, when he comes of age, he would be sure to be put in a position of command. The last thing he figures he needs is to be obliged to someone who would fall under his command.

 

He is a Dominus and has already assessed Pullo and knows that he would do anything for a buck. But Vorenus is a man of honor and would decline anything, saying it was his duty to save him and nothing else.

 

So, when Pullo approaches him about the problem obliquely, he immediately guesses it must be Vorenus and seizes the opportunity, using Pullo as a tool to get rid of Vorenus's enemy (although he doesn't know it at the time). He makes sure he can extract every bit of information though and it is he who is the 'torturer' in the scene, not Pullo. He later counsels Pullo not to reveal a word to Vorenus, which that dummy would automatically obey as he doesn't have a mind like Octavian, who's planning ahead to the day when he is caught in a delicate situation with Vorenus. There, if Vorenus recalls the incident where he saved Octavian's life, he can throw back the Evander incident in his face saying that if he saved his life, then he, Octavian, saved his honor, which would be the same as saving Vorenus's life.

 

As a writer, I can see the possibilities here and I'm sure the guys behind the series are also planning ahead by setting up these interesting possibilities.

[longbow]

Im still waiting for episode 5 to be available for download ,im starting to get worried about it because the other four episodes didnt take this long,there usually on the site by monday

[Denec]

As a writer, I can see the possibilities here and I'm sure the guys behind the series are also planning ahead by setting up these interesting possibilities.

 

 

As a logntime fan of many of the HBO series, from Sopranos, to Deadwood, and Carnivale, and now Rome

 

 

One thing I know even though they all have different writers, HBO always loves to keep us guessing from episode to episode. What might appear to be one thing can be something totally different then we are exepcting. That is the beauty of the HBO series. What I love about HBO series overall is they make you think and analzye each episode. Very few TV shows do that to same degree HBO has.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I like the series, but I get the distinct feeling that it will fail me with regard to the representation of battle. Not seeing those battles in at least some form is a loss to history.

[Guest Sertorius]

I have some historical doubts about the series. Here is the first: In episode 4, Caesar "asks" the chief augur to make a good omen, to make the people trust him. But, wasn

[Favonius Cornelius]

I have some historical doubts about the series. Here is the first: In episode 4, Caesar "asks" the chief augur to make a good omen, to make the people trust him. But, wasn