BBC Ancient Rome: New Docudrama's

[WotWotius]

Wasn't he found dead in bed and the question as to whether he was killed wasn't clear and was perhaps some of the usual slander/intrigue? And it was Lucius Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus who was in command at Pydna. Scipio was a teenager, but present all the same.

 

 

Yes, Scipio Aemilianus was in fact Aemilius Paulus' son. He was also present at Pydna, and, according to Plutarch, he fought exceptionally well on the cavalry wing:

 

Well, then, when it was already late and he was almost despaired of, he came in from the pursuit with two or three comrades, covered with the blood of the enemies he had slain, having been, like a young hound of noble breed, carried away by the uncontrollable pleasure of the victory. This was that Scipio who, in after times, destroyed Carthage and Numantia, and became by far the most noble and influential Roman of his day. Thus Fortune, postponing to another season her jealous displeasure at the great success of Aemilius, restored to him then in all completeness his pleasure in his victory. -Plutach, life of Aemilianus Paullus, 22

 

Carbo was , I think ,explicitly named as his assasin by Cicero? Certainly S Aemilianus' "justly slain" remark (as regards Gracchus ) made the Populares howl . The subjugation of Numantia alone would have been a remarkable feat.

 

Some sources (I cannot remember which) place the blame of Aemilianus' apparent murder on the shoulders of his wife, Sempronia

[spittle]

On a slightly unrelated matter, did anyone remember the 'Ancient Egyptians' Tv series from a few years back? Here was a similar series to 'Ancient Rome' in that instead of having historians talk us through events, they had actors, sets (both real and CGI) and a whole hoard of props to try and recreate Egypt in ancient times. Each episode would follow a true story, The Battle of Kadesh for instance, and they would have the actors speaking in Egyptian (with subtitles) supposedly with the actual words of the people (the Pharaoh, the Generals etc).

 

The latter episodes were rather interesting as they delved into real events that were not so famous, such as the prosecution and execution of a Tomb raider, the lives of twin sisters that were kicked out of their mother's home and who later asked the Ptolemaic Pharaoh for assistance.

 

It's my guess that the series will be similair to this in style (I wonder if the characters speak latin?) or perhaps the Gladiator documentary the BBC showed a few years ago.

 

 

I bought the DVD of this last week. Its a Ch4 production and its (50 minutes each) episodes are:

 

The Battle of Megiddo (against the Prince of Kadesh 1600BC)

Tomb Robbers (1100BC)

Murder in the Temple (600BC)

The Twins (150BC)

 

I also bought BBC's EGYPT:Rediscovering a Lost World.

 

This has 6 hour long episodes. 2 concerning King Tut, 2 about Belzoni (What a bloke he must have been!) and the final 2 tell the story of the race to translate the Rossetta stone. (The French actually won the English in that one!).

 

I would heartily reccommend both of these titles for anyone with an interest in the ancient world. Especially people like me who have little time to read and must quench thier thirst for knowledge somehow. Enjoyable, informative and a great way to get kids (or maybe even wives) introduced to history.

[Pertinax]

So what did you all think of Nero?

 

My thoughts: a lot was crammed into one hour, but I suppose in modern terms it was a serious exposition of plot. Nero's rather sudden switch to madness was a little alarming , but I think the key scenes were vivid and gave a lot of food for thought.It was rather like a well acted "power point" presentation and the look of the thing was good.

One might have to say " a bit hysterical" (how else could Nero perhaps be presented?) but not unworthy.

[DecimusCaesar]

I agree yet I thought it rather strange that Nero's earlier life was ignored,especially his realationship with his mother Agripinna.

Still it was a very good production. I noticed that Mary Beard was the historical consultant for the show, I think her review of Rome was posted here recently.

[Pertinax]

Nero flipped from visionary re-builder to sexual deviant rather too quickly. I think, if like many here, one is aware of his life as reported the key events were not badly done, just rather truncated in presentation.

The cinematic presentation was good I thought.

[WotWotius]

So what did you all think of Nero?

 

My thoughts: a lot was crammed into one hour, but I suppose in modern terms it was a serious exposition of plot. Nero's rather sudden switch to madness was a little alarming , but I think the key scenes were vivid and gave a lot of food for thought.It was rather like a well acted "power point" presentation and the look of the thing was good.

One might have to say " a bit hysterical" (how else could Nero perhaps be presented?) but not unworthy.

 

It was excellent in many respects. However, I always imagined Nero's artistic inclinations as being a fa

[DecimusCaesar]

The scene in the amphitheatre did however rouse one question: it was a structure built of stone, but weren

[Pertinax]

Good point on the amphitheatre,I was trying to work that one out myself-dont we have to wait for Vespasian and Titus to get the "real " thing (or rather the incremental construction of said building)? Can anyone help here?

 

Not to be too prurient, the castration episode puzzled me, the operation would be well known (if not commonplace) this seemed rather a gratuitous and salacious scene, I assume to accord with the supposed dionysiac frenzy of Neros lust. I would have expected an actual surgical operation, as the possibility of death from blood loss (and sepsis) would be enormous if this scene were the reality.

[WotWotius]

I also have another faultfinding point: acourding to sources (their credability may be questionable), rather than using a dagger, Nero stabbed himself with a pen.

Edited September 21, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

A small point , one can now comprehend the scene setting for the "year of the four emperors" in the context of Nero's looting of the Temples (and the Patrician horror thereof) , and more directly his onerous taxation policy.The enforced suicides of the wealthy patricii directly echoes the actions of Caligula in the "Caesars" from 30 years ago, indeed I suspected a little subliminal scene stealing.

[WotWotius]

Another 'I should really get out more' minute error that I picked up was Nero's reason for kicking Poppaea to death. According to Suetonius it was because she nagged him about staying out at the games for too long. Instead she is killed because Nero suspected her of open criticism.

[The Augusta]

Oh, dear!

 

Can I be the voice of dissent? I thought this was one of the BBC's shabbier presentations. Pop history at its worst, for me. First and foremost, we had no attempt whatsoever to even try and understand the complexities of this man. We were not, for instance, told that he succeeded Claudius at the tender age of 16, a boy hardly ready for the arduous task reserved for him; nor was it apparent just how much influence his advisers had throughout the earlier part of his reign. And let me say here and now that I am not a 'Nero apologist', but I think the presentation, i.e. 'a spoiled brat who could do anything he wanted' was somewhat over simplistic. I could forgive the tiny things: for a start he was blond! (Suetonius) I could also forgive the mispronunciations of Latin names so familiar to us that they have become household. There was no sign of Epaphroditus at the suicide. I was not over-enamoured of some of the performances either. That aside, I thought we would be in for a serious treatment of our subject when Nero's behaviour at the Great Fire was true to the history and did not - gods forbid - show him 'fiddling'. So I stuck with it....... and wish I hadn't.

 

The script, in places, was abysmal. "Let's hold it together!" was only one example. The computer generated sets - Seneca wandering against a background a la Lord of the Rings - looked dreadful. To me, the whole thing screamed low-budget. But even all this could be forgiven if they had spent 10 minutes or so on the why instead of the how. And the programme makers' contention that Nero was one of the figures fundamental in the eventual fall of the Empire made little sense when one considers that this process took another 400 years.

 

The BBC presented Nero as an erstwhile Lord Byron (mad, bad and dangerous to know), with plenty of gratuity thrown in. The gelding of Sporus was one such scene. Here we were again, forced to watch the sensationalist horrors of naughty men doing their own thing as they ruled the world, amidst a wash of wild generalisations from the narrators. "Nero was the worst Roman Emperor in history" (debatable). "Nero was the greatest builder in Roman history" (not only debatable, completely untrue). I do realise they had to cram everything in in one hour, but, please - he only reigned 15 years, and the story here only dealt with the last 4 years of his reign in any case. Surely it could have had a deeper treatment?

 

Programmes such as this, if they are meant to educate and entertain not only Roman history enthusiasts but the viewer who knows nothing of Nero at all, should at least present a balanced view, and not just repeat the same old stereotype. My son, who watched it with me, is a perfect illustration. He knew nothing about this particular Emperor before watching the programme. At its end, the most lasting image he had was that Nero had kicked Poppaea 13 times!

 

So, sorry, Citizens, I was not impressed with this offering. Let's hope for better in the weeks to come.

[WotWotius]

And let me say here and now that I am not a 'Nero apologist', but I think the presentation, i.e. 'a spoiled brat who could do anything he wanted' was somewhat over simplistic.

 

Yes, I admit it was a tad over-simplistic, but Nero, at least in my opinion, was in fact a 'spoilt brat' towards the end of his reign. And the reason the influence of his advisors was not shown was because the show started in 64 AD; this new docudrama got to grips with a man who was beginning to realise just how much unconstrained power he had.

[The Augusta]

And let me say here and now that I am not a 'Nero apologist', but I think the presentation, i.e. 'a spoiled brat who could do anything he wanted' was somewhat over simplistic.

 

Yes, I admit it was a tad over-simplistic, but Nero, at least in my opinion, was in fact a 'spoilt brat' towards the end of his reign. And the reason the influence of his advisors was not shown was because the show started in 64 AD; this new docudrama got to grips with a man who was beginning to realise just how much unconstrained power he had.

 

That's a fair point, WW. I will agree that the whole programme was presented from this standpoint - Nero's unconstrained power. Whether they truly 'got to grips' with it or not is somewhat open to question.

[DecimusCaesar]

Another thing I noticed is that Tigellinus, the Praetorian Commander, often gets the blame of corrupting Nero and he is often talked of as one of the people who was responsible for encouraging the Emperor in his depravities, yet in the documentary we don't see much of this, instead he just carries out Nero's orders and does his dirty work for him.

 

Didn't Tigellinus get replaced as Praetorian Commander by Nymphidius Sabinus towards the end, unlike the documentary?