The Politics of HBO's ROME

[Plautus]

Beyond all the soap opera elements and full frontal nudity in HBO's Rome, what was it's overall message? The series describes in detail how the Roman democracy after 450 years slowly slipped into autocratic rule.

 

In season one the Senate is a clamorous debating society, riven with faction and class conflict. Party alliances are made and broken. Procedural maneuvering is a fine art. By the last episode the Senate is reduced to merely a docile cheering section for Octavian. In seperate episodes we saw how the voting system was corrupted by money, the lawcourts compromised, rhetorical skills no match for men with armies, personal prejudices played on and political back-stabbing was at times real backstabbing!

 

Of course to trace the real beginnings of the fall of Roman freedom, we should have gone back to Marius and Sulla or the Gracchi. Perhaps even to the disgrace of Scipio Africanus. By Caesar's time it was almost gone. Was it all because of the material wealth and power that came with world domination? Are Timon and his brother representing the suppressed people of the Third World, who's anger to hit back only grows and surpasses their material comfort? What would you call the first nail in the coffin of Roman democracy?

 

I think the series made a heroic effort to describe to modern viewers the slow eroding of the political power of the majority. Even as the newsreader declares the restoration of the Republic, by then the process is complete and the stage is set for one-man imperial rule. Thats why the series ends here at this point, even more than winding up the adventures of Voerrenus and Pullo. It is unneccessary to go further.

[Drusus Nero]

Beyond all the soap opera elements and full frontal nudity in HBO's Rome, what was it's overall message? The series describes in detail how the Roman democracy after 450 years slowly slipped into autocratic rule.

 

In season one the Senate is a clamorous debating society, riven with faction and class conflict. Party alliances are made and broken. Procedural maneuvering is a fine art. By the last episode the Senate is reduced to merely a docile cheering section for Octavian. In seperate episodes we saw how the voting system was corrupted by money, the lawcourts compromised, rhetorical skills no match for men with armies, personal prejudices played on and political back-stabbing was at times real backstabbing!

 

Of course to trace the real beginnings of the fall of Roman freedom, we should have gone back to Marius and Sulla or the Gracchi. Perhaps even to the disgrace of Scipio Africanus. By Caesar's time it was almost gone. Was it all because of the material wealth and power that came with world domination? Are Timon and his brother representing the suppressed people of the Third World, who's anger to hit back only grows and surpasses their material comfort? What would you call the first nail in the coffin of Roman democracy?

 

I think the series made a heroic effort to describe to modern viewers the slow eroding of the political power of the majority. Even as the newsreader declares the restoration of the Republic, by then the process is complete and the stage is set for one-man imperial rule. Thats why the series ends here at this point, even more than winding up the adventures of Voerrenus and Pullo. It is unneccessary to go further.

 

Do you think that's what George Bush and the Republican party have in mind?.

[Klingan]

I believe that you are seeing connections where there are none. How soapaish it ever was, it still told the story of real events. The restoration of the republic was one of the things Octavianus really wanted to show the people. Timon and his brother is probably (in my opinion) just yet another side trail that was left unfinished, with no real though behind it with so many different people involved.)

 

About why it's ending at the point it does, I can hardly imagine any much better point to end it at. I would have been quite dull for the average watcher to watch Octavian reforming the republic (I wouldn't mind a serious documentary at the subject or a book for that case). It's a commercial show, unless people watch it, it's over.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In seperate episodes we saw how the voting system was corrupted by money, the lawcourts compromised, rhetorical skills no match for men with armies, personal prejudices played on and political back-stabbing was at times real backstabbing!

 

Are you watching the same series as the rest of us? When was there any reference to the compromise of the law courts? Caesar was portrayed not only as refusing to compromise the trial of Pullo, despite the intercessions of his friends, but also leading Vorenus to prevent a rescue of Pullo. Moreover, the rhetorical skills of Antony were credited with his prevailing over Brutus.

[civis]

I see how one can interpret the show like that, but I think it says more about your perspective than the producers. I was sad that the Timon thing ended as abrubtley and unsatifyingly as it did. Call me weird but in a perfect world that would be a set up for a spin off that takes you to Jerusalem to see the effects that occupation has on that city. I would choose Jerusalem because it would strike a chord with viewers plus you would go from the decadence of Rome to the turmoil of occupation. Granted Rome was in turmoil but seeing a different kind, with a proud people reduced to slavery(at least how they see it) would be interesting. And make better, or at least more direct, commentary.

[Northern Neil]

Remember, chaps, that us over the pond have yet to see this - so dont tell us too much!!

[Ursus]

Beyond all the soap opera elements and full frontal nudity in HBO's Rome, what was it's overall message? The series describes in detail how the Roman democracy after 450 years slowly slipped into autocratic rule.

 

 

I didn't detect any overt message in it. I think the mark of a good story is that all dimensions are shown, and the individual reader can read into it what they want.

 

As for me, my favorite quote is from Titus Pullo. After Vorennus's scouting party crosses the Rubicon, and Vorennus complains the Republic is under attack and he is traitor, Pullo responds that the sky still stands and the earth remains. Yes. Life goes on - it may be a different dance but you still have to dance.

 

For me the politics was a backdrop that effected the characters' personal lives and their relations with each other. The center of the show was not in fact the historical figures, but the two Roman everymen - LV and TP. At the end of Season 1, LV's involvement in politics and wars deprives him of everything he holds dear - his family and his dignity. At the end of Season 1, TP finds he is to give up his wild ways and find meaning by settling down with his lovely slave girl.

[georgious]

Beyond all the soap opera elements and full frontal nudity in HBO's Rome, what was it's overall message? The series describes in detail how the Roman democracy after 450 years slowly slipped into autocratic rule.

 

 

I didn't detect any overt message in it. I think the mark of a good story is that all dimensions are shown, and the individual reader can read into it what they want.

 

As for me, my favorite quote is from Titus Pullo. After Vorennus's scouting party crosses the Rubicon, and Vorennus complains the Republic is under attack and he is traitor, Pullo responds that the sky still stands and the earth remains. Yes. Life goes on - it may be a different dance but you still have to dance.

 

For me the politics was a backdrop that effected the characters' personal lives and their relations with each other. The center of the show was not in fact the historical figures, but the two Roman everymen - LV and TP. At the end of Season 1, LV's involvement in politics and wars deprives him of everything he holds dear - his family and his dignity. At the end of Season 1, TP finds he is to give up his wild ways and find meaning by settling down with his lovely slave girl.

I must say that the series- of which I have seen just seen season 1,ending with the assasination of Caesar, is admirable. Being a commercial series it submits to some cliches about Rome as opposed to the more academically oriented BBC's Roman Empire 6 episodes ,each devoted to certain top historical personalities. Instead Rome focuses except the machinations of the rich eg Caesar and his circle, to the lives of two average Romans, Vorenus and Pullo.But replying to the first message about the politics one must not overstimate the Republic which according to sources was never much of a Republic, dominated by a Senate, a very aristocratic body and essentially a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Note in the last episode of the first season the dismay of Brutus and his circle at the introduction of Gauls in the Senate as well as the elevation of a plebs Vorenus to the rank of a Senator. All this democratization of the Senate was the work of an autocrat, Caesar. One should idealize the Republican period as a democratic one since a very distinct oligarchy lurked behind the facade. One must not blame Augustus and his Principate. I do not think that he made the world a worse place for the average inhabitant of the Empire by turning the Republic to a Principate. The Republic was wildly clientelistic and you can see this process when Vorenus receives his clients-a micro-scale since Vorenus is just a minor magistrate then. Also do not forget that the whole reputed system of Roman law operated in the case you were a Roman citizen rich or poor-remember the spokesman's proclamation: true roman bread for true Romans.So the Republic was good if you were a Roman. How many of the Inhabitants of the Roman controlled Oecumene were citizens during the Republic? Can A statistician enlight us? I think a book by Garnsey about the Roman Empire has an answer, But I must say that I by heart rember a certain sentence that about the time of Augustus the fully-fledged beneficaries of the Roman legal system -that is those that could fully exercise the rights presrcibed by it were a shocking 1% of ther population! And do not forget that already by the time of the constitution ascribed to Servius the system of vote in the comitia centuriata-the assembly of the people gave the majority to the curiae of the first class with those of the knights at the expense of the rest four classes plus the class of the ploletarians. So another reason not to idealize the Republic.I think the series is accurate, for most of the people darkness was followed by darkness.