anotheranon (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
anotheranon) wrote2006-03-05 12:33 pm
anotheranon) wrote2006-03-05 12:33 pm
teevee: Rome
I know I'm very late coming to the game, but I'm finally seeing HBO's Rome for the first time and am quite enjoying it.
For those even later to the game than I am - it's a historical drama that takes place in Rome after the Gallic War and covers the political/martial machinations between Caesar (military) and Pompey (Senate). A lot of the action is seen through the eyes of two of Caesar's soldiers.
The "making of" feature suggests that this series is what happens when hardcore historians are given a budget - my surface impression is that sets, costumes, social/mores, religion, etc. were researched to within an inch of their lives and presented as accurately as possible, with all the sex, violence, and gore that suggests. Even the two soldiers are based on people mentioned in a historical account of the Gallic Wars. If this is true (and I have my doubts, see below), I have to ask - why aren't more historical movies/tv shows as thorough and good as this? Is it funding, or just skimping on the details to appeal to a wider audience?
But, I'm no expert on Roman history so I'm throwing the question out there (aimed particularly at![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wcg, but anyone who knows feel free to pitch in): are they getting this right? How much creative license are they taking? I'm particularly curious about the role of women, as Atia and the other female characters seem to have a lot more autonomy/freedom of movement than my high-school level "history of the Roman Empire" suggested.
For those even later to the game than I am - it's a historical drama that takes place in Rome after the Gallic War and covers the political/martial machinations between Caesar (military) and Pompey (Senate). A lot of the action is seen through the eyes of two of Caesar's soldiers.
The "making of" feature suggests that this series is what happens when hardcore historians are given a budget - my surface impression is that sets, costumes, social/mores, religion, etc. were researched to within an inch of their lives and presented as accurately as possible, with all the sex, violence, and gore that suggests. Even the two soldiers are based on people mentioned in a historical account of the Gallic Wars. If this is true (and I have my doubts, see below), I have to ask - why aren't more historical movies/tv shows as thorough and good as this? Is it funding, or just skimping on the details to appeal to a wider audience?
But, I'm no expert on Roman history so I'm throwing the question out there (aimed particularly at
wcg, but anyone who knows feel free to pitch in): are they getting this right? How much creative license are they taking? I'm particularly curious about the role of women, as Atia and the other female characters seem to have a lot more autonomy/freedom of movement than my high-school level "history of the Roman Empire" suggested.
no subject
Most of the writers who discussed Roman women were from the lower classes, and as such had a view of women that was very restricted and/or misogynistic (Ovid comes to mind). But if you read the few writers from the upper classes (Julius Caesar, Marcus Aurelius etc.) or young men who had broken into the upper classes (Cicero), you can see a healthy respect for the power of a matriarch.
no subject
Maybe I'm conflating Roman attitudes with later Italian restriction of noblewomen (16th century Venice)?
no subject
Women were a lot more free in Rome, especially in the later part of the Empire timeline. They were literate, educated, could own property, could advocate for themselves, could purchase birth control and/or abortifacents, and could travel as they liked. When Rome fell in 444, women didn't regain that power until the 1100's, and then lost it again during the so-called "Renaissance" in the 1400's. We've only recently regained that sort of freedom since the 1900's.
no subject
no subject
no subject
What's your schedule like late March?
no subject
Re: Smith's Dictionary
Re: Smith's Dictionary
no subject
You're mostly right, but I want to clarify what Romans meant by nobility. A family was enobled by having one of its members be elected consul. Didn't matter whether it was a patrician or a plebeian family. Furthermore, nobility didn't guarantee membership in a particular Roman class, where membership was based on personal worth at the last census. To be a member of the first class in 100 BCE, a family had to have wealth equal to 200 talents, which is roughly a million dollars in today's buying power. Senators had to be in the first class, and furthermore could not engage in any sort of commerce except agriculture. Equestrians could be from either the first or the second class, with its 120 talent census valuation. Lots of the older noble families were in the third class, since many generations of men had expended their family wealth in Rome's endless wars. Some few, like the Cornelia Sullae, had slipped all the way to the 5th class and lived in near destitution. I don't think any noble families were ever counted among the Capite Censi (headcount, with no wealth at all) because their cousins would invariably loan them some money to prevent the family being shamed.
no subject
no subject
I'm a Roman reenactor, and a senator over in Nova Roma where I'm currently in the second year of my censuria. Check us out. If you want to exercise your Latin we have a Sodalitas Latinitas you're welcome to join.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject