Drusus Nero
-
Posts
61 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Drusus Nero
-
-
I read in a book recently that many working-class Romans (and non-citizens too I guess) didn't have individual kitchens in their tenament blocks. Because of the ever present risk of fire their landlords decided to leave out building a kitchen area in the apartments. Instead the people tended to buy ready cooked food from street vendors and either eat it straightaway or take it home to eat.
This is just like today, back then there must have been quite a few takeaways in the markets and main shopping areas,
yet they didn't seem to have the same problem we have. It occurs to me that we need to discover the secret they had for not putting on weight. I often see the news reports on the nation's growing obesity epidemic, if the Romans ate as much fast food as we do now how did they stay so thin?.
-
The Julio-Claudians were most certainly the best ruling family.
-
-
I haven't decided which actor was better at playing Caligula from the different versions I've seen.
Is it fair to count Malcolm McDowall in the list?, because the film "Caligula" didn't turn out as it should have done, although that was more the fault of how it was finally edited into a softporn film.
Jay Robinson was quite good in "The Robe", the very image of madness, and how too much power corrupts a weak minded ruler.
John Hurt played him in almost the same vein in "I, Claudius", although at the same time he did show a more gentle side this man's nature, I suppose a programme has more time to expand upon a character than a film does?.
McDowell gave a fair rendition - and was perhaps helped along the way by the fact that he bears more than a passing resemblance to the real emperor - or at least I have also thought so. The film could have been handled so much better, however.
Jay Robinson, I have to disagree with. I honestly thought his performance was appallingly over-acted, and he turned Caligula into a caricature, which is precisely the fault Hurt avoided. Hurt, for me, was the best for balance, as he had the humour and the tyranny, and his performance was - in several places - beautifully understated.
And yet, I suppose - the best portrayal has yet to come. Once dramatists ditch the 'insanity' tag totally, we may get a very different, far more chilling character than any that have been viewed so far.
Yes, Augusta, I think you're right McDowell does look alot like Caligula, perphaps that's why they chose him?.
-
I haven't decided which actor was better at playing Caligula from the different versions I've seen.
Is it fair to count Malcolm McDowall in the list?, because the film "Caligula" didn't turn out as it should have done, although that was more the fault of how it was finally edited into a softporn film.
Jay Robinson was quite good in "The Robe", the very image of madness, and how too much power corrupts a weak minded ruler.
John Hurt played him in almost the same vein in "I, Claudius", although at the same time he did show a more gentle side this man's nature, I suppose a programme has more time to expand upon a character than a film does?.
-
I've just read it and think Suetonius was a brave man to have included all the sordid details in his book.
What I mean by that is he probably counted respected public figures amongst his friends, and if they thought he would publish their secrets in one of his books, it might not make him very popular.
-
Has anyone else read "The Twelve Caesars" by Michael Grant?, I read it years ago and thought it was very interesting.
It gives an in-depth profile of each Emperor, starting with Julius Caesar and his subtle erosion of the Republic, it really digs up all the details and gossip.
-
I want to thank you, Augusta, for the gracious welcome.
I enjoyed reading your review of the show, it was very good, it sums up the whole premise of the story Robert Graves wanted to put across.
By the way, did you know Robert Graves was a friend of George Baker?, and used to visit the cast on set when they weren't filming.
-
Not wanting to be a **** or anything, but I gotta object to the UK and Ireland being lumped together! I am sure some of the Ireland people may do too. They are two very different places (check out the history of WW2 for example). That's where I'm from though.
So am I, I'm in Kent, where are you?.
-
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?.
-
I would have like to have been a friend of the Emperor Claudius, to have discussed politics with him, and find out what he was really like.
Or failing that I would have wanted to be a soldier in one of the legions led by Tiberius, when he was a serving officer, from what I've heard he was a hard task master.
He led the army to countless victories in the best Roman tradition.
-
I loved the movie, but have never read the book. The portrayal of Augustus was a bit off, Rome's was far more accurate, but I left I Claudius with a good opinion of the first Emperor. After Rome I was rooting for Antony. I think that comparing I Claudius with Rome is good, because I Claudius really takes up where Rome left off.
Overall, I was especially pleased by the performences of Caligula and Sejanus. I will never look at Jean-Luc Picard the same way ever again!
Yes, I think you're right, the way Caligula was played was spot on
.I've read the book twice and I think most of the important plotlines were included in the programme.
I enjoyed Rome too, particularly the way they showed how the lives of Caesar and Anthony were so closely linked to the destinies of the ordinary soldiers.
-
I think "I, Claudius" is the best Roman Empire drama I've ever seen.
The way the political intrigue and suspense was played out in each episode was amazing.
, what about Johnny Depp?, of course he'd need to dye his hair if he wanted the role.
Romans eating out.
in Romana Humanitas
Posted
Wow
, I didn't realise until now how important bread was to the standard Roman diet,
I suppose they didn't have much money to spare for meat.