Favonius Cornelius Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 (edited) I had just thought about this while working, I don't know if this has been discussed before but the Princeps Senatus was a subtle statement wasn't he? Old and venerable, he cannot hear well, his mind dulled and his voice raspy and nearly gone... Edited December 14, 2005 by Favonius Cornelius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 -When Pompey is explaining his defeat to Caesar, he says his cavalry were routed by a unit of cohorts, and then Caesar's cavalry rolled down his battle line. I always thought that Caesar feigned a retreat in the centre of his line, then surrounded Pompey's legions when the persued. Is this correct? Pompey's description was correct. Caesar had a unit of reserve infanty to repel Pompey's massive right cavalry. My memory is that Caesar simply had his middle line halt their charge mid-way thereby throwing Pompey's multi-lingual troops into confusion. See Battle of Pharsalus for a nice description. -At one point one of Caesar's advisor's tells him that Pompey's men outnumber him 3, even 5 to 1. I was under the impression the ratio was around 2 to 1. Depends on whether we're talking about cavalry, auxiliaries, or legionaries, but overall you're correct. -When Pompey is discussing the 13th legions seige of Vercengetorix's hill town (I always forget the name of that battle), he says the 13th were outnumbered 2 to1. Again, I was under the impression that Caesar's army was eventually outnumbered at least 6 to 1 (When the Galic tribes laid seige to Caesar's own seige lines), possibly as much as 10 to 1. Is this correct? They're talking about Alesia, where the 13th contributed to the battle against the Nervians. See Alesia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 I had just thought about this while working, I don't know if this has been discussed before but the Princeps Senatus was a subtle statement wasn't he? Old and venerable, he cannot hear well, his mind dulled and his voice raspy and nearly gone... yes-dignified, full of grace, but slowed by infirmity, a subtle, sad but accurate evocation of the Republic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeps Posted December 14, 2005 Report Share Posted December 14, 2005 Thanks for clearing that up Cato. The battle of Pharsalus was an interesting read. I will read the Alesia entry later to see if it corresponds to what I have have learned about it. I have more questions regarding tonights episode of Rome. The first might interest conspiracy theorists (although I am all for re-evaluating history as new evidence comes to light, I don't generally go in for conspiracy type stuff, but...) -We saw in tonights episode that Egypt's boy King had Pompey murdered without the knowledge or permission of Caesar, Is this correct? Is this what the ancient sources tell us? Personally I have a hard time believing that Caesar was angry or dissappointed by this. His dirty work had essentially been done for him, as Pompey could not be allowed the same mercy as some of his Luitenants. It provided Caesar with a scapegoat. This leads me to wonder whether Caesar had instigated the murder. More questions to follow. I was again sad that there were no epic battles in tonights episode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plautus Posted December 15, 2005 Report Share Posted December 15, 2005 I was again sad that there were no epic battles in tonights episode. Unless you count the battle between Pullo and Cleopatra. Reminded me of Apuleius' The Golden Ass. When the hero Lucian describes making love to the servant girl " She locked her legs about me like a gladiator and we wrestled in sweet unarmed combat.." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Hello everyone - my first post on what looks an interesting site. Please bear with me if the veterans have discussed this before - but I thought "ROME's" take on Ptolemaic Egypt, though interesting and a contrast to Rome itself, was a little Pharaonic and unsophisticated for the Alexandria I imagine. I always picture Cleopatra's Alexandria as wholly Hellenic, a city of Grecian columns and town planning, bustling port and light, airy peristyles. Mankiewitz's Cleopatra (the Taylor/Burton one) caught it well for me - the costumes of Theodotus, Pothinus etc combined Greek and Egyptian themes in a believeable way. ROME, by contrast, seemed to want to play up the African qualities - the rope-like wigs and facial painting (anyone know whether there was a historical basis for THAT style of decoration at the time? Interested to know what others thought of Alexandria, and the portrayal of the Queen herself for that matter... Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Welcome Phil! You raise an interesting point. Given that the city of Alexandria was designed by Alexander's architect Dinocrates on the grounds of an old and tiny village, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city would have looked like something out of the Greek world. The lighthouse, for example, was made of white marble (according to Pliny) and had a statue of Poseidon on top. The column (not obelisk) of Pompey still stands today amid the ruins of the temple to Serapis. Serapis, interestingly, was neither a native Egyptian deity nor Greek, but a new god created to serve as patron to Alexandria. Indeed, the statues to him in Alexandria portrayed him as a generic-looking Greek god. Significantly, the temple to Serapis was also the location where a mob of Christians murdered Hypatia, a mathematician, philosopher, and a heroine to modern admirers of pagan society. So, at least one district of the city looked Greek. As for the rest, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Welcome Phil! You raise an interesting point. Given that the city of Alexandria was designed by Alexander's architect Dinocrates on the grounds of an old and tiny village, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city would have looked like something out of the Greek world. The lighthouse, for example, was made of white marble (according to Pliny) and had a statue of Poseidon on top. The column (not obelisk) of Pompey still stands today amid the ruins of the temple to Serapis. Serapis, interestingly, was neither a native Egyptian deity nor Greek, but a new god created to serve as patron to Alexandria. Indeed, the statues to him in Alexandria portrayed him as a generic-looking Greek god. Significantly, the temple to Serapis was also the location where a mob of Christians murdered Hypatia, a mathematician, philosopher, and a heroine to modern admirers of pagan society. So, at least one district of the city looked Greek. As for the rest, I don't know. Welcome Phil! You raise an interesting point. Given that the city of Alexandria was designed by Alexander's architect Dinocrates on the grounds of an old and tiny village, it seems reasonable to suspect that the city would have looked like something out of the Greek world. The lighthouse, for example, was made of white marble (according to Pliny) and had a statue of Poseidon on top. The column (not obelisk) of Pompey still stands today amid the ruins of the temple to Serapis. Serapis, interestingly, was neither a native Egyptian deity nor Greek, but a new god created to serve as patron to Alexandria. Indeed, the statues to him in Alexandria portrayed him as a generic-looking Greek god. Significantly, the temple to Serapis was also the location where a mob of Christians murdered Hypatia, a mathematician, philosopher, and a heroine to modern admirers of pagan society. So, at least one district of the city looked Greek. As for the rest, I don't know. As I recall Serapis was a construct of Ptolemy I Soter, sp-ecifically designed to please his Greek/Hellenic subjects, because the traditional animal-headed Egyptian gods did not appeal to the new rulers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 side note: dedication to seraphis in 'Eboracvm" gallery Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarr Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 Caesarion just screened-Titus Pullo really is a good man in a scrap and Caesars eunuch insults were excellent. Pothinus is a real slimy creature, isn't he? I think one of the best lines was "He was a consul of Rome!" - That line says it all and marks the difference between how Egyptians and Romans regarded their enemies. Caesar was justifiably apalled because Pompey was not only a colleague and a man who was respected by many in Rome, including his enemies but also due to his personal relationship as he did love Julia, a fact that was well known to many, including, of course, Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted December 17, 2005 Report Share Posted December 17, 2005 (edited) Dignitas defeats Sophistry. I think this series has been made by people with a measured eye for entertainment and an insight into Roman ideals, that moment "he was a consul" was the one where I thought -"yes " thats what it might have been like,I know the Vorenus/Pullo show is a continuity device but even they have dignity and seriousness according to their rank. Edited December 17, 2005 by Pertinax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted December 18, 2005 Report Share Posted December 18, 2005 It's comming to us on channel 10 in Melbourne Tobias Really? That's terrific! The only thing unfortunate about that is that out here in the bush, we don't get channel 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Utica screened tonight-vicious , ugly and nasty but it rang true as human behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Skarr- it was mooted that a shortened version in the Uk ws acceptable (leaving a lot of the political intrigue out)beacause "the British audience would know the history anyway". I think they got cold feet and went for as much glossy sex and violence for shock impact,the politics would have added greatly to the show.I hope I will be able to get a "director's cut " someday. Since I have no HBO (& have only seen the 1st episode) I am hoping for the uncut DVD eventually! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil25 Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 The latest episode screened in the UK (that containing Cato's suicide after Thapsus) was interesting. It was, for one thing much more focused on the "pleb" perspective - Vorenus' domestic problems - and sex in high places (incest at Atia's), rather than high politics. But for me it contained two of the really great scenes so far, ones which will remain with me for a long time: a) the gang-bosses diatribe against Vorenus and his family (VERY strong, Italian, well-acted and truthful). I was suddenly IN ancient Rome. Caesar'[s arrival at the Vorenus' home, with his lictors and retinue - THAT, I thought was exactly the way a magistrate moved around the City - it was just so RIGHT. I too hope that the dvd will be out soon, and in an uncut version, WITH all the politics. Great stufrf, Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.