Hbo Rome and... BBC too

I liked Caesar's speech,question,why is Cato wearing a black toga and the other senators wear uniform white and red?

the black toga was worn in times of mourning and crisis. It at least has an appropriate placement within the show. However, I can't recall any documentation that indicates Cato wearing a black toga as a matter of course. This is not to say that it didn't happen at all, only that I can't recall that relatively minor detail.

the black toga was worn in times of mourning and crisis. It at least has an appropriate placement within the show. However, I can't recall any documentation that indicates Cato wearing a black toga as a matter of course.

Cicero's response to Clodius charges was to tear his clothes, and put on mourning. Mourning included not shaving or getting a hair cut. I believe Gelzer talks about Cato's actions on this matter in his Caesar.

if i recall, cato wore a black toga to stand out amongst the other senators, and probably to attract attention. he was a strict, unbribable traditionalist who sought to differentiate himself from his often corrupted contemporaries, and the black toga was one way he did this. i think he also refused to wear a shirt under his toga according the wisdom of the ancestors. if i am wrong, someone please correct me.

also, wasn't cicero older than potrayed in the show?

[Virgil: "The original statement I was responding to was why Augustus is often "shown in a negative light"... ...He certainly redeemed himself in later years with a moderate, peaceful and constructive reign, but these early traits, and I should add, his hand in the death of the Republic answer the question."]

To address two of your points: first, Octavian's "hand in the death of the republic." Actually, the more I study the repubic's last century the more I think the "Republic" was gone before "Augustas" was invented, probably even well before the Rubicon. Just look at the chaotic and tragic confusion of those decades: Boni v Gracchi, Marius v Sulla, Milo v Clodius (et. al.), Caesar v Pompei -- all acted out in a political, moral and legal vacuum that the Republic once filled. There is a fascinating, remarkably detailed Roman timetable of events that provides a vivid view of how and why the political and administrative framework so long provided by the Republic had ceased to exist. Just look at the number and magnitude of the tragic events from 133 to 31BC on the timeline located at:

http://www.novaroma.org/camenaeum/RomanTimeline.txt

The second point is your apparent concession that once Octavian got the power Augustus used it responsibly and well. Good point. For the superstars of history, how they gained their power is the juciest and most interesting part of their stories. For most, it is their only story -- much like Caesar who was cut down before he could use it. Octavian/Augustus is one of those rare historic figures who's historic status is based almost exclusively on how he used the power. It's an exclusive club (the only other members of which I can think of, off the top of my head, are Peter the Great and perhaps Ataturk.)

All of which does NOT explain why, in popular Western culture, Octavian/August has always been portaryed in a negative light -- an oversight hopefully to be corrected in HBOs Rome.

if i recall, cato wore a black toga to stand out amongst the other senators, and probably to attract attention. he was a strict, unbribable traditionalist who sought to differentiate himself from his often corrupted contemporaries, and the black toga was one way he did this. i think he also refused to wear a shirt under his toga according the wisdom of the ancestors. if i am wrong, someone please correct me.

 

also, wasn't cicero older than potrayed in the show?

14300[/snapback]

No, it was how PP stated in his post. Cato wore mourning in protest of the Caesarian movement, and to a lesser extent in protest of the moderates. Cicero and Caesar were near contemporaries in age, I believe Cicero was 2 years older than Caesar.

To address two of your points: first, Octavian's "hand in the death of the republic."  Actually, the more I study the repubic's last century the more I think the "Republic" was gone before "Augustas" was invented, probably even well before the Rubicon...

 

The second point is your apparent concession that once Octavian got the power Augustus used it responsibly and well.

 

All of which does NOT explain why, in popular Western culture, Octavian/August has always been portaryed in a negative light -- an oversight hopefully to be corrected in HBOs Rome.

There's a very strong argument the Republic was on life-support at least since the Gracchi, but that's not the point, the point is that he is seen by many as the man who put the Republic out of commission. Others may have killed the Republic but when the cops arrived it was Augustus standing over the cold body with a bloody knife in his hand [but...uh...let me explain...it's not what it looks like...].

I didn't really concede anything because I never made the point Augustus was evil, I simply kept my answer addressing his negatives. I personally think that among readers and historians throughout the ages, ruthless young Octavian has always had to compete with the older moderate Augustus and I think there lies the answer, at least for me.

Cato was a senator who believed in returning Rome to its glorious Republic days of yore. His refusal to compromise meant that he would wear togas as close to black as possible and also go without a tunic, as well as shoes. This was a form of 'protest' by Cato against the current times and he liked to stand out as an austere, severe personage who believed in the old values, preferring simplicity over ostentation. The black toga or the 'toga pulla' was worn not only in times of mourning but also in times of crisis. Cato believed with all his heart that the greatness of Caesar was only because of the ruin he was causing to the Republic and therefore saw the rise of Caesar as a crisis for the Republic.

However, he grossly underestimated Caesar and refused to change with the times, leading to his ultimate downfall along with the rest of his supporters. Adamant to the last, he believed in eternal life and willingly took his own life rather than submit to Caesar. There's one thing to be said about Cato - he was firm to his own principles, however behind the times he may have been, as the virtual leader of the Optimates.

There's a very strong argument the Republic was on life-support at least since the Gracchi, but that's not the point, the point is that he [Caesar] is seen by many as the man who put the Republic out of commission.

Hmm.  Interesting logic.  You acknowledge that the Republic was already dead -- being kept alive through artifical means -- and you agree that it was "others" who killed it.  You then defend your denunciation of Octavian because he is "seen by many" as the culpret (who put the last nail in the Republic's coffin).  Strange indeed.  But the really strange thing is that (arg, this is painful) you really do know one hell of a lot about Roman history, so why would you defer to what "the many" think on a question like this?

14316[/snapback]

You might want to reread all of my posts, you 've really gotten the gist of them wrong.

[AGAIN] I never denounced Ocatavian, you wondered about why some held him in a negative light, I put forth some possible rationales- not my opinions- and you didn't like it. Let me be clearer; I am just postulating, based on what I've read and on a listing of Octavian's less stellar deeds, on why some hold him in a negative light.

[AGAIN] A negative view of Octavian doesn't come from out of left field, it has a long pedigree. I didn't address his postitive features because this issue was strictly about the negatives. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this.

My own opinions of the man- which I haven't shared- are more complex than simply black or white.

Seems to me the argument is based on a semantical interpretation of a post. Virgil isn't condemning Octavian, simply pointing out that he has at times been labelled with negativity throughout history.

Indeed. Ronald Syme in the much vaunted The Roman Revolution lambasts Octavian for 300 or so pages then praises him on the last page! Fact is, he was possibly the greatest politician who ever lived!

Indeed.  Ronald Syme in the much vaunted The Roman Revolution lambasts Octavian for 300 or so pages then praises him on the last page!  Fact is, he was possibly the greatest politician who ever lived!

14361[/snapback]

Primus Pilus: Thank you, that is exactly all I was trying to do.

Clodius: Roman Revolution- quite a book. It's been years since I've read it, every serious student of Rome needs to tackle it at least once, even if you hate it. .

My own opinion is that Augustus was an astute and very intelligent man who put the acquisition of power ahead of everything. He leaned towards the ruthless in his youth and towards moderation in his later years. He deserves the criticism of his excesses and the praise of his later rule. There is a good case to be made that Rome survived rather than crumbling into seprerate states because of him. My greatest criticism is that he failed to set up stable measures to hand power over to the next government, but that may have been beyond any single man's ability.

I agree, he just may have been the greatest politician/statesman to have ever lived.

I am new here. This is a great web site. The discussion about Augustus is interesting, with all the commenters showing an impressive depth of knowledge about Octavian. However, I was hoping for more actual discussion about the HBO "Rome" series.

My two cents: This is a show that finally gets it right, from the first scene of the Roman army fighting as it was supposed to have fought, to the clear understanding of the terrible sharpness of the Roman short sword, to the crowded, lively, dirty city streets, to no stirrups on the horses, to the brain surgery scene. It seems for the most part to stick to the actual history of the time, which I appreciate because the true story is so much more fascinating than any "Hollywood" fiction.

Also worth noting: Even the minor characters are written/acted so they become three demensional. For example, the surgeon pausing in mid-sentence to say "that one is copper" as he is receiving his payment made him such a much more real person.

Especially after the "Empire" miniseries, which was nearly unwatchable, "Rome" is truly satisfying. I hope it ends up with at least five or six seasons of episodes.

i have a question: whose men exactly stole the eagle? were they hired by caesar or were they really pompey's men? it's obvious caesar wanted to start a civil war where pompey would make the first move but were the events entirely orchestrated by him or did pompey just give him a lucky break by stealing his eagle?

 

thanks for your time!

14191[/snapback]

Sorry I missed this earlier psychonin.

Keep in mind this part of the show was completely non historical but is used to quickly illustrate the political climate. That being said, the 'thieves' appear to have been hired by Pompey (his henchmen being present is the dead giveaway methinks), though Caesar I also get the impression that Caesar 'allowed' it to happen.