I recently finished watching Rome on HBO, which was amazing. Rome is the kind of program that shows television's potential as a medium for art and great theater, rather than a device for injecting pollution into your brain. (Though, most of it really is pollution.)
The last episode left me with a burning question, though. (And I'm going to freely post "spoilers" since Roman history isn't much of a secret. If you don't at least vaguely remember from history or from reading Shakespeare in grade school that Brutus stabs Caesar, then you're probably only watching Rome for the sex.)
One of Caesar's acts as a tyrant was his addition of Gauls and Celts and various Roman commoners as new senators, and the program portrays this as a reason why we should sympathize with the conspiracy. Obviously he did this to weaken the individual power of the existing senators and also as an insult to them. But in a modern context, can we actually despise him for this? Look at this way - the straw that broke the camel's back was Caesar bringing in representatives from the faraway lands that Rome conquered, rather than treating them as voiceless vassal states. And for this, the noble senators (who, again, we are meant to sympathize with) resented Caesar. Caesar was, to be sure, a power hungry bastard, but so were the existing Roman senators. They wanted their own wealth and influence to rule the empire, with no input from anyone else.
So now that I've typed all this out, I don't think I have a burning question after all, though I do find it interesting how the conspiracy is portrayed. There really are no "good guys" or "bad guys" - just two sides jockeying for power. After he dies, I almost find myself feeling sympathy for Caesar and his scheming family, as his system, while insulting to the nobility, ultimately seems more fair to the conquered lands and to the lower classes of Rome. I might change my mind again, though. Either way, I hope they hurry up with that second season.
The last episode left me with a burning question, though. (And I'm going to freely post "spoilers" since Roman history isn't much of a secret. If you don't at least vaguely remember from history or from reading Shakespeare in grade school that Brutus stabs Caesar, then you're probably only watching Rome for the sex.)
One of Caesar's acts as a tyrant was his addition of Gauls and Celts and various Roman commoners as new senators, and the program portrays this as a reason why we should sympathize with the conspiracy. Obviously he did this to weaken the individual power of the existing senators and also as an insult to them. But in a modern context, can we actually despise him for this? Look at this way - the straw that broke the camel's back was Caesar bringing in representatives from the faraway lands that Rome conquered, rather than treating them as voiceless vassal states. And for this, the noble senators (who, again, we are meant to sympathize with) resented Caesar. Caesar was, to be sure, a power hungry bastard, but so were the existing Roman senators. They wanted their own wealth and influence to rule the empire, with no input from anyone else.
So now that I've typed all this out, I don't think I have a burning question after all, though I do find it interesting how the conspiracy is portrayed. There really are no "good guys" or "bad guys" - just two sides jockeying for power. After he dies, I almost find myself feeling sympathy for Caesar and his scheming family, as his system, while insulting to the nobility, ultimately seems more fair to the conquered lands and to the lower classes of Rome. I might change my mind again, though. Either way, I hope they hurry up with that second season.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
He, as any other leader in history, was an ambitious SOB but, is there a way to become an EFFECTIVE leader without ambition? Is not ambition the fuel that make our world run even nowadays?
The importance of ROME (Both the series and the History) is that it fairly represent our present role in the world (as the only superpower) and our future.
Eventualy, any leader will be judged by his actions. Our nation, as a representative of the new Republic, is being judged by the world at this moment in a similar fashion as Rome was judged; as a conqueror.
There is no easy alternatives. History has showed that pacific co-existence is not possible, at least not for long; either you rule or are ruled over.
As rulers we intent to be as compasionate and humane as possible but there is always a limit, imposed not by our desires of fairness or justice but by history itself, that had repeatedly proven over and over again, that's not possible to run an empire with our feelings.
[Edited on Jan 30, 2006 1:45PM]