|
|
This topic has been archived and locked - replies are not allowed.
Everything about the Bruno Heller theatrical production "Rome".
|
Posts:
763
Registered:
10/4/05
|
|
(32 of 32)
Jun 16, 2009 4:14 PM
|
Glad to hear "it is no longer a smoke and mirrors rumour." Can?t wait to see Atia again. 
Regards
--
Mega parlerema
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(31 of 32)
May 31, 2009 1:21 AM
|
> aretzios wrote:
> >..."Now, before you pounce of some of my
> statements, I would say that in "I, Claudius" the
> events are followed very faithfully: in that, I mean
> that the deaths occurred following mostly mysterious
> illnesses and accidents. Now, the state of medical
> knowledge was miniscule compared to ours and "fevers"
> dispatched a lot of Romans in very young age. But it
> is a legitimate device of historical fiction to set a
> plot for the unknown and unknowable details behind
> the facts." ...
>
> >"Well, you know the literary sources. It is unlikely
> that the future would add much to these. Both Tacitus
> and Suetonius as well as Dio Cassius and Plutarch are
> very approachable and you should read them if you
> have the time."
>
> Would the faithful aspects include the disemboweling
> of Drusilla, I wonder? And the portrayal of Livia
> as an arch-fiend poisoner? These and other themes
> and sequences of the presentation strike me as
> probably being fictional inspired mostly by
> Suetonius' writings (which I have reviewed, by the
> way, along with those of Caesar, Plutarch, Dio,
> Tacitus and a few others).
>
> But, you're missing my point. I'm always a bit
> uneasy with portrayals of historical characters about
> whom we actually know very little. The many
> interpretations of Cleopatra VII is a case in
> point.
No, I am not missing your point. You are missing mine. Nobody knows how these men died, we know that they died. For all you know, Livia may indeed have poisoned them. I regard this as an acceptable device of historical fiction. If you saw "Amedeus", it utilized a similar device. Nobody can know for sure if Salieri caused the death of Mozart or not. He may have done. Probably not, but history could have played out in that manner without any of the known facts being altered. This is what I meant.
By the way, we know much more about Cleopatra than you surmise. If Hollywood had not intervened, there would have been no question about her portrayal. There were recently some excellent biographies published.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(30 of 32)
May 30, 2009 2:24 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>..."Now, before you pounce of some of my statements, I would say that in "I, Claudius" the events are followed very faithfully: in that, I mean that the deaths occurred following mostly mysterious illnesses and accidents. Now, the state of medical knowledge was miniscule compared to ours and "fevers" dispatched a lot of Romans in very young age. But it is a legitimate device of historical fiction to set a plot for the unknown and unknowable details behind the facts." ...
>"Well, you know the literary sources. It is unlikely that the future would add much to these. Both Tacitus and Suetonius as well as Dio Cassius and Plutarch are very approachable and you should read them if you have the time."
Would the faithful aspects include the disemboweling of Drusilla, I wonder? And the portrayal of Livia as an arch-fiend poisoner? These and other themes and sequences of the presentation strike me as probably being fictional inspired mostly by Suetonius' writings (which I have reviewed, by the way, along with those of Caesar, Plutarch, Dio, Tacitus and a few others).
But, you're missing my point. I'm always a bit uneasy with portrayals of historical characters about whom we actually know very little. The many interpretations of Cleopatra VII is a case in point.
And ... (re: Patton v. Scott)
>"Hmmm...I am not sure. He shared none of Patton's physique, thus he did not appear to me to fit in the role. "
Both men were 6' 1" in height, strongly built and had similar facial features. Patton had a high-pitched voice, however, quite unlike Scott's.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
--
Edited by Beagle914 at 05/30/2009 12:56 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(29 of 32)
May 30, 2009 1:39 AM
|
> I have general difficulties with historical
> semi-fiction that centers on actual personages -
> particularly when the individuals are long gone.
Well, the outlines of history are well known and they are followed with extreme accuracy in the "I, Claudius". Yes, we can never know the feelings and the motivations of the people involved although knowing that Claudius was a cripple and he was not treated with deference, it is easy to surmise how he felt. But we can never be sure.
This is a legitimate function of historical fiction.
Now, before you pounce of some of my statements, I would say that in "I, Claudius" the events are followed very faithfully: in that, I mean that the deaths occurred following mostly mysterious illnesses and accidents. Now, the state of medical knowledge was miniscule compared to ours and "fevers" dispatched a lot of Romans in very young age. But it is a legitimate device of historical fiction to set a plot for the unknown and unknowable details behind the facts.
> Although I generally liked "I,
> , Claudius", I kept wondering if that was
> what he (and the others) really did and thought. We
> can never really know. I like to read about
> first-hand observations, utterances, actions and
> events to come up with my own notions of the
> individual's motivation, introspection and thoughts.
Well, you know the literary sources. It is unlikely that the future would add much to these. Both Tacitus and Suetonius as well as Dio Cassius and Plutarch are very approachable and you should read them if you have the time.
> I also liked the movie "Patton" very
> much but had much the same feeling of mild
> skepticism. Still, George Scott played the role very
> much as I pictured the General.
Hmmm...I am not sure. He shared none of Patton's physique, thus he did not appear to me to fit in the role.
> And ...
> >"On the other hand, the reason that the civil
> wars were fought throughout the 1st century BCE
> (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey) had to do with the
> social situation of the Roman world and the
> oppression of the people and even the junior
> aristocracy by a small but powerful moneyed elite
> which tapped into the wealth of the empire and did
> not want to advance some of the gains to the rank and
> file. Essentially, the "moral of the story" is what
> happens when "injustice" runs rampart in a society
> and how sometimes, the only way to fight such
> injustice is through "benevolent tyranny" which
> eventually turns into "just tyranny". In other words,
> if the dial turns too much towards injustice, the
> results may well be unpredictable in the ensuing
> societal explosion."
>
> I really doubt that the individuals you mention had
> much interest in social justice (as a matter of
> personal conscience) except insofar as it would
> support their political ambitions and cause
Now, we disagree profoundly. If you read the history of the period in detail, you would revise your own opinion. Let's take Caesar. He always had the choice of advancing his career much faster had he joined the "ruling" elite. But he did not. This you need to consider. His political affiliation and his stubbornness to conform and compromise deprived him of a much deserved triumph (by none other than Cato) and almost killed him during the Cataline conspiracy in which he was not implicated but was targeted, nonetheless, by Cato and other ultraconservatives. And when he finally became consul using Crassus' money, he engaged in a highly inflammatory behavior, guaranteed to provide enemies galore. But it was the only way to pass legislation providing land to veterans that the oligarchs had blocked for decades. Also, if you look at his legislative work from 46 to 44 BCE, you would see a very revolutionary, pro-populus stance that again did not ingratiate himself to the oligarchy. Thus, since he always chose the most difficult but principled route, I would construe that he was a man of conviction. However, Roman traits such as dignitas and virtus would have necessitated taking steps to enhance his and his family's position.
On the other hand, Pompey was not a man of conviction. He wanted to be liked by all and he had no particular deep beliefs. Crassus is a very different story. He had the most to lose by the policies of Caesar but he funded not only him but many "revolutionaries" including Cataline. It is difficult to know why. My guess is that he disliked the oligarchy for a variety of reasons including a personal humiliation for not awarding to him the honors appropriate for the defeat of Spartacus. I think that he was outraged, but there was a political base to his dislike of the cronies who ran the state.
> Roman
> society to become more prosperous as a whole. I'd
> draw parallels with Lyndon Johnson who famously
> observed that much of the expenditures on the "Great
> Society" went into the pockets of people with
> Master's degrees.
Well, I do not buy this analogy. In fact, the period we are covering now is more comparable with recent phenomena such as globalization and illegal immigration. With the advent of the empire, the senatorial class used its power to amass huge fortunes by their governance of the provinces while at the same time importing slaves to work their estates after firing all the Italian free farm workers (this is something that Caesar later legislated against). They also used the power to keep "public lands" both in Italy and in the provinces and not distribute them to the veterans. In fact, they regarded legislation to the contrary a "theft" of their property.
Yes, immense wealth flowed into Rome by the creation of the empire. But it went to purses of very few while the vast majority became poorer and poorer for a variety of causes that are clearly enunciated in textbooks. In fact, a far greater proportion of citizens were paupers during the late Republic than at any time before or after. Caesar's was the last act of a problem that started in the mid 2nd century BCE. If you read the history of the Gracchii brothers, you would understand the political undertows.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,604
Registered:
10/30/05
|
|
(28 of 32)
May 29, 2009 3:40 PM
|
aretzios wrote:
>"First and foremost, "I, Claudius" was the chronicle of a survivor. The lengthy books should be read as the life travel of a single man with substantial handicaps who achieves high office within the very treacherous environment of the imperial family; the travel of a man who could not really find love and who became just too embittered when all pretensions of love disappeared. In his lifetime, conflicts were not propelled by political issues (as they were in Caesar's time). For good or ill, the social struggle in the Roman Empire had come to an end. The Claudius of the book envisages the return of the Republic as a kind of potential legacy but even these dreams dissolved in the light of reality. It is a very sad and bitter story and any "moral lessons" are directed to the way each one of us conducts our lives." ...
I have general difficulties with historical semi-fiction that centers on actual personages - particularly when the individuals are long gone. Although I generally liked "I, Claudius", I kept wondering if that was what he (and the others) really did and thought. We can never really know. I like to read about first-hand observations, utterances, actions and events to come up with my own notions of the individual's motivation, introspection and thoughts.
I also liked the movie "Patton" very much but had much the same feeling of mild skepticism. Still, George Scott played the role very much as I pictured the General.
And ...
>"On the other hand, the reason that the civil wars were fought throughout the 1st century BCE (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey) had to do with the social situation of the Roman world and the oppression of the people and even the junior aristocracy by a small but powerful moneyed elite which tapped into the wealth of the empire and did not want to advance some of the gains to the rank and file. Essentially, the "moral of the story" is what happens when "injustice" runs rampart in a society and how sometimes, the only way to fight such injustice is through "benevolent tyranny" which eventually turns into "just tyranny". In other words, if the dial turns too much towards injustice, the results may well be unpredictable in the ensuing societal explosion."
I really doubt that the individuals you mention had much interest in social justice (as a matter of personal conscience) except insofar as it would support their political ambitions and cause Roman society to become more prosperous as a whole. I'd draw parallels with Lyndon Johnson who famously observed that much of the expenditures on the "Great Society" went into the pockets of people with Master's degrees.
--
I, Beagle CMXIV: the author of this post; opinions expressed are always my own.
--
Edited by Beagle914 at 05/29/2009 1:19 PM PDT
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(27 of 32)
May 28, 2009 11:46 AM
|
Alexios,
First and foremost, "I, Claudius" was the chronicle of a survivor. The lengthy books should be read as the life travel of a single man with substantial handicaps who achieves high office within the very treacherous environment of the imperial family; the travel of a man who could not really find love and who became just too embittered when all pretensions of love disappeared. In his lifetime, conflicts were not propelled by political issues (as they were in Caesar's time). For good or ill, the social struggle in the Roman Empire had come to an end. The Claudius of the book envisages the return of the Republic as a kind of potential legacy but even these dreams dissolved in the light of reality. It is a very sad and bitter story and any "moral lessons" are directed to the way each one of us conducts our lives.
On the other hand, the reason that the civil wars were fought throughout the 1st century BCE (Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey) had to do with the social situation of the Roman world and the oppression of the people and even the junior aristocracy by a small but powerful moneyed elite which tapped into the wealth of the empire and did not want to advance some of the gains to the rank and file. Essentially, the "moral of the story" is what happens when "injustice" runs rampart in a society and how sometimes, the only way to fight such injustice is through "benevolent tyranny" which eventually turns into "just tyranny". In other words, if the dial turns too much towards injustice, the results may well be unpredictable in the ensuing societal explosion.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,306
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(26 of 32)
May 27, 2009 7:42 PM
Rate this post:
|
> > Your example strikes me as a bit of a stretch.
> For
> > the number of people today who actually consider
> why
> > Caesar did what he did and wish to emulate him
> has to
> > be very few. Many of those who watched "Rome"
> and
> > were strongly influenced by him would dig
> further,
> > and find better sources. Those inclined to
> nihilism
> > already have far better sources of inspiration
> from
> > just the past century, like Stalin.
>
> Assuming that you did not know much about Julius
> Caesar, the person portrayed in "Rome" would hardly
> be of any interest to anybody. He appeared
> lethargic, not to bright, amorous, indecisive,
> homicidal, egotistical, traitorous and overbearing.
> So, I do not think that anybody can be influenced by
> y this.
Well, you pretty much countered your own example. I do agree with your general characterization of this "Caesar" though.
> Nihilism has nothing to do with Stalin.
> It is a
> point of view that regards all power as corrupt and
> corruptive.
Wow, so you have crystalized nihilism, a word with numerous meanings and uses, into one absolute truth? Remarkable!
Nihilism is a word with many different definitions (unless every dictionary in the world is wrong), the idea that "power corrupts" is just one. Nihilism as Nietzsche saw it has plenty to do with Stalin.
> In fact, "Rome" pushed this point of
> view. Nobody did any good in that series. Caesar
> was not an improvement over Pompey and Cato and the
> Mark Antony and Octavian were even worse. In fact,
> the view point was that those who exercise power are
> manipulative and corrupt. Thus, there was nothing
> really important at play in Rome during the civil war
> apart from the personal ambitions of a few people.
Here you are right, a failure which does mar Rome to an extent. But how much political do gooding was shown in "I Claudius"? Benevolent land reform and clearer tax codes don't seem to attract much attention as sordid tales in Roman productions.
> Thus, the political message of "Rome" was to stay out
> of the elephant bullpen. A very negative, very
> nihilistic political philosophy and one shared by
> many Hollywood writers and in display in many
> post-Watergate movies.
What was the political message of "I Claudius", though? Bring back the Republic? Let us return to the days before Caesar when the Optimates had their way?
> > While I agree that for HBO to represent this as
> > accurate history is preposterous, the majority
> of the
> > "99%" forget as quickly as they learn this
> false
> > history. Some no doubt, do carry erroneous
> ideas
> > with them, but I contend even more look back at
> > "Rome" as a gateway to reading and learning a
> great
> > deal of factual information, and so in balance
> the
> > program still does more good than ill.
>
> Now, I disagree with this. I think that you can
> count in those interested in further research in the
> fingers of one hand.
I think you sell some of us short. I have four friends still intermittently posting on the forum alone who have been spurned on to read Tacitus, Suetonius, Dio, Plutarch, all through the watching of this series. Your Gelzer recommendation is the next book I will read on the subject.
> Most persons knowledge of
> history is extremely fragmentary. Even my friend
> Beagle may have some knowledge of the period covered
> by "Rome" by exposure to some materials but he
> certainly does not have a good grounding of the
> period before or afterwards and I am sure that he has
> other priorities than covering this period. Ulver
> was about the only one with a good knowledge of the
> history of the Roman Empire but he more a classicist
> at heart. There were a few others, but the numbers
> were really small.
Well, unfortunately the bulk of us do not have the time/drive/etc. to become experts in the period, myself included, as my interest in history is centered elsewhere. Are you an extremely fast reader? I've often wondered how you've been able to read as much as you do.
But as we've had this argument before, I'll end my piece on it now. "Rome" is not the monster you see it as, (even it was little more than a soap with pretty people in pretty costumes) because those whose interest was sparked by the show are now less ignorant of the period than they were before.
--
www.pollywalkeronline.com
Now you are yourself, but not yourself; an ideal state for a meeting between lovers.
-Vargtimmen
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(25 of 32)
May 27, 2009 6:17 PM
|
> Your example strikes me as a bit of a stretch. For
> the number of people today who actually consider why
> Caesar did what he did and wish to emulate him has to
> be very few. Many of those who watched "Rome" and
> were strongly influenced by him would dig further,
> and find better sources. Those inclined to nihilism
> already have far better sources of inspiration from
> just the past century, like Stalin.
Assuming that you did not know much about Julius Caesar, the person portrayed in "Rome" would hardly be of any interest to anybody. He appeared lethargic, not to bright, amorous, indecisive, homicidal, egotistical, traitorous and overbearing. So, I do not think that anybody can be influenced by this.
Nihilism has nothing to do with Stalin. It is a point of view that regards all power as corrupt and corruptive. In fact, "Rome" pushed this point of view. Nobody did any good in that series. Caesar was not an improvement over Pompey and Cato and the Mark Antony and Octavian were even worse. In fact, the view point was that those who exercise power are manipulative and corrupt. Thus, there was nothing really important at play in Rome during the civil war apart from the personal ambitions of a few people.
Thus, the political message of "Rome" was to stay out of the elephant bullpen. A very negative, very nihilistic political philosophy and one shared by many Hollywood writers and in display in many post-Watergate movies.
> While I agree that for HBO to represent this as
> accurate history is preposterous, the majority of the
> "99%" forget as quickly as they learn this false
> history. Some no doubt, do carry erroneous ideas
> with them, but I contend even more look back at
> "Rome" as a gateway to reading and learning a great
> deal of factual information, and so in balance the
> program still does more good than ill.
Now, I disagree with this. I think that you can count in those interested in further research in the fingers of one hand. Most persons knowledge of history is extremely fragmentary. Even my friend Beagle may have some knowledge of the period covered by "Rome" by exposure to some materials but he certainly does not have a good grounding of the period before or afterwards and I am sure that he has other priorities than covering this period. Ulver was about the only one with a good knowledge of the history of the Roman Empire but he more a classicist at heart. There were a few others, but the numbers were really small.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,306
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(24 of 32)
May 27, 2009 12:34 PM
Rate this post:
|
> No, not really. As long as there are persons like
> you who are OK accepting lies as entertainment, I
> would have a problem. Why is this important? In
> fact, it is very important. Our whole set of beliefs
> is based on our perception of the past and our
> relation with it. If you believe, for example, that
> Julius Caesar took the actions he took solely because
> of this need for power, your tendency to be
> nihilistic is so much higher.
Your example strikes me as a bit of a stretch. For the number of people today who actually consider why Caesar did what he did and wish to emulate him has to be very few. Many of those who watched "Rome" and were strongly influenced by him would dig further, and find better sources. Those inclined to nihilism already have far better sources of inspiration from just the past century, like Stalin.
> If somebody is trying
> to sell you this line, they are actually pushing a
> specific point of view that most of the public does
> not have the information to evaluate properly. And
> then, if you are historically naive (which is true
> for about 99% of the public) and somebody tells you
> that what you are watching is "authentic" (the
> terminology used by HBO) how can you tell what is
> true and what is fantasy??? To defend this practice,
> is preposterous.
While I agree that for HBO to represent this as accurate history is preposterous, the majority of the "99%" forget as quickly as they learn this false history. Some no doubt, do carry erroneous ideas with them, but I contend even more look back at "Rome" as a gateway to reading and learning a great deal of factual information, and so in balance the program still does more good than ill.
--
www.pollywalkeronline.com
Now you are yourself, but not yourself; an ideal state for a meeting between lovers.
-Vargtimmen
|
|
|
Posts:
1,050
Registered:
1/29/07
|
|
(23 of 32)
May 27, 2009 10:32 AM
|
Aretzios wrote:
> Shakespeare, of course, wrote non-historical plays and many of
> those and some of them were placed in real places but
> the story and the persons were purely fictional.
> "Romeo and Juliet" is set in Verona but neither
> r Shakespeare nor anybody else assumed that the
> events were historically true. Yes, "the taming of
> the shrew" takes place in Padua, but it is not
> history either.
>
hmmmm... makes me wonder to whose house did we venture to, in Verona, which was billed as being Juliet's house? And Romeo's castle (which has long since become a monestary)... oh my! Whose tomb was that we visited, which is listed as being that of Romeo and his Juliet??????
I remember it well, even though it was over 40 years ago! The courtyard, the balcony, seeing the castle (we couldn't go in, the monk's wouldn't allow it), the tomb, the story speakers telling and retelling the story of Romeo and Juliet. And all this back in the late 1960's... and yet, I remember it as if it were just last year....
Alright Aretzios.. if they weren't Romeo and Juliet... who were they??? come on... 'fess up (LOL) I know you know! LOL
LadyC
--
" The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." -- Cicero , 55 B.C.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,185
Registered:
7/14/07
|
|
(22 of 32)
May 27, 2009 8:22 AM
|
Centurion is a Neil Marshall film.
Aretzios, if you are upset with the 9th being lost in Britain rather than the Rhine, I think you'll be super peeved to see they are lost to werewolves.
--
Hic Habitat Felicitas
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(21 of 32)
May 27, 2009 1:49 AM
|
> When I watch a western based on the fight at the OK
> corral, I don't expect it to be historically
> accurate. Coz it's a movie!
>
> Everybody knows the Legend of the Lost Ninth Legion
> is a myth. That's why they call it a legend! 
Well, we disagree on this. In fact, it appeared that the last appearance of the 9th was in the north of Britain until archaeological research picked evidence of it in the Rhine.
> Really, Aretzios, I think everybody here is aware of
> the difference between entertainment and history or
> entertainment and historical re-enactment. We
> learned that in high school when we read Shakespeare.
Actually, as far as Shakespeare goes, his historical plays were quite true to history as far as he knew it. His "Julius Caesar" is far more accurate in its historical elements than "Rome". It is not one of his better plays, but it was very faithful to the historical facts. So, I am not sure what you were told in school, but it was not correct. Shakespeare, of course, wrote non-historical plays and many of those and some of them were placed in real places but the story and the persons were purely fictional. "Romeo and Juliet" is set in Verona but neither Shakespeare nor anybody else assumed that the events were historically true. Yes, "the taming of the shrew" takes place in Padua, but it is not history either.
> As far as I can determine, you're still beating the
> e same dead horse. Don't YOU ever get tired of that?
No, not really. As long as there are persons like you who are OK accepting lies as entertainment, I would have a problem. Why is this important? In fact, it is very important. Our whole set of beliefs is based on our perception of the past and our relation with it. If you believe, for example, that Julius Caesar took the actions he took solely because of this need for power, your tendency to be nihilistic is so much higher. If somebody is trying to sell you this line, they are actually pushing a specific point of view that most of the public does not have the information to evaluate properly. And then, if you are historically naive (which is true for about 99% of the public) and somebody tells you that what you are watching is "authentic" (the terminology used by HBO) how can you tell what is true and what is fantasy??? To defend this practice, is preposterous. If you like the asses of the male actors OK, have your fun, but do not insult either mine and your intelligence with the defense of these practices.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,306
Registered:
3/8/07
|
|
(20 of 32)
May 26, 2009 10:50 PM
Rate this post:
|
> As far as I can determine, you're still beating the
> e same dead horse. Don't YOU ever get tired of that?
--
www.pollywalkeronline.com
Now you are yourself, but not yourself; an ideal state for a meeting between lovers.
-Vargtimmen
|
|
|
Posts:
1,996
Registered:
11/3/05
|
|
(19 of 32)
May 26, 2009 9:03 PM
|
When I watch a western based on the fight at the OK corral, I don't expect it to be historically accurate. Coz it's a movie!
Everybody knows the Legend of the Lost Ninth Legion is a myth. That's why they call it a legend!
Really, Aretzios, I think everybody here is aware of the difference between entertainment and history or entertainment and historical re-enactment. We learned that in high school when we read Shakespeare. As far as I can determine, you're still beating the same dead horse. Don't YOU ever get tired of that?
--
"Hello, ladies." Atia
http://www.punishermovie.com/
|
|
|
Posts:
1,555
Registered:
10/18/05
|
|
(18 of 32)
May 26, 2009 6:58 PM
|
> Here are a couple of films, both about the legendary
> lost ninth legion, that may tide us over while we
> wait for the real thing, ROME: THE MOVIE:
>
> Centurian (2009) The plot is Britain, A.D. 117.
> Quintus Dias, the sole survivor of a Pictish raid on
> a Roman frontier fort, marches north with General
> Virilus' legendary Ninth Legion, under orders to wipe
> the Picts from the face of the Earth and destroy
> their leader, Gorlacon. The film hypothesizes that
> the Ninth was lost fighting the Scots. The cast
> includes Olga Kurylenko, Dominic West and Michael
> Fassbender. Written and directed by Neil Marshall.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1020558/
>
> Eagle of the Ninth (2010) In Roman-ruled Britain, a
> young Roman soldier endeavors to honor his father's
> memory by finding his lost legion's golden emblem.
/group.php?gid=97645771496
Another boondongle!!! It is based on a popular "historical fiction fiction fiction" book (I wonder why the word "historical" even puts up an appearance. In any case, the 9th legion was not destroyed in Britain since it is present in the Rhine a few years later. Eventually, it gets missing by the time of Marcus Aurelius but so have many other formations. It became quite usual to form vexillations, aggregations of cohorts from a number of legions, in the 2nd century. Thus, formations were cut out and re-arranged at will, so that the notion of a legion was more of theory rather than practice from the time of Trajan and onwards.
In any case, we are going to have again another unhistorical stupidity with the usual heroics and noble savages fighting the Romans etc, etc....Ridiculous. If one wants to show legions getting "lost" fighting and losing their eagles, what's wrong with the wars against the Dacians for which we have so much documentation? Why film stupidities??
|
|
|
|
|
