Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Gracchi Bros.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 13th September 2006
Hi all,
Does anybody know of any other primary sources apart from Plutarch's "Lives" and Appians's "Civil Wars" for Tiberius and Gaius Gracchi, or if they're mentioned in any other texts? Also, were any statues ever erected of either of the brothers after their deaths?
Many thanks,
RF
p.s. Apologies for the title of the message making them sound like an Italian ice cream business...
-
Message 2
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Wednesday, 13th September 2006
Its one of the curioaities of Roman studies that accounts written two centuries after events can be considered as primarary sources, don't you think? Both Appian and Plutarch were writing some two hundred plus years after the Gracchis lived, and it is to be assumed that they based their accounts on previous authors. Sallust and Livy both wrote about the Gracchi's experiences in the period of the late republic, and apparently Sallust's commentary in Jugurthia was quite complimentary. I don't have Livy to hand, but I am prety sure he would have touched upon such a significant event.
As far statues, there is one of the brothers that any internet search should throw up. -
Message 3
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 13th September 2006
Elistan,
You're a gentleman! Have to head off home now, but will reply properly tomorrow. In the meantime, Gaius says you can have a cone of his world renowned tutti-frutti...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 4
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Wednesday, 13th September 2006
There was a great book I studied called From the Gracchi to Nero by H Scullard. Not a primary source but very imformative.
-
Message 5
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 14th September 2006
Hi Elistan,
I agree with you on the use of the phrase "primary sources", especially when the authors themselves don't give their own sources (or use Piso as a source!). They also would surely have been heavily influenced by the times they were living in, and this must have led to bias. I've read, in the introduction to the Penguin edition of The Early History of Rome, that Livy had a habit of applying the characteristics of contemporary, or near-contemporary figures to those from 600-700 years earlier. I have to say that I can pretty much forgive Livy anything after his report of a cow climbing up to the first floor of a building and leaping out of the window...
Unfortunately it appears that Livy's writings on the Gracchi were in one of the many books of his that have been lost. From the Periochae it looks like they would have been in books 58-61. I've checked the indexes of my copies of books I-X and XXI-XXX and there doesn't appear to be any mention even in passing of either brother. I've never read Sallust but will pick up the Penguin Classics translation over the weekend. How does he compare as a historian to the likes of Livy, Plutarch, Tacitus and Suetonius?
Can you recommend any books on criticism of, or how to read Roman historians? I've generally read them for pleasure - as opposed to study - but it would be nice to really understand them.
I made a mistake in my question about the statues. What I intended to ask, was if there were any statues of either Gracchi that had survived. I always find seeing a likeness of a historical person makes them more real - the bust of Sulla is a good example. I've tried various searches on the internet to no avail, but maybe my search terms weren't specific enough. I don't suppose you could give me another clue?
Many thanks,
RF
p.s. Have you any suggestions for a more accurate term than "primary sources" for historians like Plutarch? -
Message 6
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 14th September 2006
General,
I've heard good things about this book and also noticed it was one of recommended texts for a course I was considering taking. My knowledge of Rome comes mainly from reading the Roman historians in translation, so it's really important for me to get a good more modern history to really appreciate them. Have you read his "A History of the Roman World 753 to 146 BC", and if so, would you recommend that book too?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 7
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 14th September 2006
rainbowffolly
I'm sure A history of the roman world is also by Scullard so it's probably well worth a look. The other book I remember is the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Rather dry but again very informative. -
Message 8
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 14th September 2006
Thanks General,
The Oxford Classical Dictionary looks impressive - at Β£63 on Amazon it's not exactly cheap, but looks invaluable if I plan to study (which is something I'd like to do at some point). I wish they did a paperback version as it would be perfect for toilet reading!
Are there any other books you would recommend having a copy of for someone planning on going for a Classical Studies degree?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 9
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 14th September 2006
RF
Let me get back to you after the weekend. There were some great books about Egypt and Greece I studied but my brain is too addled at the mo' to remember them.
lobus -
Message 10
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 15th September 2006
As I said RF,
A real scholar would be needed to solve that one!
Hmmm, that would be Elistan then.
A legend on the boards.
Good work E. -
Message 11
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Hey, there's a thought, did the ancient Romans have ice cream?
-
Message 12
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Not sure about ice cream to be honest fascinating,
They did (in the case of the very wealthy) have ice brought in from nearby mountains to cool drinks and food, so I guess it may be possible. It was limited to the excessively rich though. Haven't come across any sources referring to it. -
Message 13
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 15th September 2006
My feelings exactly DL!
-
Message 14
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Hey, there's a thought, did the ancient Romans have ice cream?Β
Hi Fascinating,
I decided against using Wikipedia and tried to find a more reliable source. So, according to the ahem... "Kids Page" of Emerald Foods (a New Zealand ice cream company):
"...the Roman Emperor Nero, sent slaves into the Apenines to get ice which was flavoured with nectar, fruit pulp and honey in 62 AD."
Now that's what I call research.
RF -
Message 15
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Hi RF,
Scullard's from Gracchi to Nero is the core text books for most Roman History courses that I have heard of and is very accessible. Beyond that i would recommend library grazing rather than overstocking your own shelves. There are so many dichotomous viewpoints on the interpretation of Roman history, and especially late republican times, that it is best to stay as broad as possible. It is often said that historical writing is the art of interpretating the past through the lens of the present. According as we become removed as contemporaries of an author the more the history becomes a document to explain the time it was written rather than the time it pertains to explore (though naturally it never loses its primary purpose.) A modern example of this would be Syme's The Roman Revolution published in 1939, which is a critique of the rise of fascism through an exploration of the fall of the republic.
Likewise the ancient histories were attempting to understand their own times through an analysis of the past. Thus their accounts are tempered to the expectations of their audience. Plutarch in particular is very suspect for historical accuracy, as he himself admits at times, as his system of comparison was designed as a philosophical and moral tool rather than as a pure historical account.
Rather than 'primary' a useful if somewhat unwieldy phrase is 'near-contemporary'. This allows for a distinction between sources that are contemporaneous with the period under discussion and those that were constructed with reference to such documents. I am not trying to malign Plutarch of Appian, but it is fair to say that their accounts are, perforce, interpretative. A good example of how histories can cahnge is the historiography of Alexander, which development we can ahrt somewhat from the contemporary works through to the later vulgate tradition. It is to assumed that similar adaptations happen elsewhere in classical historiography. As Carr put it 'all historical facts come to use as a result of interpretative choices by historians influenced by the standards of their age'. My advice would be to be sure you are aware of the history of the historian.
Sallust is a hard read (can be very dry) and is greatly influenced, almost too much, by the political climate of his time. But since he was an outspoken critic of Sulla and the aristocrats that is understandable. Again, a lot of his work is lost, but it would have been available to Plutarch and Appian when they were writing. So a politicised account comes to form the factual basis for future interpretation designed to elict other characteristics. Historical chinese whispers thus create the image we now have of individuals such as the Gracchi.
On the statute... -
Message 16
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 15th September 2006
DL,
Your praise humbles me.
Regards
Elistan -
Message 17
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Elistan,
It's deserved, you are about the most knowledgable poster on here (and one of the more objective)!
Strange how many different historians can present historical figures in such differing lights. I've read books which describe the likes of Sulla as a saviour of the Republic, and others which describe his as a self-serving maniacal sod, who was more interested in having a good time with his mates than doing anything worthwhile, likewise Catiline, I've seen him presented as rabble-rousing criminal, and "man of the people, saviour of Rome". I suspect in both cases, the middle ground is probably the most likely. -
Message 18
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Sulla was saving the republic as he interpreted it, as an oligarchic system for the benefit of the patrician class, whilst the Gracchi, Clodius and arguably Catiline were pushing the Plebian agenda. I would not be as naive as to suggest some sort of altruism on the part of any of these individuals, and Clodius in particular seems to have chosen his path as some sort of backdoor to more power. The essential point, though, is that within the period from the sack of Corinth to the reign of Tiberius we have plenty of charcaters which can be easily exploited within our modern lexicon of 'left' and 'right', 'democrat' or 'oligarch', and even demagoguery and fascism.
Keeps one interested, eh? -
Message 19
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Hi Elistan,
Thanks for all the advice and information - you really have a knack for explaining something concisely and clearly. I've had a thumping headache in work today but this has (unbelievably) helped to take my mind off of it.
Have a nice weekend,
RF
p.s. Cheers for the link to the statue - my money is on Tiberius to the left of the picture, and Gaius to the right... -
Message 20
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 15th September 2006
Elistan,
thank you for this excellent "essay" on history.
Reading some difficult book from F.R. Ankersmit: "De spiegel van het verleden" (the mirror of the past).
I found some similar reasoning in the first chapters as yours.
Although Chris Lorenz: "Constructing the past: an introduction in the theory of history" He seems according to some comments to differ in opinion with Ankersmit. Both are Dutch. It is now some years ago that I read Chris' book and have to read it again to see were the differences are. It can be that I am not educated or clever enough to see the difference...(smile)
I mentioned it all in Deansay's thread:
Although I read some similar reasoning from Ankersmit as yours, I understand yours much more easier than Ankersmit's...
It comes again down to the same praise as from my co-contributors...
With warm regards mingled with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 21
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Hi,
Thanks all (especially Elistan) as you've motivated me to get off of my backside and take a part-time course at the Birkbeck in London. The course is "The Roman Empire 133BC–AD235" and has five blocks:
"The Fall of the Roman Republic"
"Augustus and the Julio-Claudians"
"Civil War and the New Order"
"How the Roman Empire Worked"
"The 'Adopted Emperors' - the 2nd Century and Beyond".
It'll be really nice to actually study and it should break me in gently in respect to writing essays again (it's been a long, long time!).
Cheers and free
's in the bar.
RF
p.s. Would you believe it - one of the first essay questions is on the Gracchi... -
Message 22
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Sounds like a good course!
Must admit that those courses seem to cover some of my favourite historical figures!
I find the Republic totally outclasses the Empire for unadulterated political intrigue, and as Elistan put, there are so many similarities between the figures of the Republic and modern politics. The empire is, however much more salacious! Sort of a "Hello" magazine of history, rather than a "New Statesman", especially the Julio-Claudians! They are the ultimate dysfunctional family! -
Message 23
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Hi DL,
Yup, the course looks excellent. If it goes well, I'll take another couple of courses early next year to see if I can cope with the additional workload and a full-time job. Ideally, I'd love to do a part-time degree so this should be a reasonably inexpensive way of finding out if I can hack it.
Most of my knowledge is of the Republic and comes via Livy (damn, I love that writer!). I'm with you 100% on the point that it outclasses the Empire for intrigue - it's absolutely riddled with political backstabbing and corruption. The thirst for power in some people seems to have been insatiable - maybe this was down to what was expected of a Roman patrician? Also, the way people could go from "hero to zero" is stunning - Marcus Manlius is a prime example. I love the fact (according to Livy anyway) that once he'd been flung from the Tarpeian Rock that no Roman from his family was ever allowed to bear his name again. The irony of the man who earned his cognomen for saving the Capitol, and then being condemned to death by being thrown from its most famous cliff is unbeatable.
I have to confess that I do find the sleaze associated with the early emperors attractive. Some of the writers from the time of the Empire are great fun too - Ovid in the Ars Amatoria says plenty that can still be applied now, and Apuleius produced a right-cracking book in The Golden Ass (this was so un-put-down-able that I spent four hours in the bath finishing it). There again, those writers still couldn't knock out an insult like Catullus...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 24
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Catiline is one of my favourites, I personally feel that he was a bit of a Che Guevara type figure! He was from one of the oldest patrician families, who claimed descent from one of Aeneas's comrades at Troy, yet became one of the foremost Populares, and managed to get himself outlawed and killed, all thanks to Cicero and his silver-tongued sycophancy! Can't abide Cicero....
Well, that's my take on him anyway. More "Rebel without a clue" than rebel without a cause!
On the Emperors, Vespasian is just excellent. A gruff old soldier, no manners, no class, no snobbery, but saved the Empire from self-destruction in the year of Four Emperors! He was scornful and mocking of much "Imperial" tradition, and even took the mickey out the system on his deathbed.
"Methinks I am becoming a God......"
As for the Julio-Claudians, it was downhill from Octavian really. Poor old Claudius has to be the worst when it comes to taste in women... Messalina AND Agrippina? He must have been off his head! -
Message 25
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Hi DL,
I had Catiline down as a right sneaky and nasty piece of work - obviously I need to find out more about the guy. hmmm... My opinion was purely based on Plutarch's references to him, so I think you can understand why I need to study!
I love the idea that Aeneas may have been involved with the foundation of Rome. Virgil has a whole epic Aeneid that covers it, and Livy mentions it in his first book (although I don't know if this is inspired by Virgil or not). Do you know anything about his associations with the founding, or references to the myth before either of these two writers?
I do like Octavian/Augustus as an emperor, although it was well out of order and more than a bit spiteful to give the Roman people Tiberius as his successor. Vespasian really started to sort out the mess left by Nero and the four emperors of 69 - just a shame that he didn't treat Domitian like an unwanted cat at birth!
Claudius the Clod had bad taste in women? In comparison to Caligula I think he doesn't come out too badly...
Cheers,
RF -
Message 26
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Hi RF,
Nah, I'm not convinced by that. I've always thought of him as a bit of a freedom-fighter type, like all patricians he would have been a self-serving so and so but he had a lot of plebeian support, and no matter what Plutarch says that must have been for a reason!
(Lucius Sergius Catiline, supposedly a descendant of Sergius, who fought at Aeneas' side at Troy, one of the oldest truly Roman families). Can't really add to any of the mythology without checking my books first, will read up on it later and post on it tomorrow.
As for Octavian, he never planned on making Tiberius his successor although Tiberius had done a good job of pacifying the Germanic hordes so got a bit of military support (until Varus cocked it up of course!). I like Octavian for the way he backed down from a lot of the Emperor/God stuff, and behaved like a decent man (after his imitation of Sulla that is-bringing back the proscription lists isn't much to his credit). He never planned on making Tiberius Emperor, there simply wasn't anyone else left alive. Tiberius should have named Germanicus as his successor rather than (allegedly) poisoning him! Then we'd have seen a different history altogether, Germanicus as Emperor... Good call!
Agreed on Domitian, but then what was the choice? Rome still insisted on dynastic succession at that time, and who was to know how bad he would be after Vespasian and Titus? Titus started out well, but then died...
Still, it brought in the "Good Emperors" in Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian.
As for Claudius! Messalina was reputed to have beaten the most famous prostitute in Rome as to how many men she could satisfy in one night, and Agrippina persuaded him to disinherit his only son Britannicus and name Nero (formerly Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus) as his heir. With that achieved, she seduced his doctor, then got his to poison the Emperor. Nasty piece of work indeed, and hardly showing good taste in choosing a wife! Agrippina was also a blood relative (his niece if I remember correctly) so you can add incest to it as well! Claudius the Clod, well, that's a little unfair, he conquered Britain, and was pretty good as Julio-Claudians go! Nero of course needs no introduction, he murdered both his mum and Claudius' son Britannicus, leaving the line ending with him. They truly were the ultimate dysfunctional family, murder, incest, conspiracy, insanity, sex, wine and lyre music (as opposed to sex, drugs and rock and roll!)... -
Message 27
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 18th September 2006
Hi DL!
Will reply more tomorrow as I'm off home now. Just to say that the "Claudius the Clod" reference comes from the Apocolocyntosis (sp) attributed to Seneca. I just couldn't resist dropping it in, even though I'm quite a fan of Claudius - especially in comparison with those directly before and after him!
Cheers and have a free in the bar on me,
RF -
Message 28
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Bah!
Seneca indeed! He was so far up Nero's bottom he could taste his breakfast for him!!!
He was after all Nero's tutor, and obviously should have put little Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus over his knee and given him a good spanking rather sucking up to him, the swine!!!
I've often wondered to what extent Seneca controlled Nero at the beginning of his reign. He obviously lost control of him at some point, as Nero's excesses came to the fore. It's a wonder he managed to remain in power as long as he did, since his behaviour flew so obviously in the face of Roman tradition and morality. Murdered Britannicus, murdered his mother (on the second attempt), was more interested in strutting on the stage in Greece than running the Empire. Not as bad as Caligula I admit, but bonkers none the less! -
Message 29
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Are you seriously saying that Nero didn't earn the triumph he gave himself after winning Eurovision at Olympia? He may not have been the greatest Emperor, but he's the only one who could have won "X-Factor". hmmm... That gives me an idea - maybe I should go on "Stars In Your Eyes" with a can of petrol in one hand and a violin in t'other and say, "Tonight Matthew, I'm going to be Nero"...
I loved reading about his panic when Agrippina didn't drown from his collapsible ship - hilarious stuff! Not the most "together" person eh?
RF
p.s. I agree with you about Seneca. He was so slimy his head was probably self-lubricating... -
Message 30
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Nice one Centurion, like it!
To be honest, Nero was a muppet but wasn't really responsible for the fire. He wasn't even in Rome at the time! The whole tale of Nero "fiddling while Rome burned" was supposedly due to him looking out at the burning city and reciting some lines from his little ditty on the fall of Troy. Understandable really as many people have looked at a scene of destructive beauty and quoted something which seemed suitable.I've been guilty of that too I once watched an MLRS strike land on an Iraqi infantry strongpoint, and for some bizarre reason quoted Robert Lee at our Warrior's gunner-"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should grow too fond of it"...
(To which he replied "What the f___ are you going on about?")
Anyway, I'm waffling again! Think I'm going to have to post a "What if Germanicus became Emperor instead of Tiberius?" thread... -
Message 31
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Hi TAFKADL,
I always thought Nero behaved excellent in the immediate aftermath of the fire - he did provide shelter and raise supplies for the homeless. He's just been a victim of malicious press and jealous senators - neither of whom had even an ounce off his artistic talent...
When you say "What if Germanicus became Emperor instead of Tiberius?", do you mean if Augustus had named Germanicus as his heir? hmmm... I'd also like to know "What if Germanicus had succeeded Tiberius as Emperor?". I know Tiberius lived on to a ripe old age, but maybe the senate knowing that they had a strong replacement in Germanicus would have been pretty keen to assassinate the old perv. Even if they hadn't, then Germanicus would have only been in his early fifties when Tiberius popped his clogs. With his military experience and victories, and the respect and popularity he would have had, he could have been a truly great Emperor.
I can definitely understand the beauty in destruction thing, but too many people are too narrow-minded to even acknowledge it. ahem... In case there's any tofu-eating peaceniks about, I would like to say that in no way do I condone wanton acts of destruction just because they're pretty...
Love the quote about Robert Lee!
RF -
Message 32
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
The Robert Lee quote still makes me laugh too. Andy T, L/Cpl in 1 PWO, where are you now? The reply to the Lee quote was literally one where the cartoon thought-bubble next to his head read "You shouldn't be reading all those books". I always read prolifically whenever I had down time in the army, and it was a source of amusement for many other squaddies, who usually thought reading military history meant Sven Hassel rather than Robert Graves and T.E. Lawrence, and current affairs meant Tom Clancy.
Agreed on Nero, he did after all rush back to supervise the fire-fighting effort, and helped with the relief of those affected. He did however ruin his good works by appropriating a big chunk of Rome for his Golden House.
As for tofu-eating peaceniks, war is evil, and so is tofu. Have a bacon buttie, you'll feel much better! -
Message 33
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
With Nero's taste, I bet his Golden House looked like it been decorated by Elton John...
So come on then - Tiberius and Germanicus. What do you reckon would have happened if Germanicus had became Emperor?
RF
p.s.
...other squaddies, who usually thought reading military history meant Sven Hassel...Β -
Message 34
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
Had Germanicus been Emperor? I reckon a rampaging expansion over the Rhine. He witnessed the corpses left to rot after Varus' defeat, and that would have burned deep. He would have raken revenge, in a big way. Because of the allegience shown him by the army, he'd have had very little trouble back home, and had he reversed actual history, and assassinated Tiberius after he had got the legions back on side during the mutiny, then we'd have been looking at a young, strong, popular emperor, and in my opinion a true heir to Augustus, that Tiberius could never have been. We'd have had Caligula as his heir of course, but were Caligula to have a decent upbringing, without the traumas of his father's murder, followed by a traditional apprenticeship in the army, then the provinces, he may well have turned out a decent Emperor too. Or, he may have suffered from the same illness which sent him insane, but he wouldn't have been Emperor at the time. Had this happened, Germanicus would have had to appoint a different heir.
-
Message 35
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 19th September 2006
hmmm... being the Devil's Avocado (as my Mum would say), would any expansion over the Rhine have been easy to maintain, and wouldn't the land have been better suited to the defenders? Also it could have been at some cost to the rest of the Empire, in terms of legions being displaced from recently occupied or troublesome provinces.
Just had a quick look at a chronology of what happened from Augustus' death in AD14, and it appears that Germanicus could have had a few years campaigning over the Rhine until Tacfarinas revolted in Numidia in AD17.
Interesting one, and I wonder where the new borders would have been drawn, once the natural one formed by the Rhine had been crossed, and the threat posed by Germanic tribes had been reduced...
RF -
Message 36
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 20th September 2006
I don't know what everybody has got against Tiberius. He seemed to be a relatively wise emperor. For example he remitted taxes to cities damaged in an earthquake. He said 'I want my sheep shorn, not skinned' (meaning he did not want to tax provincials too much).
It was the scheming power-hungry people around hime that unsettled his regime. I think he went to Capri mostly to escape from them.
I can't forgive his appointing the scumbag Caligula as his successor, however. -
Message 37
Posted by Cainneach (U5738142) on Wednesday, 20th September 2006
The bust showing Tiberius and Gaius is in the Musee D'Orsay in Paris. I don't know who did it or when but I have a feeling that it might have been done in the 19th Century. Also, I am pretty sure there was a third brother but I cannot remember much about him.
-
Message 38
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 21st September 2006
I don't know what everybody has got against Tiberius.Β
Hi Fascinating,
Well I for one wasn't impressed with the lack of respect he gave to his step-father Brianius Blessedius in "I Claudius".
RF -
Message 39
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 21st September 2006
Hi Cainneach,
Thanks for the pointer to the Musee D'Orsay. I've now got an excuse to vist Paris! Just checked and it was by Eugene Guillaume (1822-1905), so you were spot on when you said 19th century. I don't suppose you know if it was modelled on an original Roman bust or statue?
As regards a third brother, Plutarch (in his life of Tiberius Gracchi) says that their mother (Cornelia) lost all the other children apart from Tiberius, his brother Gaius and one sister (afraid I don't know her name but she married Scipio the Younger).
Cheers,
RF
p.s. When Plutarch says that Cornelia "lost all her other children" I don't think he meant she got distracted whilst shopping for a new toga in Marcus et Spencius. Unlike my mother who managed to lose me in Woolworths when I was five... -
Message 40
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 6th October 2006
So,RF
Thought I'd resurrect this one after last night's programme. Any thoughts on it? -
Message 41
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 7th October 2006
Hereticus, I recorded it and only saw it last night.
4 criticisms : 1. the popular assembly showed women to be present, which would surely not have happened because only men could vote and there had to be lots to fit inside the forum, 2. on the subject of women, how come every single one always has to be mouthy, and EVERYTHING said has be a complaining nagging, 3. the photography is naff (out of focus shots, naff shaky camera) 4. how I detest the rubbish commentry 'he changed Rome FOR EVER' (no he didn't, his proposals were not adopted, he was beaten to death).
Now I have got all that off my chest, I admire the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ for tackling the subject, the sets were very good, the story was faithfully and accurately told, the acting was excellent and overall I give it 8/10. -
Message 42
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 9th October 2006
Hi HM,
It wasn't bad at all, far better than the Caesar episode. Off the top of my head, I had a few issues in addition to those raised by fascinating:
1) His brother Gaius wasn't even mentioned! It's a bit like having a 70's comedy show called "The One Ronnie".
2) I thought Cornelia was portrayed very, very harshly.
3) Tiberius was a bit too wimpy for my liking. I half expected him to go "But Father, I want to sing..." like the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the king who builds his castle on the swamp and his son...
Massive plus point - I thought that the performance of the actor who played Nasica was fantastic. He looked, behaved and sounded exactly like I'd expected him to but with the menace-dial turned up to 11. A real shame that he died before it was broadcast.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 43
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Monday, 9th October 2006
rainbow, I agree about the actor playing Nasica. Didn't know he had died -shame.
Everything always comes back to Monty Python doesn't it? -
Message 44
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Monday, 9th October 2006
Hi fascinating,
The actor's name was Tom Bell and he died on the Wednesday 4th October, only a day before the broadcast. If it was his final performance then it was a great one to be remembered for.
Yup, the Python's really are at the centre of everything.
RF -
Message 45
Posted by Cainneach (U5738142) on Tuesday, 10th October 2006
Whilst it is nice to have the topic covered at all, I too thought that the programme was pretty lame. There was little effort to really explain the problem that Tiberius was looking to solve, nor any real sense of why his methods were significant. I think this is because too much time spent setting out the psycological background. Also, the failure to acknowledge Gaius in any way (even in the form of a statement at the end) was bizarre. Overall, I think it was an missed opportunity to really bring to light and make interesting a Roman figure not widely known beyond academic circles.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.