Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Ceasarian (U6019041) on Saturday, 7th October 2006

  Can someone explain why the current "Rise and Fall" series about the Roman Empire started with Nero, then jumped back [time-wise] to Julius Ceasar and back further to Tiberius (not the later Emperor by that name). Next week I believe we will pick up the threads post Nero.
  
  Why this disorder? It would have made more sense to reverse the three episoded to date, then what came after Nero would make far more sense.
  
  There has to be a reason why it was done in this order but it eludes me.

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  I think (I could be entirely wrong) that they started with Nero and Caesar because they are probably the Roman leaders most people would immediatey come up with if asked to name one, so it was really an attention getting exercise. Though why it couldn't have been Caesar, then Nero, I really couldn't say - it would have made sense given that 'Rome' is still (alas) relatively fresh in the mind.

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by OrganettoBoy (U3734614) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  I'm sure I read that the original running order started with Julius C but that the Nero one was moved as it was thought it'd be more of a crowd pleaser and start off the series with a 'bang'

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  I assumne that it's beacuse the producers/directors/schedulers are all young, and have been through topic-based history 'education' in British schools, and not the 'sequence of events/dates through time' approach when 'proper' history was taught in the Good Old Days!!

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Ceasarian (U6019041) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  Yes, that sounds suspiciously like the truth, never mind order and method, lets go for impact! However logic should dictate you start with last weeks episode which would have led nicely into Ceasar. Then, if -and its a big if - they must leave out Octavia (Augustus) who was Ceasar's successor and the first - and arguably the greatest - Emperor, they could at least move to Nero as the last of the Julian family. To move onwards past Nero now without any rationale for time flashbacks, makes it a hotchpotch production, which is a shame.

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Ceasarian (U6019041) on Monday, 9th October 2006

  Thanks for that, my sentiments exactly. Without following a time log History loses impact, especially when attempting to convery the "Rise and Fall"!

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 11th October 2006

  Agreed! The series has been highly entertaining, if inaccurate, and I'm all for history of the Roman Republic being on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ1 at 9pm, but some sensible sequential order would have been good. Nero, then Caesar, then T.Gracchus (why ignore his brother?), then this week's offering is Vespasian??? Doesn't make sense!
  
  My main complaint is that Nero, bonkers though he may have been, is far less interesting a personality than Catiline or Sulla! If they were picking out random characters, then they could have picked some better ones! Still, all will be revealed on Thursday. I wonder if they'll cover the year of four emperors, including Galba, Otho and Vitellius as well as Vespasian?

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 11th October 2006

  It's really about Josephus - a rather dashingly handsome young fellow, if you believe their reconstruction (I've always thought of him as a bearded old cynic, myself) - note that he is, according to the RT cast list, Josephus, not Joseph bar Matthias which was his name before he (ahem) 'saw the light'. Which is a nuisance as my copy of 'The Jewish War' is at home in Jersey whilst I'm up at uni in Newcastle.
  
  Oh, and apparently he "was forced to co-operate with the oppressors of his people". How very noble of him. So apparently this isn't the same Josephus who was practically going around, Private Fraser-like, saying "We're all doomed, doomed!", thought his countrymen were a bunch of lunatics and jumped ship at the earliest opportunity to save his own skin, then.

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire-Rise and Fall non sequential?

  Report message8

Back to top