Talk:Rome (TV series)/Archive 1

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Octavian

Octavius is always addressed as, or referred to as, Octavian which is grammatically incorrect. Under these circumstances either the Vocative or Nominative case should have been used.

Yes, but the language of the series is English, which does not make these distinctions. And why stop at Octavian? None of the male characters are addressed in the vocative case.

However, while it is not grammatically incorrect, it is historically incorrect. Octavian was called Octavius in his early life; he only took the name Octavianus after the death of Julius Caesar. Anyway, it's obviously a liberty taken by the writers to inform non-classically minded viewers as to who this character is going to become.

--Funkmistress 17:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The -ian suffix usage is grammatically incorrect in modern English as well. Consider a classical Roman name which is still in use today - Marcus. One would not address a person of that name as Marcian. The producers hyped authenticity (see the HBO special on the making of Rome) as a property of the series.

Of course not, because Marcus and Marcian (or more accurately, Marcianus) are two completely different names. As Funkmistress said, Octavian is not grammatically incorrect in English but it is historically incorrect for the time period covered by the first season. --Patrick T. Wynne 08:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Heavens! Not a historical inaccuracy! I love the series - but it has lots of those. - Beowulf314159 14:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Look folks, it is never correct, in either English or Latin, to address one as Octavian.

Absolutely untrue. It is 100% correct to address the guy as Octavian in English after his adoption by Caesar. I'd like to see proof otherwise. --Patrick T. Wynne 03:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Octavian, I'd like to note, is not in any Latin case, since it is not a Latin name - it is an anglicization of the Latin name Octavianus. The other forms of said name would, I would think, be "Octaviane," "Octaviani," "Octaviano," and "Octavianum". "Octavian" doesn't come into play in the Latin at all. And, just to note, he would never have been called "Octavian" during his lifetime. Before his grand-uncle's death, he was simply "Octavius" (or "Gaius Octavius"). After his uncle's death, he would normally have been referred to as "Caesar" (or "Gaius Julius"). Later, of course, he was Augustus, or Caesar Augustus. john k 04:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Octavianus, like all male Roman names, is a second-declension noun, and thus the other forms would be -um, -o, -o, and -i. But anyway, I think we're making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be. Gaius Octavius Thurinus took the cognomen Octavianus ("(male) of the gens Octavius") in order to preserve his biological lineage after his adoption. Even then, I'm pretty sure it's a modern conceit to call him "Octavian", as I've never seen a Roman writer refer to him this way - it's always "Augustus," or simply "Caesar."

ANYway, while it is indisputably an anachronism for the character to be named Octavian, it's the only name that identifies the character without being overtly anachronistic, so I personally am willing to let it slide. --Funkmistress 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Folks, let's straighten it. the future Augustus being called Octavian is NOT a grammatical error: English (nor, AFAIK, any language from Western Europe) has no way of making a difference between nominative, vocative, or any other case. it IS however a historical mistake, since this person would never have been called by this name when alive, and referred to by it only in circumstances requiring the most formal and complete naming conventions, between his adoption by Caesar and his assumption of the name Caesar Augustus... to boot, given his age through most of the series, he would only be called "you", "child", boy" or "Gaius", assuming the Octavius family name only on his seventeenth birthday, in september 46 BC.

Personally, I was shocked to see this name used at all, but I have French sensibilities, and don't know if it is English usage to call him "Octavian" concerning any time before he assumed the principate and started being called "August". If that is so, I'd be inclined to let slide... the errors in this series are generally less glaring and bothersome than in other period productions (Has anybody watched Empire?)

Of course, if authenticity is the series main selling point, there's going to be a lot of people impaled. Roman law would require crucifixion (of slaves and subversives), but such is not my way. and if authenticity is sought for, why in the name of the Furies is john milius involved in the project at all? His record on the point is apalling, as any Howard fan who has watched his movie Conan the Barbarian can attest to.--Svartalf 00:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Svartalf, accuracy-minded historians refer to You Know Who as Octavian after the death of Julius Caesar but before he (Octavian) assumed the principate, after which he became Caesar Augustus. Roman names being what they were, many writer simply refer to our buddy as Octavian throughout his life for continuity's sake.

However, I don't think anyone would have referred to him as Octavian during his life. It's not really a name, more of a title (the Romans, like English speakers to some extent, used the infix -ian- to denote association, thus Octavianus meant "the Octavian man"; as another example, Caesar often referred to Pompey's followers as "Pompeiani" which has been accurately rendered as "Pompeians" by the TV series) and he would have probably been called Gaius or Octavius during the time period covered by the series. Got all that? :) --Funkmistress 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a wikilink for Vocative here as germaine. I've reverted it because they ALSO wiped out 1/4 of the comments on the page. They didn't comment on why they added the link, just that. Enjoy. - Vedexent 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Octavian is incorrect, he was known as Gaius Caesar after Julius Caesar died, and just Gaius or Octavius to everyone else before. However, the term Octavian is simular to now people call Marcus Antonius "Mark Antony". At least this is how I've always viewed it. But no one in Rome called him "Octavian", of that I am sure. --80.193.19.191 18:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "Octavian" belongs to the same category as "Pompey" or "Mark Antony", these are just anglicied names, same way as the Spanish call Iulius Caesar "Julio César", these things have become customary after several centuries.

Funkmistress, none of what you say matters. This is an article about a show, and whether or not the show is correct it its usage is an issue to take up with them. This is not the place for it. MagnoliaSouth 14:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I'm arguing that the Pope is Catholic. MagnoliaSouth, I WAS RESPONDING TO AN INACCURATE ENTRY MADE ON THE PAGE, so what I am saying does, in fact, matter in the context of Wikipedia. I really don't think there's any way I can make this clearer. Please don't be rude, and PLEASE read the whole thread next time. --Funkmistress 20:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Fact vs. fiction

It would be interesting to see a discussion of where poetic license was taken, that is, which parts of the story are historical and which are fictional.

Good point. Some of this could be added to the detailed plot summaries. In general, the episodes tend to compress several events that happened over the course of one or two years into 50 minutes of film: episode 1 is supposed to be set in 52 BC, but Pompey's wife died in 54 BC. All plot lines involving only Vorenus and/or Pullo seem to be entirely fictional. Some well-known events are depicted differently than what the historical accounts would have us believe, but are no less plausible: in the TV series, Caesar does not hestiate when he reaches the Rubicon, nor does he make any grand pronouncements. I actually liked that, though it would have been a nice comical touch if Pullo, the habitual gambler, had said something about dice at that point. --MarkSweep✍ 14:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In Commentariorum de bello Gallico, actually the line I quoted below in another discussion, it exhibits several difference concerning Pullo and Vorenus as compared to the series:

• Pullo and Vorenus are already centurions approaching that of the first cohort (primus ordines) during the Gallic War, instead of at its end, Vorenus being the first centurion of the second cohort ("second spear" or equivalently in Latin secundus pilus, episode 1) and Pullo being a non-officer ("legionnaire", episode 1) (centuriones, qui primis ordinibus appropinquarent)
• Only their rivalery in valor is mentioned, not neccessarily their political opinion (Hi perpetuas inter se controversias habebant, quinam anteferretur)

Striking similarity is:

• Both saved each other's life several times (ut alter alteri inimicus auxilio salutique esset)

– Ylai 04:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone who wrote the "T. Pulfio, and L. Varenus" reference actually looked into the Commentariorum de bello Gallico? All I read in liber V, 44:

Erant in ea legione fortissimi viri, centuriones, qui primis ordinibus appropinquarent, Titus Pullo et Lucius Vorenus.

For an online source, see e.g.: [1]. – Ylai 02:47, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, we have that right here on one of Wikipedia's sister projects: http://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_Bello_Gallico . --MarkSweep✍ 03:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

For those who might be interested, a better, annotated version is available at [2]. – Ylai 04:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone/Is there anything confirming that "Quintus Pompeius" is in fact Gnaeus Pompeius? By the end of the Republic, numeral praenomen are not neccessarily assigned in order, and Sextus Pompeius is not the 6th child of Pompeius Magnus. Quintus Pompeius could be anyone. – Ylai 16:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The character of "Quintus Pompeius" is described as Pompey's son. I'm assuming that he might correspond to the historical figure of Pompey the younger (Gnaeus), but it's also conceivable that the fictional character blends aspects of Gnaeus and Sextus. I don't know if any of Pompey's sons were known at some point as Quintus. Depending on whether Quintus flees Rome with his father later on in the TV series, we may be able to determine which historical person he's supposed to be based on. --MarkSweep✍ 23:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• In this category, I have a slight problem : the red cloak seems to be an article of uniform worn by all military men. According to my sources, it was an emblem of commanding officers, Caesar being noted as keeping his at all times, even in the face of the enemy as an act of bravura. Anybody got more reliable info on the matter? --Svartalf 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Charcter Descriptions

Who exactly spends their time writing this? Was it some intern down at the HBO offices? Isn't this promotional? --Jonathan

A lot of the character things were from the HBO website since they were posted before the show aired. Sfufan2005 00:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to think HBO would care about the copyright for descriptions on an informational site, but even if they did, it would almost certainly fall under Fair Use. Lousy copyright police.

Acutally - if you want to know WHO wrote it - check the log. It's not promotional; it is referenced to a whole whack of different sites and references. It is written by people who like the show - who else would put in the time? But, if you feel the coverage is unbalanced, you can always point out where and why. - Vedexent 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BBC showing 11 parts not 12

The BBC are showing the series in 11 parts rather than 12. On various forums there seems to be a lot of confusion and no definitive answer as to why, or exactly how. According to some, the BBC decided that the first two episodes has a lot of exposition regarding the Roman empire, that was deemed unnecessary for a British audience, according to others the differences between the running times of PAL and NTSC has allowed scenes to be moved from one episode to another to allow for each episode to fit into a BBC time slot. I guess we won't know for sure until it is broadcast. 19:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears that they consensed the first 1 and a half episodes into the first one. Jooler 22:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Belgian national tv (VRT) has started showing the series two days before the BBC, so I watched the first episode there. When I saw the full frontal nudity I wondered if the BBC would show that. In the scene where Octavia undresses before Pompey Magnus, the BBC showed the undressing, but left out the last shot of that scene, where Octavia moves onto the bed on all fours, suggesting that it was comsidered standard for the Romans to have sex doggy style. At first I thought that maybe the BBC objects more to such a suggestion than to nudity. But a bit further on they showed a rather more explicit doggy style sex scene in a brothel. So why did they cut those 3 seconds in the earlier scene? (is it ok for commoners to do this but not for the upper class?) Anyway, of course leaving out such snippets won't account for such a difference in length. On VRT this scene was after 39 minutes. On BBC it was after 30 minutes. Quite a difference. The final scene on the Belgian first episode is that of a burning village. But in the BBC version that seems to be completely missing. Normally I prefer watching BBC because of the lack of subtitles and other intrusive elements in the picture (not to mention that horror called 'commercial break', which VRT, being a national station, luckily doesn't have either). But in this case I'll stick to VRT. DirkvdM 12:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several scenes completely missing and several more trimmed by a few seconds. Three episodes telescoped into two. But it does not appear to for censorship reasons, but to cram the series into 11 episides. No explanation as to why. Jooler 22:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

BBC repeated the first episode on Sunday later at night, so I thought that maybe that would be different, but that does not appear to be the case. Alas. DirkvdM 18:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Having seen the BBC and HBO versions of the early episodes, I was struck by what was cut out - it wasn't sex or violence, or for that matter historical background that the BBC claims all its viewers know. It was the politics. The most memorable bit that was cut was Octavian's speech when Vorenus and Pullo eat at Atia's, about slaves taking all the work, nobles taking all the land and the Roman people starving in the streets. They also cut most of the build-up to Antony getting assaulted on his way to the Senate. The effect is to remove any indication that the Republic is unstable, and turn it into a simplistic personality clash between Caesar and Pompey. It appears the BBC doesn't believe its audience can handle even that little complexity. I hope when they release the inevitable DVD it'll be the American version, which is excellent. They also ruined the narrative shape of the first three episodes by cutting them into two, and then scheduled David Attenborough's new series on BBC1 at the same time, and unsurprisingly I understand ratings are plummeting. Bizarre decision after bizarre decision - it almost seems like, after spending so much money on Rome, the BBC are deliberately sabotaging it. --Nicknack009 00:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation in title

Shouldn't only the first letter of the title be capitalised, with 'tv' in small print? DirkvdM 06:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• No because it is uniformity with any other article that includes the words: (TV series) in it. Sfufan2005 20:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Centurion helmet crest

In talk:Centurion (Roman army) someone asked about the orientation of the helmet crest of a centurion. Near the start of the first episode of this series, what I believe was a centurion had it 'sideways'. Anyone know if this is correct? DirkvdM 06:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of Roman helmets with the transverse crest before, and they were referred to as "centurion helmets". I don't have anything conclusive to back that up, but I've seen circumstantial evidence from more than one source. I'm guessing that officers had the transverse crests so that they were easier to spot in the battle by their men (listen what the guy with the funny hat is yelling at you!).

Beowulf314159 22:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no quotable sources to advance, but through my readings, both historical and fictional about ancient Rome, there seems to be a consensus about the transversal crest having been a recognition device for centurions, much as the vine staff was their badge of office, and first disciplinary tool. --Svartalf 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Transverse crest is generally indicative of either a legate or a centurion or legionary charged as a herald or messenger. It identifies them as non-combatants and as messengers from the camp. pookster11 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pullo and Vorenus in Harry Turtledove's Videssos books?

"Titus Pullo sprang to attention when he saw the tribune walking toward him, a fair sign of a guilty conscience. So, interestingly, did Lucius Vorenus. Except for their feud with each other, they were excellent soldiers, probably the two finest in the maniple." :) GhePeU 00:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Turtledove got the names from the same place as the series: Julius Caesar's writings.

BBC Editing Controversy

The BBC Editing Controversy paragraph now doesn't make any sense. The comparison to Sopranos etc was about the language cuts (which was basically a couple of instances of of the word cunt; a word (unlike fuck) that is still deemed unacceptable for a show starting at 9pm on BBC1/2, probably oaky after midnight). But this bit has been blended in to the stuff about the merging of episodes 1&2&3 into 2, which is a totally separate issue. Bad Edit! Jooler 23:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The IMDb claims that HBO episode 3 was actually 15 minutes shorter than the rest of the series, and this was a contibutory factor to the BBC choosing to edit. Can anyone confirm this? If true, it should be mentioned to make clear that only 35-or-so minutes were lost rather than 50. --KJBracey 12:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

BBC Edits and Dates

I'm just curious if the BBC broadcast date(s) for An Owl in a Thornbush is/are correct. I thought that only How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic was "split up" between the 1st and 3rd episodes.

I'm not saying that's wrong - as I don't know - I'm just asking. Did parts of An Owl in a Thornbush get "pushed out" into Stealing from Saturn?

It just looks odd that 'bits' of the three episodes go out on the 2nd, 9th, and 16th - which seems to imply 3 episodes after all.

Beowulf314159 22:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The BBC airdates were a mess. I've fixed them. It went out every Wednesday evening, regularly. The first three HBO episodes were edited into two, and the last two went out together as a feature-length episode. --KJBracey 12:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Em dashes, en dashes

MarkSweep:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)
• STC Style Guide
• Chicago Manual of Style

I've already participated (and succeeded) in lengthy arguments about the usage of em and en dashes, so I care not to do so again here. Please review the aforementioned style guides for the correct usage of em and en dashes. Adraeus 17:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The use of an en dash in a episode number (eg 1–3) strikes me as wrong-headed and contrary to the style guides. It reads as if you meant "1 to 3". --KJBracey 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"wrong-headed" or not, it's a pretty common naming convention on other television wikis, and web sites about television programming. Next season would be 2-1,2-2, etc. It may not be the "Queen's English", but sometime you pick consistency (and thus clarity) of expression instead. - Beowulf314159 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you've missed my point? A hyphen, as you just wrote it, is perfectly natural. I'm complaining specifically about the en dash instead of a hyphen.

Anyway, aside from that, why the duplication of numbers in the table? It doesn't seem to add anything, and I'm not quite sure what the intent is for the second series. "#13, 2-1"? or "#1, 2-1"? --KJBracey 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you're right. I hadn't noticed that. They were not originally entered with mdashes - but we've have more that one person involved in the ndash/mdash/hyphen jihad. As for the dual entry, it's again a convention you see alot, which makes sense when you hit season #2. Episode #13,2-1 - 13th in the show sequence, 1st in the season sequence. - Beowulf314159 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm changing them back to hyphens. I've double-checked the style guides that Adraeus cited above, and they definitely shouldn't be en dashes. He's hypercorrecting. --KJBracey 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Why is there a long bulleted list of Rome facts? Most of these points can and should form some nice sections in the article. Trivia, which these facts are not, is generally not acceptable for encyclopedic inclusion. Adraeus 21:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to think the bullet facts are not trivia, then the complaint about the inclusion of trivia in an encylopedia article seems moot. Perhaps you just dislike the title of the section? If so, that's easily changed.

If you think that most of the points should form or be incorportated in "some nice sections in the article", feel free to edit the facts in, or write appropriate new sections. The article is suppposed to be a community effort, and is evolving all the time, after all. It wouldn't be the first time information was roughly and haphazardly included in the page to be refined later. - anon

Some of them (written by me) were incorporated into nice sections and have been moved out, into bullet points!! Encyclopaedias should be written in prose style and not as a list of bullet points Jooler 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Correct. See my thoughts on lists and trivia at my userpage. Adraeus 23:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I read the entry on lists on your userpage - and it raises valid points. I would agree that lists are not the most effective way of communicating information - nor do they give the facts the context they need. I would agree that the list is not the final form that the information should be in. I take it from your earlier comments that you don't object to the material so much as the presentation - and that seems to be Jooler's objection as well. I have no problem "re-working" the section - or with other people re-working it - to give it better context and form. And yes - I am the guilty party who put the list up. Perhaps Change "Production Credits" to "Production", with "Production Credits" becoming a sub-section, many of the facts about the costuming and set construction being put in their own sub-section (no idea what you'd call it - Artistic Stuff just doesn't cut it - but I'm drawing a blank at the moment - dinner shortly, no blood sugar now). Just some thoughts. Beowulf314159 23:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)