Talk:How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Great Ideas/Big Problems

While this edit has a lot to recommend it - especially the info box, great addition! - it also causes a lot of problems.

You've gone and ripped out sections that weren't used in this write up (and said the reason is of course) yet, but are used in other episode write ups - so either you've gone and broken the consistent formatting from episode to episode to episode, or you plan on deleting information in those episodes.

Both approaches are a bad idea. I'd recommend putting those sections back in.

Beowulf314159 04:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You've also gone an "blended" historical comments which make reference to aspects of the history of Rome - and were in the historical notes section which was kind of a "background information" section - and treated them as plot summary.

Crassus? Who played Crassus in this episode again? I forget.

Taking such things out, and you lose deeper background historical information.

Leaving them in, and the episode informatio is wrong.

These sections were divided this way for a 'reason.

Beowulf314159 04:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You know - there are links to subsection/anchors on this page on other pages - subsections you're gone and ripped out. I've been trying to make the whole Rome sub-site of the wiki internally consitant. While I love some of the additions and ideas here, some of the wholesale sweeping changes - if carried across all pages of this type - will break that.

As a matter of protection of four days work here (where were you then?) I've saved the source code for the pages offline. I really don't want to get into a "pissing contest" over this.

It's not an ego thing. Frankly your design is better - certainly more visually appealing - than my own. I just think that some of the sections you've ripped out have purpose, and unilaterally ripping them out of one page without looking at the others is leading to either lost information, inappropriate information "stuffed into" some sections, or inconsistant pages that purport to be doing the same thing.

Beowulf314159 04:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Ok - rather than just complaining about the problems, I've tried to do something constructive to merge what I think are the good parts of both approaches. See The Stolen Eagle

It preserves the information, makes the section titles more relevant, cuts down on the wordiness, tries to put sections that are likely to have more general appeal nearer the top, and uses that excellent episode box.

I've also done a minor edit to the episode box - just aligned the titles in the left column with the top of their cells. I did this because when I added the episode box to The Stolen Eagle, the setting information runs on for several lines and made the title look odd. It doesn't change anything in the look of How Titus Pullo Brought Down the Republic.

Beowulf314159 05:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I used your template as inspiration and made Template:Rome character as well, and used it in Lucius Vorenus. Thank you.

Beowulf314159 06:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Don't worry -- the problems will get sorted out eventually. Here's one issue that needs to be dealt with sooner rather than later: it's better to leave out the episode summaries that were taken verbatim from the HBO website. I can see why they're better than blank space, and perhaps they were intended to be gradudally replaced, but we can't take whole portions of text verbatim from other sites without permission. I've merged the detailed plot summary of this episode from an older version of the Rome (TV series) article without further cleanup, so there remain inconsistencies that need to be sorted out. I agree with having a clear division between the plot of the fictional account and the attested historic events. But I'm not sure that there need to be as many sections on notes etc. Let me think this through more carefully and come up with a coherent proposal. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Ok - I can see the copyright issues, definatly. I think that having a synopisis there is a good idea though. It's kind of an abstract for the television show. Perhaps they can be paraphrased, or I can write ones out of whole cloth.

I agree that there don't have to be sections for notes on everything (art history notes, toga notes, etc.) - but I think the sections in The Stolen Eagle balance.

  • When you're discussing/conveying/analyzing a historical drama, you get discussion or information about the historical background, and the historical differnces.
  • When you talk about a narrative you get plot (summary), plot (devices), and characterization
  • The other two - the episode box, and the external links - are just artifacts of the fact that we're talking about a television show on the web.

I think all sections have a definate role. The question I think is what do you do about episodes that don't 'use a section. If no one uses a section, or is ever likely to, you take it out. But, if the section is there, and empty in some episodes, and used in others, then what?

Which is more important: consistent appearance, or not having any unused sections?

If a section is unused, is it practical to "comment it out" so that people editing/adding to a page can see the section is there if they want to use it, but until it has content, the end-user need not deal with it?

Just some thought.

Beowulf314159 07:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Which side is Vorenus on?

A good point raised in the character notes about Lucius Vorenus' apparent "haughtiness". I've been trying to figure out which class that the Voreni fall into.

While they don't seem to be Patrician, they do have their own gens name: Voreni. This means that they're not cliens to anyone. Which, if they are plebian means that they cannot enter into legal contracts — which seems kind of an odd place for a family to be in. I can think of two possible reasons

  1. The Voreni are an (impoverished) Equestrian family.
  2. The writers didn't go into that kind of historical detail, and just wrote the Voreni as a "wealthy upper middle class family" would act in "Western society", especially if he discovered his daughter was about to try and marry someone from "the wrong side of the tracks".

Beowulf314159 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point... Technically, the equestrian order was part of the gentry. Since membership in the class was tied to owning property (land) valued at a certain sum, it is supposedly possible that a clan that managed to lose its lands would also drop to the plebs... practically, I doubt a family falling on such hard times would have gotten the means to properly educate a son, and it's likely that such a son might have managed to get a decent post of the army, maybe tribune angusticlavus, if only from contacts . What also bothers me is that Niobe obviously is a sensitive woman of some breeding, not, a "prole", whom Vorenus would not have miscegenated with in the first place ... yet she works, she does her own housework... things a patrician woman would never do (compare with Atia or Servilia)... Also, Vorenus calls on his family's traditions without the rancor of a man whose ancestry was greater than he is, he talks and acts as if he were a continuator of that tradition of military service. I do guess series writers made a fumble between modern and Roman conceptions of social classes. --Svartalf 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Is social order totally tied into property? I seem to recall that Lucius Cornelius Sulla was impoverished, yet was still accounted a Patrician. When he obtained a fortune through inheritence, he was allowed to take his place as Senator. I know that property was important, but so was blood and Dignatis. I'm kinda floundering on the edge of my knowledge again :)
In any case, I think that we're trying to apply the historical rules of Roman society too closely for a "mere" television script :) - Beowulf314159


Senatorial rank, was tied to proving you had 1.000.000 sestertii (250.000 [[denarii]) in assets. You yourself mention Sulla had to wait for an inheritance (putting his wealth above mandatory levels) before he could assume senatorial dignity... not perfect proof, but telling, and I'm 100% sure about the nouveau riche swelling Equestrian ranks (of course, there was a numerus clausus and cooptation rules on the senate) between Marian and Antonine times.

BTW, I've got definite proof that Vorenus is a plebeian by rank : his pay and loot should clear 10.000 denarii... well and good, and the analogy of a blue collar worker landing a million USD might even be correct... but the asset threshold for equestrian rank was 40.000 sestertii, that is 10 times as much... and it looks like Vorenus' only qualifiable asset would be his house.

and Yeah, I'm a nitpicker for detail in historical productions. :) --Svartalf 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*chuckles* Nit-picking is good. I'm trying to understand better, not "win an argument" :) I understand that you had to have particular "property requirements" to obtain particular political office. But I'm thinking that Senator is not a social rank or class; it is a political office. One is born into the Patrician class by heredity. One becomes a senator by presenting yourself to the Censors, proving that you are of a Patrician family (well, not always, I know - Marius was a "new man" and all that, but that's another wrinkle I won't get into just yet), and that you have such-and-such amount in assests, to be allowed to be a Senator.
My example of Sulla was to point out that it is possible that someone could be of a particular "high" social class, and yet be denied the opportunities of that class due to poverty. At least it seems to hold for Patricians. Sulla was poor beyond the requirements of his social class, but was not suddenly considered plebian.
Now, if such a situation is possible for a family of the Equestrian order, and I don't know if it is, then it might be possibe for the Voreni to be such a family. It is undeniable, both through their on-screen presentation and the points you pointed out that the Voreni didn't have much in the way of money (Niobe was off borrowing money - and genetic material - from her in-laws when Lucius' pay stopped).
What I'm wondering is if it possible for the Voreni to be impoverished beyond the opportunties and offices of their social class, yet still have the pride and traditions of that class? Upper class ancestory, attitudes, and education; lower class occupations and circumstances due to poverty. Such would explain Vorenus' attitude toward Crito, while still putting them in the poverty they display.
Beowulf314159 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


one thing at a time : a) Marius was an homo novus, he held multiple offices, including consulships, but I'm not sure he ever was a senator... actually, I strongly doubt so, and I don't even know if a Marius after him ever held seat amont the Conscript Fathers.
b) Sulla at first did not have the 1.000.000 sestertii in holdings required to hold the office... he may very well still have had half that and held Equestrian rank on his own fortune, plus, the facts his family was noble long before him must have told... and when his fortune grew large enough, he was admitted.
Senatorial rank was as much a privilege of nobility and fortune (you had to be both noble, with a consul ancestor, and wealthy by a million sestertii or more to be in the club) as an office per se... it's a bit as though every real estate holder with more than x tax returns, and by preference ancestors involved in politics, automatically had a seat in congress.
The equestrian order was much more open, being accessible to all freeborn citizens with sufficient wealth. It was, after all, the reserve from which people were drawn to hold offices when all eligible members from old families already had one, or those available were deemed unsuitable (because they were incapable, or it was deemed unseemly they should hold that office at this point in their career).
Given the kind of plutocrat-oligarchy the Romans favored for their government and ruling class, I believe it perfectly possible that an equestrian family, without curule magistrates to its name, and fallen on hard times could revert to commoner status. The key to nobility was getting a member of the family to the rank of consul, or (later), at least a curule magistracy.
You may also notice that Vorenus has another distinctive feature of plebeian classes : is name ends in us, while the immense majority of patrician families see their gentilice end as ius(Julius, Cornelius, Octavius, Tullius, Junius, porcius...) the sign is telling that the family never belonged to the elite, as is the fact he doesn't have a nickname. Also, while a man might have held class prejudices and catonian views if his family had fallen on hard times during his parents time (of which we have no inkling), the Romans were generally pragmatic, and a haughty impoverished aristocrat would not think twice of marrying ignoble money into the family to improve his situation on the political board. Also, since elite families tended to marry among themselves, a member of the elite fallen on hard times, while unable to assume certain privileges, would probably have been able to call in favors and hold certain offices... I doubt an Equestrian would have be left to demean himself by going through the ranks and becoming a centurion, when he could have been named angusticlave tribute with his richer friends not even threatened in their own prerogatives --Svartalf 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
One gigantic gleaming error here - 40,000 sesterii IS 10,000 denarii, it's not "10 times" more - that would be 400,000 sesterii.74.116.116.101 08:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the requirements for Senatorial office: Dignatis and Money.

I wasn't aware that it's unlikely that Marius was ever a Senator. It seems odd that one can hold consulship without being a Senator - but there were lots of loopholes and odd features in the traditions of government. You can argue it's part of what brought the Republic down.

You're right - an aristrocrat probably wouldn't have had any qualms about marrying a "wealthy nobody" to shore up family fortunes.

You're right we don't know the particulars of Sulla's situation. He is depicted as going from abject poverty to wealth in The First Man in Rome - but that's a novel.

So we're left with views of class and family worth that we can't explain except as errors on behalf of the script writiers then? - Beowulf314159 20:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in the case of Marius, the fact is that I don't think he ever had the time to be a senator... as a former consul, he might have been admitted between offices... but he was unusually active. I still note that the Marii don't seem to have been major players outside Arpinum after Gaius faded away. --Svartalf 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good thing, given that the Marian reforms to the legions are — arguably — one of the things that made the fall of the republic possible: Standing armies of professional soldiers whose loyalty was proably directed toward the General (who was responsible for getting them their land grant after demobilization) rather than some abstract idea of "Rome", instead of the previous collection of middle-class land owners who had a vested interest in preserving the status quo of the Republic. - Beowulf314159 20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Our article on the Roman Senate says that all magistrates were admitted to the Senate, which was my understanding. Also, being of Senatorial rank is not the same thing as being a patrician. Being a patrician or a plebeian was a matter of birth, and there were wealthy, prominent Plebeian gens - Licinius (e.g. Crassus, Lucullus), Sempronius, Antonius (Antony was a Tribune of the Plebs), Octavius, and so forth. The vast majority of Roman citizens would have been plebeians, and this would have included a large number of the most prominent families and individuals, including a whole lot of senatorial families. There were only a limited number of actual patrician gens. So what's the deal with the claim above that plebs couldn't enter into legal contracts? Also, isn't "Niobe" a Greek name, which would suggest that she is a freedwoman, rather than a woman of Roman birth? Seeing as the writers clearly show at other points that they understand the way Roman women are named - Scipio's niece is Cornelia, for instance - it doesn't seem likely this is a careless error. john k 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I recall that at one point Vorenus says that his father "rode with Sulla", which would indicate he was an officer, and probably an equestrian. Vorenus is perhaps a younger son, who didn't inherit his father's property but was able to join the army as a centurion. His own property wouldn't put him in the equestrian class, but at least he has property, so he's not a "prole" - the proletarii were those who had no property at all.
As for who gets to sit in the Senate, I think it varied at different times. As far as I understand it, the basic position was that if a family qualified for Senatorial rank at the census, then the head of the family got to be a Senator and his sons had the right to serve as tribunus laticlavus in the army, which was a good route into politics. To make Vorenus a Senator, Caesar has to give him land to bring him up to the property qualification. At various points membership of the Senate was extended to people who had held certain political rank - in the 1st century AD anyone who had been a praetor had a seat in the Senate - but I don't know what the standard was in the 1st century BC.
As for clientela, you didn't have to be a plebeian to be a client or a patrician to be a patron. Caesar's father was a patrician but was a political client of Marius, who was a plebeian. Beowulf314159 above seems to be describing the relationship between a freed slave and his former master, which was a client/patron relationship in which the client bore his patron's gens name, but patronage ran all the way through Roman society, including between citizen families.
Niobe is a Greek name, which might imply she was a former slave, but alternatively might just mean she was the daughter of Greek immigrants. Peregrini (free foreigners) had their own status in Roman law, and there was a magistrate, the praetor peregrinus, who oversaw matters involving them. Marrying a Roman like Vorenus would be a good way for a peregrina like Niobe to ensure her children were Roman citizens - and both her daughters are called Vorena, which is Roman practice. Her brother-in-law Evander (also a Greek name) is described as a "low half-Greek butcher" at one point, Timon is Jewish and the man Erastes Fulmen tried to order Vorenus to kill was Indian, so the show seems to be trying to show Rome as multi-cultural.--Nicknack009 20:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
So, in conclusion: 1) there's no reason to think that a Plebeian (or a common Roman citizen) would be unable to enter into legal contracts; 2) there would be no reason for a plebeian (or a common Roman citizen) to not have their own gens; 3) there is fairly good reason to think that Niobe, whether or not she is a freed slave or a non-citizen Greek living in Rome, is not herself a Roman by birth. Right? And we should always be careful of distinguishing the Patrician/Plebeian dichotomy, which at this point is essentially a matter of legal caste, and has little to do with wealth or prominence, and the Senatorial/Equestrian/Commoner division, which is more along the lines of normal social classes, and where one can rise and fall.
As to Vorenus' class, I've only watched the first half of the show, but I suppose you're right that the fact that his father rode with Sulla would suggest that he's an impoverished equestrian (maybe). I was just wondering about Beowulf's weird characterization that his having his own gens would mean he can't enter into legal contracts unless he's an equestrian. john k 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Inaccuracy

I wonder if it might be better for these articles to not have it be a list of historical inaccuracies, but rather a discussion of the historical accuracy and inaccuracy. We know a great deal about the actual circumstances of Caesar's being condemned as a traitor, and the negotiations, and all that. The way it is described in this episode is partially accurate, and partially inaccurate. Historical figures who were involved (Cassius and especially Curio) have been left out and all their role given to Antony. Caesar's offer to disband his armies if Pompey would disband his is left out. The whole complicated plot to pass a resolution condemning Caesar, but then have Antony veto it, is entirely made up by the writers, as far as I can tell, as is the way this supposedly fails. The consuls of 49 BC are ignored, when it was they who actually rejected Caesar's deal, not Pompey. Cicero is made the leader of a mostly mythical "moderate" faction. In the first episode, similarly, there's a lot of conflation of time - Julia died in 54 BC, and that was the point when Caesar tried to marry Octavia to Pompey; Alesia fell in 52 BC, and the end of the episode seems to be in 50 BC, with Caesar wintering in Cisalpine Gaul. Also, the name of Octavia's first husband is changed from Gaius Claudius Marcellus to "Glabius" It seems to me that the only way to justify having articles on individual episodes of this show is if we make an effort to really get into the nitty gritty of the details, to compare the narrative in the show to that given by Appian and other historians and to try to explain what is correct and what is not. (I'm personally not particularly bothered by most of the departures from history - it's really no worse than most historical re-enactments, but if we're going to do this, it seems like we should do it right. john k 15:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Howtituspullo.jpg

Image:Howtituspullo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)