Watching the new BBC/HBO Rome series on TV it got me wondering.

The movie Gladiator was about Commodus, so was The Fall of the Roman Empire, there's occasionally a Discovery Channel documentary about him. Caligula get a couple of movies too, and so does Nero, they both warrant regular Terrestrial TV programs about them. Caesar.... Well he's in about 50% of anything Roman. Tiberius gets the occaisional documentary and Claudius his own TV drama series.

And there we have it 1200 hundred years of Roman history (2200 if you include Byzantium)..... No kings, no republic, 1 wouldbe dictator, and 5 emperors.  

So I was wondering apart from the times mentioned above, did the Romans spend the rest of their history sitting in a dimly lit room holding hands and watching paint dry.... or did something worth mentioning happen?

Perhaps we could have a chat about (other) times in Roman history.

 Yeah that really bugs me, the history channel is the worst culprit, what few programmes it has on Roman history are about Caeser i'd say about 80% of the time.

 There is not one programme that I have seen EVER on Byzantium in its own right, there was one programme called "I Caeser" which was 6 parts long 1 hour each, showing the lives of Caeser, Augustus, Nero, Hadrian Constantine and then Justinian. The first time ever I have seen anything talking about Byzantium and even then it was constantly referring back to Julius Caeser and Augustus.

 Never though anything about the history of Byzantium in its own right.

 I suppose the History Channel doesnt like comprimising its schedule of 15 WW2 related programmes a day for something abit different or shock-horror interesting.

 There just never seems to be anything on about the beginning of Rome, the Punic wars, Romes expansion in the east against the Diodochi for example, the crisis of the 3rd century, an in-depth look at the decline of the empire throughout its history, the barbarian migrations/invasions, the divisions of the empire, the rise of the east and fall of the west and then the history of Byzantium etc.

 I mean  its excludes some of the most important and interesting periods in Roman and European history for the sake of yet another programme on Julius frickin Caeser.  I'm sick to death of it.

 I've always loved the crisis of the 3rd century, the empire almost on its knees, hopelessly divided with the Gallic empire being formed (Gaul, Britain and Spain) and Palmyrene empire in the east (Egypt, the holyland, Syria and much of Asia Minor) with Persian backing.

 The empire suffered economic collapse, seemingly endless civil wars and massive invasions from the barbarians beyond the frontiers. The Alemanni, Goths, Sarmatians, the Vandals and just about every other tribe having a go at the empire along with the Persians in the east.

 Yet out of all this chaos emerged some of Romes greatest Emperor/generals and unsung heroes men like Gallienius, and more so Claudius II Gothicus and Aurelian, Aurelian giving the empire a new lease of life that would end up lasting nearly 200 years.

 A truly fascinating and exciting period of Roman history that gets almost no coverage whatsoever.

Lucius Sergius Catilina (108 BC–62 BC), known in English as Catiline, was a Roman politician of the 1st century BC who is best known for the Catiline (or Catilinarian) conspiracy, an attempt to overthrow the Roman Republic, and in particular the power of the aristocratic Senate.

Catilina propaganda cup for the election to 62 BC consulate (right cup). These cups, filled with food or drinks, were distributed to the electors to support the candidates.

Born from a noble but impoverished family, he served in the Social War with Pompey and Cicero, under Pompeius Strabo. He also supported Sulla in the civil war of 84–81 BC. Catiline was praetor in 68 BC and governed Africa in the following two years. Upon his return he was prosecuted for abuse of power, but eventually acquitted, then in 66 BC was accused of a conspiracy with Autronius and Publius Sulla (nephew of the Dictator), although we are unclear on the details. After being defeated by Cicero in the consular election for 63 BC, he championed the cause of aristocrats and Sullan veterans down on their luck. He also began to organize a new and larger conspiracy. Catiline made offers to various tribes in Gaul to secure allies. One tribe, the Allobroges, refused his offer and made the plot public.

Cicero Denouncing Catiline by Cesare Maccari.

In 63 BC Cicero, who was consul at the time, discovered and denounced Catiline's conspiracy to the Senate, and Catiline had to flee from Rome, to Etruria. In January 62 BC he and his fellows were intercepted by the Roman army near Pistoria (now Pistoia), and he died in the subsequent battle.

Catiline's conspiracy is one of the most famous events of the Roman Republic's turbulent final decades. Cicero wrote down his Catiline Orations to the Senate against Catiline, which became a widely studied example of eloquence and rhetoric; the historian Sallust wrote an account of the whole affair approximately 20 years after the fact.

The conspirators' agenda is somewhat unclear, but reportedly included arson and other property damage, the assassination of public figures (especially Cicero), and the institution of widespread debt relief or cancellation for the debtors who made up much of Catiline's support base.

Kings of Rome

The Kingdom period of Roman history is as much a part of myth and legend as the founding of the city. Stories past down generation to generation would eventually find their way into the Historical records of such writers as Livy and Plutarch. There is evidence which supports the period of Kings, but exact rulers, dates, events and accomplishments will likely forever be unknown. The growth of the city and development of its culture during this period, however, is widely accepted.

Romulus ruled as the first King of Rome from 753 – 715 BC. According to Livy, he populated Rome with fugitives from other countries and gave them wives abducted from the Sabine tribe. He was said to have vanished in a thunderstorm and was later worshiped as the god Quirinus. He was known as a warrior King who developed Rome’s first army while expanding Rome’s territory. He is also credited with establishment of the patrician, or tribal elder, citizen class and the basis of the Roman Senate.

The second King, Numa Pompilius, was a Sabine and ruled from 715-673 BC. He is credited with the foundation of most of the Roman religious rites and offices such as pontifices, flamens (sacred priests), vestal virgins, the building of the temple of Janus and the reorganization of the calendar into days. Livy suggests that his reign was one of peace and religious reflection for the city. “Once Rome's Neighbors had considered her not so much as a city as an armed camp in their midst threatening the general peace; now they came up to revere her so profoundly as a community dedicated wholly to worship, that the mere thought of offering her violence seemed like sacrilege.” (Livy, History I, xxi)

672 - 641 BC. Tullius Hostilius succeeded Pompilius as the third King from 672 - 641 BC. He was the complete opposite of his predecessor as evidenced in Livy’s words “In his view, Rome had been allowed to lapse into senility, and his one object was to find cause for renewed military adventure.” (Livy, History I, xviii) His reign was one of conquest and expansion which included the eventual destruction of the rival city of Alba Longa. According to lore, Hostilius warlike behavior and complete neglect of the Roman gods, led to a plague on the city. In asking for help from an angered Jupiter, Hostilius was struck down by a bolt of lightning.

The reign of Hositilius, and the resulting plague, prompted the Senate to choose Ancus Marcius as its fourth King. The grandson of Numa Pompilius, Marcius reigned from 640 – 616 BC. He is credited with the formation of the plebeian citizen class and the founding of the port city of Ostia. The first bridge across the Tiber, the Pons Sublicius, was also said to have been built by Marcius. He combined this administrative capability with military achievement as well, conquering and absorbing several other Latin tribes. Marcius, like his grandfather, was said to have died a natural death.

Tarquinius Priscus, (Tarquinius I) the first Etruscan monarch, succeeded Marcius as the fifth King ruling from 616 – 579 BC. He was said to have been made guardian of Marcius’ children, sent them away after his death, and convinced the Romans to elect him as King. His reign is credited with the foundation of the Roman games (Ludi Romani), the Circus Maximus and the construction of the great sewers (cloacae). These operations were funded through the conquest of several more neighboring Latin and Sabine tribes. Much of Rome’s military symbolism (the eagle, etc.) and civil offices is believed to have been developed during this period. He is also credited with bringing the Etruscan military triumph tradition to Rome, and being the first to celebrate one in the city. His death was said to have been at the hands of the sons of Marcius.

Servius Tullius followed Tarquinius and ruled as the sixth King from 578 to 534 BC. He is renowned for implementing a new constitution further developing the citizen classes. The Servian Walls (city walls of Rome) are attributed to him, but modern archeology indicates that the existing walls were built in the 4th Century BC. He is also credited with the construction of the Temple of Diana on the Aventinus hill. He was assassinated by his daughter Tullia and her husband Tarquin.

The seventh and final King of Rome, http://www.unrv.com/bio/lucius-tarquinius-superbus.php - Tarquinius Superbus , (Tarquin the Proud) ruled from 534-510 BC. Under his rule, the Etruscans were at the height of their power, and the authority of the monarchy was absolute. He repealed several earlier constitutional reforms and used violence and murder to hold his power. His tyrannical rule was despised by the Romans and the final straw was the rape of Lucretia, a patrician Roman, at the hands of Tarquinius’ son Sextius. The Tarquins and the monarchy were cast out of Rome in 510 BC in a revolt led by Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus.

The Senate voted to never again allow the rule of a King and formed a Republic government in 509 BC. Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus went on to become the first Consuls of this new government. Free from the rule of Kings, the Romans developed a strict social status hierarchy that would set in motion the conquest of the Western World.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/kings-of-rome.php - http://www.unrv.com/empire/kings-of-rome.php

Birth of the Roman Republic

The rape of Lucretia, according to Livy, was the fundamental “last straw” in the overthrow of the Etruscan King http://www.unrv.com/bio/lucius-tarquinius-superbus.php - Lucius Tarquinius Superbus . The transition from the Etruscan monarchy to republic (510-509 BC) was not, however, a simple institutional change. In place of the King, the newly founded Republic relied upon its Senate, or patrician class families, to oversee the government and the election of various officials, including 2 shared power Consuls. This transformation from monarchy to representative style government, headed by the elite social class, would prove to have troubles of its own.

After the overthrow of the Tarquin dynasty, led by Junius Brutus, the ancient Romans avoided a true monarchal government for the remainder of their storied history (Even the later imperial government maintained forms of the republican system. While in practice it could be a system of absolute power for the Emperor, it was theoretically still checked by the Senate and other representative ideals.) This same Junius Brutus was later claimed as an ancestor by the Republican loyalist Marcus Brutus who was among the conspirators in the assassination of Julius Caesar, and shows the deeply rooted Roman aversion to Kings. It was the era of the Republic in which the great expansion of Roman civilization, power and structure set the path for European dominance. In these formative and expansive years, Rome was ruled by its Senate and its people’s assemblies. The offices of power were divided among various elected officials to avoid the conglomeration of power and the re-institution of the monarchy.

These magistracies were in essence, a division of previous monarchal powers. The Romans instituted a constitution which would dictate the traditions and institutions of government for the Roman people. This constitution, however, was not a formal or even written document, but rather a series of unwritten traditions and laws. Deeply rooted in pre-Republican tradition, it essentially maintained all the same monarchal powers and divided them amongst a series of people, rather than in one supreme ruler.

Patricians and Plebeians

Discontent and political upheaval lay ahead for the fledgling Republic, since the new constitution was flawed and exclusive in nature for the general population (plebeians). Rome was surrounded by powerful external enemies, including its former Etruscan rulers, and Patrician (the hereditary aristocratic families) in-fighting with each other and the plebeian (common people) class was an immediate source of difficulty. The Romans developed a complex client system, where aristocratic families pledged allegiance and voting support to other powerful families. In exchange for political appointments and advocating of various agendas, some power groups were able to subvert the state and the will of the masses for personal gain.

The words Patrician and Plebeian have taken on different connotations of wealthy and poor in modern English, but no such distinction existed in Roman times. The two classes were simply ancestral or inherited. A citizen’s class was fixed by birth rather than by wealth. Patricians monopolized all of the political offices and probably most of the wealth in the early Republic, but there were many wealthy plebeians, and conversly many patrician families had little claim to wealth or prestige other than their family heritage. The relationship between the plebeians and the patricians sometimes came under intense strain, as a result of this exclusion from political influence. In repsonse, the plebeians on several occasions, abandoned the city leaving the patricians without a working class to support their political whims.

http://www.unrv.com/empire/birth-of-the-roman-republic.php - http://www.unrv.com/empire/birth-of-the-roman-republic.php

Most of these silly pop-history TV shows on the Roman Empire are obsessed with Julius Caesar (who was still part of Republican Rome, not the Empire) and Augustus.  To them the Empire began and ended with Augustus.  It is really frustrating and annoying, to the point that when I hear of a new show on "Rome" on either the History Channel or on regular TV, I think: "Oh great, yet another romanticized washed-up soap opera about Caesar and Octavian and the promiscuous Julio-Claudian women."  Gladiator being set at the beginning of the later period, in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, was a slight relief from the sheer boredom.  However, with that awful mini-series on regular TV, and with the soap-operatic Rome on HBO, it is back to the same old crap.

If you ask me, it is high time that a big budget, epic movie is made on the late Roman Empire or on Byzantium.  Now come on, Byzantine history has everything one could ask for to make a historical epic!

 I actually quite like "Rome" for pure entertainment its good, what i'm more annoyed with is the boring tedious bio's of Caeser, saying the exact same things a million other programmes have.

 Why are men like Trajan, Marcus Aurelius (in his own right seperate from Commodus) Septimius Severus, Aurelian so ignored? even Constantine the great doesnt get as much coverage as he should, I find his life and times far more interesting than the vast majority of other Romans.

 I think a movie or mini-series on the sons of Constantine or Julian the Apostate would be interesting, its different and far further into Roman history than most dare touch these days it seems. Perhaps look at men like Aetius and Belisarius even, I just don't understand how such interesting and exciting periods of history are being overlooked in favour of tedioum.

True...it is not about the history, it is about the ratings (ratings=money). 

How about the eutruscan Kings of Rome:

Cool article about their Traditions and heritage...

http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey04.html - http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey04.html

What would be more interesting for me, is to move away for a while from all the gloss and glamour of the great leaders, the major wars, the scandals and all that jazz, and focus a bit on lesser aspects - ie. the mere Roman plebe. Or even the mere senator

Or, if you still can't get away from the blood and battling, the mere soldier. The Legionaires are getting all the coverage, but there are others who have done much in small numbers inside the Roman army.

Cretan Archers fighting for Rome

taken from Roman Armies ( http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/encyclopedia/a-c/cretan-archers.html - http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/encyclopedia/a-c/cretan-archers .html )

Alkiviades wrote:

What would be more interesting for me, is to move away for a while from all the gloss and glamour of the great leaders, the major wars, the scandals and all that jazz, and focus a bit on lesser aspects - ie. the mere Roman plebe. Or even the mere senator

I could advice you "The culture of the roman plebs" by Nicholas Horsfall. It's rather interesting.