Rome on HBO

in military conquest, and military tactics(or lack of them) religion is a minor factor...the pagans pagans of todays turkey, must have had lousy strategists, and don't forget that the turkish armies were so massive, and bizantium only endured a bit more because of the geographical factors that allowed them to thrive and defend their places esialy...
as for the muslim conquests in Iberia, well they were lousy strategists, were not prepared for war, so unprepared that they only were able to stop the muslim advance in high ground and do to temperatures the muslims were not familiar with..and we must of course give franks credit for stoping them from invading south france...=)

but in my view was cristianity that killed Rome from within, and the barbaric hordes did the rest sacking the dead remains of the empire...cristianity killed the roman state of mind, and the roman identity...

Corruption from within and tragic leadership is probably the biggest factors to its death. Once the senate was replaced how many worthless emperors did the empire have to endure?

lost count...

Ii's very doubtful that the roman empire could have endured to the present day without christianity. But christianity killed ancient, graeco roman, egyptian etc. culture.

I`m no moderator, but could we please go back to the topic?

It`s very annoying to read that a thread about HBO Rome degenerates into a religion discussion.

To fullfill your request: the series was great, and I'm looking forward to see the second on Canvas. Btw, the Canvas broadcasts were longer than the BBC ones, so aren't the BBC versions censured a bit too? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

To fullfill your request: the series was great, and I'm looking forward to see the second on Canvas. Btw, the Canvas broadcasts were longer than the BBC ones, so aren't the BBC versions censured a bit too? :inquisitive:

---

The BBC is a publically funded corporation and doesn't have any adverts. Were you looking at advertised times? It is possible that the BBC censored Rome, but I highly doubt it.

Foot

actually i remember that when it air, in my country it was said in the journals that in BBC they aired a censored version, without the introduction, some parts were cut(sex and fowl language), so that the first and second episode do to cuts were joined into one a little bigger episode... but that here we would get the full version...
and if you look HBO Rome at wikipedia, it's referenced there...the BBC polemic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWEf6G_HX00

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iberus_generalis

(sex and fowl language)

---

XD

But anyhow. Cleopatra was too boyish for my liking, and I seriously think there was enough nudity and stuff to make some people uncomfortable. Me, for example. But I didn't like Atia and Servilia one bit. One was pretty but too scheming, the other too motherly.

Tell me one thing, though. Did Octavian really do his sister like in the show? Curious about that one. And I like the one about how they explained away the idea that J.C. and Octavian were doing, ahem, rear-end things with J.C.'s fit XD

There is no such thing as too much sex, on TV or in real life. Women are awesome, sex is brilliant. Screw the bible, screw christianity, long live ancient shamelessness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foot

The BBC is a publically funded corporation and doesn't have any adverts. Foot

---

Neither does Canvas have any during the broadcasts itself, only between one and the next programme. So, still :inquisitive:

Dayve, if you want to attack the religious, go to the backroom and make a thread where people who don't want to see it don't see it. I'm not going to argue with you here.

don't like to read about religion don't read! in a free socity there are no taboo topics..man don't be so stuck up, according to the human rights notion, every human being has the right to free speech...and we are not saying blasphemy, we are not heretics...what we said was the truth...the hebrew based religion demonize every natural act, even the ones you do in the wc are connoted with imperfection, and sex is a sin...its a sin for the human race to multiply??? wait..doesn't one of god's mandates say "grow and Multiply"????how can one of god's will be a sin and reprovable act? as a cristian, or what ever religion you practice, you must see that the church as well as the bible are filled with contraditory arguments, incongroent stuff, and some obvious lies...plus why defend the Che Church and the Vatican? they are parasties, leechs really...when there is some catatrophy or some war, they say, let's help A or B, let's give them money, let's help them, but they never give a penny to anyone, they like to help with the money of others...and don't forget, that the vatican is the more wealthy organization in the world, they are like a black hole for money, it get's in, but never gets out... ofr example take the Fátima, a worldy known sanctuary in portugal, the revenues from the ppl going there, and buying stuff at the sanctuary, go completley to the vatican..some unknown count of bilion of dollars a year(you read correctly..bilions), and not one penny for taxes, plus the vatican also taxes local shops that sell religious items...it's estimate that one year revenue of this sanctuary is enough to pay the expenditures of the vatican during 50 years...yet the church doesn't share a penny with the poor and hungry...when the tsunami of south asia happened, did they give anything like everyone else? americans, japanese, everyone helped the victims, but the vatican gave no monetary help...all they said, was that the world should help the victims...what do they want the money for? to give to god? god doesn't like materialism...man these guys are really greedy!!! the church nowadays is much more a business than anything else..how can i believe blindly in this guys? answer..i can't

why don't you like to see religion discussed? it's a topic like any other...i'm a catholic cristian guy, and i see no problem to discussing it...

and have never you heard the saying that "Neither you nor i hold the Truth, but discussing we can get closer to it."?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iberus_generalis

don't like to read about religion don't read? in a free socity there are no taboo topics..m don't be so stuck up, according to the human rights notion, every human being has the right to free speech...and we are not saying blasphemy, we are not heretics...what we said was the truth...the hebrew based religion demonize every natural act, even the ones you do in the wc are connoted with imperfection, and sex is a sin...its a sin for the human race to multiply??? wait..doesn't one of god's mandates say "grow and Multiply"????how can one of god's will be a sin and reprovable act? as a cristian, or what ever religion you practice, you must see that the church as well as the bible are filled with contrariatory arguments, incongroent stuff, and some obvious lies...

why don't you like to see religion discussed? it's a topic like any other...

and have never you heard the saying that "Neither you nor i hold the Truth, but discussing we can get closer to it."?

---

Sex is sin yes, but as long as it's outside the framework of marriage. Within marriage it is perfectly allowed and encouraged (just don't use contraception).

There has been some restrictions on sex from the earliest days of history, when soil became more valuable (due to the importance of grain & other crops, wine, olive oil etc.) and you could pass it on to your children.
A man ofc had to know the children were his, so the "women's reprodcution" had to be somehow controlled to make sure that when a man got his wife on the wedding night, she was a virgin and thus sure that the offspring she would get would be the man's.
Don't blame Christianity, Islam & Judaism for this, they just based that on existing patterns.

The Romans of course had a bit more leeway, as biological ties were not that important. Yet, women were also tightly controlled in Roman society.

Note: Religion is a bit touchy subject, but should still be discussed as long as it doesnt evolve into flaming and spewing filth. And try to stay on the subject which is the TV series Rome. If you have any itch to discuss Christianity in a bad light, head to the Backroom.

im not flaming anyone, im trying to show ORB why discussing religion in a civilized way is important, and a normal topic...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iberus_generalis

im not flaming anyone, im trying to show ORB why discussing religion in a civilized way is important, and a normal topic...

---

I think Orb realises that as he did suggest starting a conversation in the Back Room which is the appropriate place on the forum for a religious discussion.

As for censorship I would imagine Rome was censored here in Australia for a really laid back society we have some pretty strong laws on naughty words and rude bits. :wacko:

Andronikos is correct here, I don't have a problem with people discussing it, just let them discuss it in the correct forum. The EB forum is not a place to discuss politics or religion.

:focus:

I thought, as I said before, that the series was pretty good. I thought they used too much sex, especially in the first episode, for no reason whatsoever (later in the series it was much better used).

Firstly, let me dispel a couple of myths.

The BBC did not cut the sex, they cut the threatrical tension between Pompey and Caesar, which is why the British press complained. The whole thing is restored on the DVD.

Rome is full of wild inacuracies, not least of which is Caesar's death in the Senate House. Now did Octavian have sex with his sister. Oh, and the uniforms got too me, specifically the helmets, too attic.

To suggest that Rome was a true representation of the epoch is generous to say the least. The sex is way over done, and it was NOT acceptable in Rome to be a sexoholic. Pompey, Caesar and Mark Antony were all ridiculed because of their sex lives and therefore their lack of restraint and dependance on women. Homosexuality was considered demeaning, in that no Roman male should be submisive in such a way.

The famour comment about Caesar being "A man for every woman and a woman for every man" was an insult about time he spent in the East. The fact that the show's American producer prensented it as a voast shows just how far off they were.

That said, its great entertainment and I enjoyed it, I thought the characterisation was particually good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

Sex is sin yes, but as long as it's outside the framework of marriage. Within marriage it is perfectly allowed and encouraged (just don't use contraception).

There has been some restrictions on sex from the earliest days of history, when soil became more valuable (due to the importance of grain & other crops, wine, olive oil etc.) and you could pass it on to your children.
A man ofc had to know the children were his, so the "women's reprodcution" had to be somehow controlled to make sure that when a man got his wife on the wedding night, she was a virgin and thus sure that the offspring she would get would be the man's.
Don't blame Christianity, Islam & Judaism for this, they just based that on existing patterns.

The Romans of course had a bit more leeway, as biological ties were not that important. Yet, women were also tightly controlled in Roman society.

Note: Religion is a bit touchy subject, but should still be discussed as long as it doesnt evolve into flaming and spewing filth. And try to stay on the subject which is the TV series Rome. If you have any itch to discuss Christianity in a bad light, head to the Backroom.

---

Marriage is BS. It means nothing. It's a piece of paper. Marriage is simply another way for the church to make even more money so it's priests can afford large broadband connections to download child pornography. No two people need to have a piece of paper saying they are married to have the right to have sex. Sex is wonderful and is the most pleasurable and natural thing in a human beings life. Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, in OR OUT of marriage.

By Wigwerth -

o suggest that Rome was a true representation of the epoch is generous to say the least. The sex is way over done, and it was NOT acceptable in Rome to be a sexoholic. Pompey, Caesar and Mark Antony were all ridiculed because of their sex lives and therefore their lack of restraint and dependance on women. Homosexuality was considered demeaning, in that no Roman male should be submisive in such a way.

-----------------------

The only people who ridicule men for having a rich and fruitful sex life are people who are jealous because they aren't getting as much as they would like, or they have to pay for it.

Can you not understand?

TO THE BACKROOM

And that would have been a bad thing to have the Muslims take over the West? For one thing, the advanced technology and medicine they had at the time might have helped contain The Black Death.

No religion is greater than any of the others. The current theocratic states in the Middle East are a lot like the United States today, the people in power thump their holy book to maintain their power and cover up their crimes in "godliness".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

The only people who ridicule men for having a rich and fruitful sex life are people who are jealous because they aren't getting as much as they would like, or they have to pay for it.

---

I disagree. In Rome, above most other things, moderation was considered the greatest virtue in all things; it is frequently praised in literature, and particularly in Livy. In the later years of the republic the behaviour of certain (younger) nobles with regard to fashion, food and sex shocked the majority, in a fashion comparable to the way most older generations have difficulty understanding the changing lifestyles of the younger generations.

However, I'll grant that whatever went on in Roman bedrooms is pure speculations, even with literary sources. What I objected to was the gratuitous way in which sex was depicted in Rome, much in the way I object to the exploitative use of sex in Paul Verhoeven movies. I've got nothing against sex, either on tv, net, or (heavens above!) in the wider world, but I disliked the way it was used in Rome for no apparent reason of the plot; as I said earlier, the fact that the amount of sex greatly decreased in later episodes illustrates its shocker/titilation function in the opening episodes. It could have done with less, or at least more functional sex at the start of the series.

Anyway, why should this be the centre of debate? As a whole, I really enjoyed Rome, particularly as Wigferth Ironwall also stated the characterisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

The only people who ridicule men for having a rich and fruitful sex life are people who are jealous because they aren't getting as much as they would like, or they have to pay for it.

---

I suggest you moderate your tone. As Geoffrey said, Roman virtue was about moderation and restraint. You were only supposed to have sex within a marriage because it stopped a lot of unfortunate bastards running around. Particually as a good Roman father would be expected to bite the bullet and adopt any and all offspring.

I suggest you refrain from commenting on things which you have no knowledge of.

:dancinglock:

Lost cause. Great show, crappy discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

Marriage is BS. It means nothing. It's a piece of paper. Marriage is simply another way for the church to make even more money so it's priests can afford large broadband connections to download child pornography. No two people need to have a piece of paper saying they are married to have the right to have sex. Sex is wonderful and is the most pleasurable and natural thing in a human beings life. Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, in OR OUT of marriage.

---

Marriage, it is a social contract between the partners and society. You look after each other in a manner which is productive to society, and society in turn will look ater the partnership. Marriage is not limited to those who go to church, mosque, temple or other religious abode.

Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, not taking responsibility for ones actions and the consequences of them is something to be ashamed of. Also confusing pleasure with happiness can lead to problems. When one thinks that happiness is always gained throught the path that is mose pleasurable they are merely being on a short leash of self indulgence.

Too much swearing and I can't be bothered to read the whole thing a second time to edit it all out. So I will just remove it all and the rest of you can use your imaginations... just imagine one of my rants. No warning points will be issued.

oops srry guys i dident know we couldent cuss in the backroom even. my bad.

Hmmm. Colorful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Marriage, it is a social contract between the partners and society. You look after each other in a manner which is productive to society, and society in turn will look ater the partnership. Marriage is not limited to those who go to church, mosque, temple or other religious abode.

Sex is nothing to be ashamed of, not taking responsibility for ones actions and the consequences of them is something to be ashamed of. Also confusing pleasure with happiness can lead to problems. When one thinks that happiness is always gained throught the path that is mose pleasurable they are merely being on a short leash of self indulgence.

---

Wow, I kinda agree with that. Well said. :bow: