This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Sixty Six 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)==Removal of quotes==
Note: all the other episode entries have quote lists. Unless you're willing to go back and edit all those other episodes and remove their quotes, don't remove the ones I've added to this article. Otherwise, a vandalization charge will be filed. 66.90.151.114 04:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add trivial quotes to this or any other encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. If quote lists suit your fancy, create an account on Wikiquote and post them there, provided that they meet their guidelines for submission. Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, did you go back and remove the quote sections from all the other episode entries? Or are you just singling out this episode to prove some point? Sixty Six 16:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He did not. I suspect his actions were not an attempt to maintain quality or prevent vandalism, but to simply throw his weight around while hiding behind a clown mask. This sort of shenanigans will be the undoing of Wikipedia, with admins who can act petulant and childish without having to answer for their abuses of power. 24.227.251.199 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to dwell on the historical innacuracies? Being this is an television mini-series not a historical re-enactment.--74.102.101.24 11:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - it's highly unlikely that the writers made errors (and such a claim definitely needs reliable sources that they did). Rome, like a great many shows, is a work of fiction that intentionally deviates from reality, and no one refers to these as "errors". I've reworded the title to make it more clear as to what it is. Mdwh (talk) 01:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I see that someone's claimed they're errors for every single other episode too... Mdwh (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of confused as to where the template for this table is located. Note that the first season episodes are listed by roman numerals, but in Wiki's bastardized HTML code I can't see where this is editable. Anyone have a clue as to how this is modified, feel free to jump in. 66.90.151.114 05:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this seems really wierd - there's nothing on the page but historical inacuracies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.224.132 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the se2 Rome episode descriptions? I used the Rome se1 synopses to grab plot details I missed. I do the same for other TV shows, and have come to value Wikipedia as a tool for this purpose. Now the synopses are gone, replaced by a link to HBO and an exquisitely detailed list of Comic Book Guy inaccuracies. It looks like some editing got out of control here! You guys aren't going to delete the synopses for my other shows are you? Manderr 16:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I see. Someone cut-n-pasted from HBO and it was replaced with a link pending the write-up of an original synopsis. OK, I'm happy... for now. Manderr 17:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel conflicted. I love this show but isn't this article perhaps too detailed? The plot summary should be at most half the size that it is now. As it is, it's not very encyclopedic. Stevekl 05:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if you feel up to the task, feel free to trim things down and condense a bit. Keep in mind that this episode had a lot of tangled plotlines, so good luck. 66.90.151.114 08:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last night I added an error to this episode. This has now been removed along with the errors section which is included in all other episodes. Can this be put back or should it be resubmitted? [[[User:Damonsonja|Damonsonja]] 16:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)]
"Eat Me, Clown" or whatever he calls himself was making wanton edits last night, and in the process of people trying to restore what he censored your error submission probably got lost. Feel free to resubmit it. Sixty Six 17:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see from his user and talk pages that he advertises himself as a "crusader" against vandalism, and yet if you look through his archives he is constantly denounced for unnecessary and unjustified edits and pure acts of censorship. Again, this is what keeps good contributors from participating in Wikipedia - once a child becomes an admin, they no longer have to account for their actions, as their word is considered sacrosanct, especially when they're in the wrong. 24.227.251.199 03:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have some explanation for the name of this episode. --Dweller 08:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Resurrection of Caesar during his cremation Easy. The assault on Caesar happened on March 15th, which is also the 15th of Nisan in the Jewish calendar, the day of Passover and the original Christian Easter date. This is probably one of the reasons, why so many of the Jewish veterans, who had fought for Caesar in the civil war, mourned at his cremation site for many nights. Another explanation: "Passover" simply describes Caesar's passing-over into the realm of the dead, or in this case his passing-over into the realm of the gods as Divus Iulius. During the cremation his resurrectio actually happened, which was depicted on a Roman coin. (Some scholars attribute this coin to "Sulla's Dream", but this is a minority opinion.) On the coin you can see the flames of the pyre and Caesar rising from his deathbed. But to be absolutely sure about the title, one would have to contact the author or producer of the episode. —Eickenberg 02:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "resurrectio" here is not a resurrection, but his apotheosis to the gods. Neddyseagoon - talk 21:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Caesar's apotheosis was in 42 BC, and this coin was minted by Buca in 44 BC after his death. Apotheosis and resurrection are two different concepts in many religions. The Roman apotheosis is usually represented as an ascension. The apotheosis of Divus Iulius is on the backside of the Ara Pacis, showing Caesar on the three-horse chariot riding into the heavens. A later copy of the Caesarian aesthetics (with four horses) is this one. On the Buca denarius we see the cremation that turned into his resurrection as a god before the official apotheosis. (Cp. M. Antony's funeral speech proclaiming him divine, the crowd pronouncing him a god, the inofficial Caesar-cult by the Pseudo-Marius after the funeral etc.) It was inofficial, no Senatus consulto, no formal consecration before 42 BC. The coin of course represents the first hint toward Caesar's divinity after his death, but it's definitely not his apotheosis. —Eickenberg 23:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
another possibility: the "passing(-over)" (handing-over) of political power from the old (and now deceased) Caesar to the young Caesar, formerly known as Gaius Octavius. —Eickenberg 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's more likely. 15th March is too early to equate to 15th Nisan, even in the year before a lunar leap year. --Dweller 15:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not correct. Although I think you're right that the title choice has nothing to do with any calendar concepts, it's very easy to equate March 15th to the 15th of Nisan, because the Jewish calendar was not valid in Rome. The Jews (especially those with Roman citizenship—and all of Caesar's veterans received the citizenship!) adhered to the Roman calendar in Rome, as all Jews in the diaspora adhered to the calendar of their respective regions of residence: in Syria Passover was in the Xantikos, in Alexandria it was in the Parmuthi, and in Rome it was always in March. So they must therefore have celebrated Passover at or around the 15th of March in 44 BC. Suetonius explicitly mentions that the Jews mourned according to their seasonal custom at Caesar's cremation site. It's known that Caesar was worshipped as sôter in the Hellenistic east, and there are not few legends of him also being the new Jewish messiah, spawned by his rivalry with Pompeius, who was hated by many Jews for his violation of Jewish temple rules in Jerusalem. The Passover day of the Roman Jews is closely linked to the introduction of the new calendar by Caesar the year before in 45 BC: On the 15th of March 45 BC there was full moon, ergo Jewish Passover, which set a fixed dated for the years to come, at least for the Roman Jews. This also coincided with the Roman ritual lamb sacrifice on those days, the ovis Idulis to Iuppiter… and it's clear from several sources (Varro, Virgil et al.) that Iuppiter was identified with Yahweh and vice versa, and that Iuppiter was theos synnaos in the temple of Jerusalem, which was not only a Jewish, but actually a Roman-Jewish temple. Passover usually begins at the end of the 14th, but in Rome the next day actually began at the evening (sunset) of the previous day, so there is no discrepancy. After Passover comes Matzoth, which also may account for Suetonius describing the Jews as mourning according to their custom. —Eickenberg 17:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article states the Pantheon is the building behind Caesar's pyre. Although similar in architecture, the structure is smaller than the Pantheon, and with a different inscription: Senatus Populusque Romanus. It is likely intended to be a different structure altogether. --71.244.17.49 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yes i removed that section, obviously it is not the pantheon, but most likely the sentae house if that inscription is any hint, but if i recall correctly they inscribed SPQR on a lot of stuff KarlJohannes 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the inscription is different, I do believe that this in still an error. Hadrian's Pantheon was built in AD 125, and was a radically new design at the time. The dome was the most original feature which did not exist in other buildings at the time. Rome is set in the 50s and 40s BC, and it's most unlikely that there was anything that looked like the Pantheon around at this time. [User:Damonsonja] 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)]
To the user(s) who keep copying the information from the HBO site directly into this article: please stop. It is a copyright violation to simply copy this over, however anyone is welcome to add a plot summary written in their own words. —Mira 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Inaccuracies" section the following appears:
It hadn't been Atia who had told Caesar that he was about to be murdered. It had been Caesar's wife Calpurnia, who—based on a nightmare—had tried to prevent Caesar from going to the Senate on the Ides of March.
It's not Atia who warns Caesar in the show, but Calpurnia (after seeing a skull-shaped flock of crows in her dream). There is no inaccuracy here.
Consequently, this point should be removed. ~~VMS
That's correct, but only for the earlier episode. In the episode "Passover" it's actually Atia who states that she had been the one who had told Caesar to not go to the Senate meeting on that morning. So it has to stay in there, but should be reworded. (I have to edit the "Inaccuracies"-section anyway, because not all of my additions are correct, as I now know after going through the historical sources again. I will then also edit the Atia/Calpurnia-thing.) —Eickenberg 00:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that in the series Atia ever DID warn Caesar. Given her character in the show, egotistical to the point of self delusion, this could simply be a writer's tool to emphasise her self-importance.
Atia did express concern in S1 that Caesar's actions (especially vis-a-vis Servilia) were going to make him a target for assassination, though she didn't warn him specifically about that day. She also did not state in "Passover" that she warned him about that day, she just said "I warned him", which is a general statement. In addition, Calpurnia was clearly in shock when she absently said that no friends and family had visited, which makes the "inaccuracy" about the women and stuff more of a nit-pick rather than an actual historical inaccuracy. Last, Octavian is a perfectly correct name for the man; though he didn't use it himself, historians have often used it to refer to him, especially in the period between Caesar's death and his defeat of Antony. It would have just confused the audience to use his various names and titles as they changed over the years. I like to see some of the divergence between the series and established history mentioned in these articles, but this list is way too long and nit-picky IMO, not to mention completely unsourced - especially egregious since this is a roughly documented period with details historians endlessly debate. harrysaxon (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did the "Ides of March" thing really happen? I thought Shakespeare invented it. Or his source who, as I understood, was not enormously accurate in his histories. RobertM525 06:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
