Some guys see Rome as a war machine.

[root]

Sorry for having disappeared. In my first post I was actually speaking about the vision of Rome projected on the general public by cinema and television. Most people in this forum are educated and well-informed persons who have a more exact picture of the contribution of Rome to our civilization, and Crastinus has prove to be one of them.

One word about Crastinus' long and beautiful post. When he speaks about the publicani in Asia, consider this was during a time when Rome was in the middle of a terrible civil war and, in moments like these, the institutions.

I'll point out a single aspect of the question: 90 % of sword and toga pictures ever made place the action in the Empire. But it was the Republic during which Rome was forged and that is full of heroic facts (as told by Roman historians, I know). Are these not worthy of being brought to the screen? The point is this:

Did the Romans not go to the theatre during the Republic? If not, for whom did Terencius and Plautus wrote there plays? And if so, why are we shown the Romans always watching gladiatorial fights? That's all.

 

[Nikolaos]

I can't speak much for the history of Rome (although I am finally reading up on it), but my understanding was that the theater never attained the popularity of the coliseum. The author of Eternal Rome writes that Cato's Rome, at least, had no permanent theaters.

 

[cinefactus]

Terence complains that he had to give up on presenting a play (once, or was it twice?) because the rumour of a gladatorial contest created such an uproar he couldn't continue.

I believe there was no permanent theatre in the republic because the senate judged that it wasn't in keeping with traditional Roman values.

 

[C Crastinus]

I believe there was no permanent theatre in the republic because the senate judged that it wasn't in keeping with traditional Roman values.

Right. Pompey's theatre in the Campus Martius was the first permanent stone theatre in Rome. Previously, only temporary, wooden structures would be erected for the performances at festivals.

The Romans had a love/hate relationship with Hellenism. Conservative Romans complained of the corrupting influence of the theatre. The fact that actors commonly doubled as prostitutes probably contributed to the disdain of the theatre amongst "proper" Romans.

 

[C Crastinus]

I'll point out a single aspect of the question: 90 % of sword and toga pictures ever made place the action in the Empire. But it was the Republic during which Rome was forged and that is full of heroic facts (as told by Roman historians, I know). Are these not worthy of being brought to the screen?

I absolutely agree with you. There are many characters and historical episodes from the Republican era that would make fantastic movies. I have to ask myself, though: Can I trust Hollywood to depict these things accurately? Would I want to see another hack job from producers and directors who are too lazy to do basic research? No. I have to content myself with reading books by scholars.