Why hasn't anyone, other then these people, cause he did have an interesting life and there were huge scandels going on at the time of him. I just can't imagine why this is the only sure fire one.
-
Shooting Stars [HMC Site] - http://sophie-lou.tripod.com/
Because winners don't make good movies. William Walace is a romantic rebel who died horribly, he does a good movie. Alexander is a genius and a winner, he does dull movies.
Alexander's Movies fall short cuase can't put his whole life in it.
Alexander needs a Trilogy to be done justice.
Baldwin08.com
The next best thing to Ron Paul!
There actually is one! Although it's a four-hour series. And Augustus still lives under the name of Octavius.
See:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0403759/
Because Augustus sucks, in soo many ways!
shareUmm...what? How about you found a stable government that lasts for years after your death and then talk.
shareI wouldn't say what Augustus left behind was a stable government at all. Indeed it is impossible to say that any of Augustus' successors ruled in the manner to which he ruled or intended them to rule. His dynasty itself was certainly not stable, even his first sucessor Tiberius was not in any way stable, and we only have to look at the treason trials under him for that. As for Caligula or Nero, both of which too young to rule and both quite frankly mad and only ruled as they were related to Augustus. The system of having a single ruler for such a large empire also encountered many other problems than just the character of that ruler anyway, which we can see clearly in only 55 years after Augustus' death with the civil wars of 69 AD after the death of Nero. There are many more reasons I could go into, but I don't really have time, yet as I said before it is clear that Augustus sucks!
shareAmalie, it takes amazing balls to say Augustus sucks, and I almost fell out of my chair reading your post! And the "reasons" you give are those any newbie Roman history fan would throw out to sound smart. I could counter everything you wrote, but I don't really have time...you suck!
The Civil Wars of 69...jeez :/
Y
I know this is really stupid, but I feel the need to reply. I am not actually a "newbie Roman history fan", I am actually just finishing my degree in Ancient History and will soon be starting my MA in Classics and Ancient History in October. My hating of Augustus is naturally a personal thing, yet I truely do not believe he was a successful Emperor, and did not set up a successful system - a much better Emperor would be someone like Vespasian.
share[deleted]
I would really like to see someone catch that kind of "stodgy librarian" aspect of Augustus ("Every woman is to weave!"), the whole "custom of the elders" aspect _AND_ the martial / bureaucratic genius.
I always found it so interesting that the Plantagenets were characterized by being at ease either on the field of battle or with a book; Augustus sort of captures that interesting personality in a much earlier era.
Steven Harms
<a href="http://www.stevengharms.com">stevengharms.com</a>;
What an absolutely ridiculous statement. Yes, Octavian himself understood the instability of the succession problem. However, it's sole reason was because the way in which he amassed power in the first place. Slowly, patiently, brillianty, he acquired position on top of position until he basically had control over anything of consequence. The entire issue was to maintain the illusion that the Republic still ruled, and he was simply a part of it. Not an exception. Therefore, he couldn't simply "pass on" all these honors, powers and dignities. The process had to be calculated carefully, as his had been. And through a series of loopholes, and failures I might add, he managed to do just that. Albeit with a problem of WHO ended up as Caesar Augustus (as many of his favourites died unexpectedly). Point being, all of this is EXACTLY why Octavian was so awesome, in so many ways. A man so able, so cunning, nearly deserves to be deified. No one said, by modern standards, that he was a moral man (he actually was considered very much so for his time, though). I, for one, am seriously pissed that a more "docu-drama" hasn't been made about him. There is more material, more intrigue, and more action within his life to make ten movies. As the saying goes, fact is stranger than fiction. You can't make this stuff up.
share-"If they ever do a movie on the Varian disaster, they simply MUST include Augustus slamming his head against a wall screaming, "[I-forgot-his-name-oops] Varus, give me back my legions!" That in itself would be worth watching the movie for. =)"
In I, Claudius he shouts "Marcus Quintellius Varus where are my eagles!" or something to that affect.
"Tiberius was a very capable ruler but never fully came to terms with the fiction of the Principate, and left Rome to the tender mercies of Sejanus."
I think Tiberius must be given credit for at least considering restoring the republic. He was the least megalomanical as well. If he had any major fault is that he was perhaps politically naive. He was a better general than a politician and didn't have the personality to rule. Honestly, if we judge him free from current standards, it could be said he'd be a decent ruler but in a democratic society would likely never be elected, he didn't understand the BS games that politicians play. Simply put he had the competence but not the personality suited to be a public figure, which is why he retired from public life to Capri. Even Augustus said so. Tiberius was his most capable heir but one whose personality he found almost unendurable.
"Tiberius has to be held responsible for the accession of Caligula. Not only did he appoint little Gaius as his successor, he killed off almost every one else in the family."
I really can't fault him for that. His only two options that wouldn't produce civil war were Gaius or Gemellus. Gemellus was a child and Caligula a lunatic, although prior to coming to power Caligula was widely beloved, boy did that change when he showed his true colors, or when he snapped anyway. Tiberius knew the truth though, he even said by putting Caligula in charge he was nursing a viper in Rome's bosom. By then he pretty much could see it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Since civil war came again anyway eventually maybe it would have been better had it happened sooner.
I can agree politically Augustus was brilliant, but then so are most people who establish a one man regime. By the standards of his own time though I suppose he was relatively decent. In contrast to Tiberius he really knew how to play the political game. Today he'd surely be able to BS his way to the top though it's hard to say what kind of ruler he'd be. Probably some kind of charismatic moral majority politician who is banging hookers on the side.
If you are interested in seeing a portrayal of Tiberius, you must try and get hold of The Caesars (1968) a British TV series that covered similar ground to I, Claudius but made Tiberius the central character, upon whom the political issues were focussed. I don't know if the characterisation was particularly accurate - I'm no expert on the man so can't judge - but his ambivalence about the relationship between Principate and Republic etc - take centre stage. This is a rather more austere, cerebral series than I, Claudius - more politics than sexual intrigue - and André Morell's performance as Tiberius is, I think, exceptionally good.
Call me Ishmael...
The I CLAUDIUS series tells a lot about augustu's life...
Dude,
There's too much stuff for one movie. Plus the later part of Augustus reign was too stable. You need lots of violence for an ancient history movie to be succesful (see Gladiator & 300 (well they're the only modern ones I can think of though they aren't necessarily historical).
Republicans dont watch stand up, theyre busy watching cartoons, trying to see who's gay.
Augustus wasn't a very remarkable emperor, he was cold and heartless even to his family, and I kind of hope Livia poisoned him to finish him off. He was a sickly guy and it was lesser time they had to put up with him. Of course, when you compare him to the dirty old Tiberius, mad Caligula, ineffective Claudius, and artsy Nero... he was the best of the Julio-Claudians.
I can bid defiance to pain...
Wait............. I agree on madness for Caligula and Nero. Augustus was brilliant enough to impose some sort of monarchy in a republican society. Claudius was a genius who used his physical disabilities in order to survive caligula's purge (Caligula assassinated almost every Julio-Claudians in order to keep his throne, but he saw Claudius as an imbecile, wich wasn't true) Tiberius was a good emperor, but the senate, the people and historian Suetone all hated him and forged him a sexual/violent reputation (all the violence and the treason accusations were the fault of Sejanus, the captain of Tiberius's guard. Sejanus ruled Rome while Tiberius was chilling in Capri. Tiberius realized his fault and made Sejanus executed)
shareThe Principate of Augustus did stabilize the Empire, at least during Augustus's life. When you compare the Augustan Period with the preceeding century of civil war (Marius vs. Sulla, Caesar vs. Pompey), it looks pretty solid.
Tiberius was a very capable ruler but never fully came to terms with the fiction of the Principate, and left Rome to the tender mercies of Sejanus.
Tiberius has to be held responsible for the accession of Caligula. Not only did he appoint little Gaius as his successor, he killed off almost every one else in the family.
Claudius was not ineffective. He was a competent and hard-working ruler.
Nero, of course, was a disaster.
The greatest period of stability was from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius.
Augustus has been depicted in numerous films. Roddy McDowall played him in CLEOPATRA. Brian Blessed did an inspired characterization of him in I, CLAUDIUS. More recently, two actors played him in HBO's ROME; perhaps the most effective treatment of him on film to date.
People will always be more fascinated with Julius because he conquered Gaul and because he was assassinated. The element of tragedy continues to fascinate.
The fall of the Roman Republic is one of the most compelling stories in human history.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
Agreed. I haven't seen anything produced that has been wholly encompassing of the tragic downfall of the Republic.
shareVarus, Teutonburg Forest Slaugter, add alittle stuff to that to make it a good story, add allitte romance, add in the cover up as well, show the abuse the Germans that led to it. Rome never healed from that wound and there has never been a movie about it
shareExactly! Plenty of interesting things went on during Augustus' reign. And that person who said he sucks....*launches into battle mode*
If they ever do a movie on the Varian disaster, they simply MUST include Augustus slamming his head against a wall screaming, "[I-forgot-his-name-oops] Varus, give me back my legions!" That in itself would be worth watching the movie for. =)
On a side note, I adore Agrippa...=P
*********
Some day you will be old enough to start reading fairytales again.
Augustus was the more interesting Emperor imo, he ended 150 years of civil wars in the empire and legally became emperor by dropping all his power.
How many people in Roman history GAIN power by giving it all up hahaha, he was a smart man.
Agreed, he was a genius - if you study his history in detail and how he went about gaining his powers and the way he ruled it is clear as day he was probably one of the, if not THE most intelligent ruler of Rome.
shareBut that doesn't mean he left a good system behind him. His government was based on having him personally in control of it. Once he died his successors couldn't manage it. That isn't really open to dispute. It wasn't until later Emperors that the Empire managed a smoother transition.
FABRICATI DIEM, PVNK
In a similar vein I have often wondered why no one has ever made a film about William the Conquerer (winner) and Harold Godwinson (loser). It is a fascinating story that has everything.
Ah!...Now we see the violence inherent in the system!
No need to. I, Claudius and Rome suffice.
shareAs I said in my other thread we need a Tiberius movie! There have been plenty of films about Caligula, Nero and Julius Caesar, only one about Claudius but none about Tiberius who was unfairly given a bad rap. Tiberius gets cameos at best usually. Seems Augustus is usually portrayed probably in a much more idolized way and has surged in popularity recently. I would like to see a movie about the Varian disaster as it only gets passing mention in a few films. Saw a good program on the history channel a few years back about Varus but I can't remember what it's called.
Movies heavily featuring Augustus
CLeopatra(1963 and 1999 versions)
Rome(Series)
Empire(Mini-Series)
I Claudius
This film!
what about The Caesars?
old but bloody fantastic, beats the crap out of this of i, claudius :)
"I, Claudius" - seems as if it is in production as a remake slated for 2010 - interesting
my latest article:
http://formula-1.suite101.com/article.cfm/formula_ones_title_deciders_struggle