Sextus' suggestion of (the late) Sir Alec Guinness as a possible choice for the role of Augustus got me thinking about a possible 'dream cast' for the project. This is entirely premature, of course, but it could be amusing to choose the actors that you think would suit the various characters in the story. So, if you could pick any actors in the world (preferably living ones, but we could use some digital magic to bring back some dead ones I suppose), who would you choose?

Who would be the best Varus?
Who would play Arminius?
What about his wife Thusnelda?
Tiberius?
Who else looks good in a toga/lorica segmentata/wolfskins?

Both serious and comedy suggestions equally welcome. Have fun.

After I read the abstract of the scene introducing Arminius (the wolfskin comedy relief, remember?) and your remarks about him being the antagonist, I always had someone in mind people would never think of as being a young Cheruscan prince and Roman knight and officer - I was musing about Brad Pitt's performance as Joe Black, the threatening aura he presented along with his boyish charm. Since I saw him in Kalifornia, I know he can as well plumb the depth of human evil.
Sounds weird, I know ... Brad Pitt would never be 'my' Arminius, but I guess yours is even more ambivalent.

Am I very far from your idea, Tim?

Kind regards,


Cornelia Lucilla

I realise your picture of Arminius and mine are a bit different Lucilla, but I don't mind the idea of Brad Pitt as Arminius. We know Arminius was (i) young, (ii) very handsome and (iii) highly charismatic, and Brad Pitt is certainly all three. He's also a major league star with box-office clout and does have a wider dramatic range than he is often given credit for.

The fact that Arminius was so young does make this a tricky casting job. He and Varus are the two major characters in the story and both roles would probably have to be played by a 'star'. The other prospects are a little unappealing. Leonardo Di Caprio? I don't think so! And ditto for Matt Damon!

Perhaps we could do what George Lucas likes to do and cast a complete unknown. I don't know if Pitt would be my first choice, but I'm hard pushed to think of anyone else who'd suit the role.

Here are some ideas for casting a few more of the story's characters:

Varus - Needs someone who is mature, aristocratic, intelligent and perhaps slighly aloof. My first choice would be Ralph Fiennes, who can play haughty aristocrats extremely well and is an excellent actor. Jeremy Irons could be good, though he may be a little effete for the role. Then again, that could work as well.

Segestes - Someone Teutonic-looking, old enough to have a daughter in her early twenties, powerfully built and crafty. My choice would be Rutger Hauer (he hasn't been in much lately, so he could probably use the work as well).

Thusnelda - Kate Winslet? Cate Blanchet? Uma Thurman? This one has me a bit stumped.

As for me, I would like to see Liam Neeson playing Varus - he has that very aristocratic and slightly melancholic touch.
Ralph Fiennes is great, but in a different way. Just my humble opinion.

Well, about Thusnelda ... Did you forget that she certainly was a child in 9 AD? He robbed her in 14/15 AD, when she was still living in her father's house.
After all we know, Roman girls used to get married at the age of 12-14/15; if Tacitus in his Germania says that Germanic girls didn't get married that early, it doesn't say much about the average age of marriage. According to archeologic and anthropologic studies on bronce and iron age cemeteries in Germany, the average age for a (first) wedding was 14-17.
I am convinced that Segestes, seeing his opponent Arminius being interested in marrying his daughter, would have given her to another man as quickly as possible, no matter how young she was. So in my opinion, she still was very young. You would have to cast a 9 or 10 year old girl most likely.

Please, Tim, there is a long tradition to make Thusnelda a woman in love, a German hero's wife, and a German heroine herself. I strongly disagree with that opinion. After all we can read from Tacitus, there is no evidence for a love affair between Arminius and Thusnelda. He asked Segestes for the hand of his daughter for political reasons - to tie him to himself (exchanging hostages and marriage was the usual way to stabilize alliances) - and Segestes refused that. So Arminius robbed her - certainly not for reasons of love, but because his major goal was to strengthen his difficult position as the leader of the Cheruscans, the only way to enable the Germans to stand up to the Roman forces.
While Arminius was fighting the Romans, Segestes attacked his place and took Thusnelda back home. At that time the girl was pregnant. Arminius tried to get her back, besieging Segestes; but when Germanicus only approached with his legions, he withdrew without even ambushing the Romans, so Germanicus could easily take Segestes and his whole family with him.
Tacitus tells us, Segestes said his daughter didn't stay at her father's place on her own will; but he also claimed that Arminius had raped her. This is contradictory only in modern thought. According to their own morals, even if she had been robbed and raped, her place was with the man she belonged to, her husband, especially since she was already pregnant and this child was a legitime child of Arminius. So in this case, Segestes got back his daughter together with a hostage-to-be, Arminius' later son Thumelicus.
It certainly was but a political affair, a teenage girl being tossed around between two opponents. She wouldn't be the first nor even the last child in history being misused for political reasons. Unfortunately, reality is not very romantic.

<img src=

I rather like the idea of Liam Neeson as Varus, though I still feel Ralph Fiennes is closer to my idea of what Varus was like. You must have a slightly different vision of him to me Lucilla. g I think Liam Neeson is a great actor though and he does melancholy extremely well (we Irish are like that).

I saw 'Restoration' starring Sam Neill as King Charles II the other night and he struck me as a possible cast member as well, though I'm not sure which part would suit him. One of Varus' legates perhaps? He played a good king and can do aristocratic types pretty well - for a Kiwi. ;>

As for Thusnelda - you are right that all the female actors I suggested would be too old, but I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation that she was 'raped'. I think this deserves it's own post ...

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster
aka Thiudareiks Flavius or Gaius Arminius Germanicus

How about Arnie in the role of Segestes? Varus could be played by Patrick Stewart of Star Trek fame (he is also an accomplished Shakespearean actor) and what about Alicia Silverstone as Thusnelda, or is she too headstrong?
Whoever plays Arminius needs to be tall and athletic who can portray fierce determination and empathy. A young Liam Neeson. I can't think of any current actors that would be suitable as very few strong young white male characters appear either in films or on the tv.

Catubrannos suggested:

How about Arnie in the role of Segestes?


Arnie is treated as a bit of joke but putting him in a role like this actually really could work. John Travolta was a joke as well until 'Pulp Fiction' came along (though 'Battlefield Earth' could spoil that ...)


Varus could be played by Patrick Stewart of Star Trek fame (he is also an accomplished Shakespearean actor)


Patrick Stewart is certainly a fine actor, but I suppose I didn't think of him initially because I've always found the way the Trekkie nerds worship him to be a little revolting. Sorry to any Star Trek fans out that, but I really can't stand that show. Stewart has something of a tough, hard-eyed, weatherbeaten look to him though, so I wonder if he wouldn't be perfect for the primus pilus Marcus Caelius.

and what about Alicia Silverstone as Thusnelda, or is she too headstrong?


Or a bit too old. As lucilla points out, she'd be a teenager at most.


Whoever plays Arminius needs to be tall and athletic who can portray fierce determination and empathy. A young Liam Neeson. I can't think of any current actors that would be suitable as very few strong young white male characters appear either in films or on the tv.


I'm a bit hard pushed to think of anyone myself. As a lot of people commented on Russell Crowe in 'Gladiator', leading men in Hollywood have been Tom Cruise/Ben Affleck/Matt Damon soft, pretty types for so long it's almost strange to see a macho action hero again (apart from cartoon characters like Van Damme)

Thanks for the suggestions Catubrannos.



Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster
aka Thiudareiks Flavius or Gaius Arminius Germanicus

That's a brilliant idea ... Not really making him play Caelius, but what about Lucius Eggius, a paefectus castrorum who proved himself a brave man?

Caelius looks like the straightforward sort, the Marcus Junkelmann kind - actually, he should do him, but unfortunately M.J. is definitely no actor.

What about Martin Sheen - he's old enough to do a primipilus (50-60 years).


Cornelia Lucilla
aka Lucilla Cornelia Cinna cives Nova Romana vel Lucilla Cornelius citizen of Ancient Sites

Holywood always annoys me, the Romans weren't American! They were ITALIAN. The only blondes (like me) were slaves, freedmen or in the arena! (Or still in Germania*G*).

Italy has a lot of very talented actors, with a unique Italian style, that would help give the movie a unique feel, and not just seem like another McDonalds fastfood history flick.

Good point mate - any suggestions as to suitable actors. I guess they'll also have to be pretty fluent in English and able to speak it with a clear accent as well.

Personally, I'd prefer British actors for the Romans but that's just me ...

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster
aka Thiudareiks Flavius or Gaius Arminius Germanicus

Salve,

There could very well be blonde Romans. The Romans, like the Germanic tribesmen, who were also not all natural blonds or redheads, dyed their hair blond or red using something called spuma Batava, Batavian foam. In addition there could be the odd Roman of Celtic stock with real blond hair: Italy above the Po river was Gallia Cisalpina and originally the territory of Celtic tribes.

It is disputable that Italian actors could deliver a better performance per se than those of other nations when Roman acting parts are concerned, though I would hardly deny that there are no great Italian actors around. After all the people they are to portray lived some 2000 years ago, plenty of time for change in characteristic national traits. They would still be modern Italians and would still have to act as much as their American counterparts.

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

I'm not really talking about acting skills as much as

The Italians, although no doubt diluted Romans, with bloodlines from slaves and countless immigrant groups are the most Roman looking peoples still walking the earth, so for accuracy present the best candidates for historical accuracy

I'm sick to the stomach of the American viewpoint and style in movies, McDonalds pretty well sums it up! Atleast Italian is another style that would break this nausaeating monotony. (I watch the multicultural channel SBS down here, which is 90% in foreign languages to try to break the stale regime of American mass produced crud that the commercial stations inhumanely dish out to us poor unfortunates who can't afford cable.

Living in Italy should give the Italian actors a better start in trying to pretend to be Roman that being brought up in Manhattan for instance, there must be some genuine Roman influence still buried deep in the Italian pysche, it can't all have been lost. (But watching some Italians it would appear so*S*..I didn't know the Romans drove around with fluffy dice and boom boxes in the chariots, however the chest wigs, greased back hairstyles and gold medallions probably were in vogue 2000 years ago. But I doubt disco and rap were!

Salve

I get your point. The idea would be to have all Roman parts played by Italians and the Germanic parts by others (Germans ?) and have the same kind of differences in as in the Masada series, in which British actors were predominating in the Roman roles and Americans in the Jewish parts.

Regards,

Sander van Dorst

There would have to be remnants of Gothic culture in modern Germany, especially down in Bayern where my relatives come from, they seem to be steeped in ancient traditions. The term Hof comes from the Goths for instance. So some Bayerischen lumberjacks like from the twin cities of Grossholzleute and Kleinholzleute (I like the names of these two towns (which are near where my relatives live)-BIGtimberpeople and SMALLtimberpeople..paints am image of eight foot tall Gothic warriors in one town and the seven dwarfs in the other*LOL*) would be probably the most accurate modern representation of Goths you could find.

Their genes would have to be atleast part Gothic, and their dialect surely would still have some Gothic influence, as would alot of their customs and maybe even natural mannerisms.

I wonder if Italian actors would really strike the right note for the Romans - rightly or wrongly, Italian accents may put the audience in mind of pizza and pasta commercials rather then 'the glory that was Rome'. I'd prefer to use British actors for the Roman characters because their range of accents would facilitate the depiction of different social classes in the various ranks. The aristocrats and officers could have Oxbridge accents, with Cockney, Brummy and rural accents for the grunts.

Australis wrote:

There would have to be remnants of Gothic culture in modern Germany, especially down in Bayern where my relatives come from, they seem to be steeped in ancient traditions.


Excuse the nitpick, but the Goths are another pet subject of mine. The Goths were an East Germanic tribe, while the Cherusci and other peoples involved in the Clades Variana were West Germanics. While they spoke languages which were related and had similar cultures but were very different in many ways. At the time of the Varian disaster, the Goths were a quite small tribe living far to the east - they were in northern Poland on the river Vistula. They were a distant people that Arminius and his pals had probably heard about, but that's about it.

A few centuries later some Goths migrated down to the Black Sea and the Ukrainian steppes, then moved into the Balkans and then settled in Italy, southern France and Spain. I doubt you'd find any descendants of any of the Gothic peoples in Bayern.

Unless you are using the word 'Gothic' to mean 'Germanic'. If so, then the most obvious place to look for the descendants of Arminius' warriors is in the area of northern Germany where they once lived. The Cherusci dwindled as a people later in the first century, since their noble families managed to exterminate each other in constant internal warfare. I think the last mention of them as a people was in the third century, after which the remnants of the tribe were absorbed by the new Germanic tribal confederations of the Thuringians ('People of Thor') and the Saxons ('The Dagger People'). Some of these Saxons then migrated to England in the fifth century, so a possible place to find their descendants would be eastern England (Essex, Sussex etc) g

Again, excuse the nitpick, but we do have to educate you Roman types about the Germanic peoples. g

Cheers!

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster
aka Thiudareiks Flavius or Gaius Arminius Germanicus

Dad was born in Stettin an der Oder, which is now in Poland, but was formerly in Prussia. Mothers side comes from east coast north of London. Guess that makes me Saxon/Germanic/Goth. However I don't speak with a Gothic dialect G but I do find myself strangely attracted to pine forests and the mother country (been there three times!).

Roman Goth...hmm Australius the Traitor Marius.

Still, running around the bush in furs with a spear as compared to living in a stone domus...tough decision

LOL! From the sounds of it we should be casting you as a Cheruscian Australis. Some would say the Aussie accent could be a problem, but that didn't stop Russ Crowe playing a Hispano-Roman.

Still, running around the bush in furs with a spear as compared to living in a stone domus...tough decision


Have a look at Lucilla's web site though - those thatched houses look quite cosy to me - better than all that chilly marble and mosaic. And I prefer beer and mead to wine most days as well. Each to their own of course: if you like wearing sandals with a skirt that's your business son ... g

(Hey Lucilla, how do you do those little smiley faces?)

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster
aka Thiudareiks Flavius or Gaius Arminius Germanicus

Just like to point out that Russel Crowe is actually from New Zealand.

Just keeping up the venerable Aussie tradition of claiming all Kiwi successes as our own. g

But he is an Aussie by adoption - owns a farm up on the north coast of NSW and doesn't even talk with a New Zealand accent any more.

Point taken though.

Though many will disagree with me, but it is a fact that an American difers from a Western/ Northern European physically (head characterisation).
So I might add to this not to use American, but Native Europeans for the main parts. One notice the difference and it will give an entire different effect on the movie. If you choose American players, the world will see it indeed as an Hollywood production.
Strowl down the European countrysides and pick out characteristic people (with real life expressions on their face) and check out the actor schools within Europe for a new faced actor crew.
You got a massive story here, don`t blow it by using the wrong actors.....
For Italians I suggest to use real Italians. At least if you use real Europeans and real Italians you get the sense of two different peoples clashing.

Hi all..I'l keep this short and sweet. I was thinking of some more suggestions for actors to assume the role of Varus...Jurgen Prochnow, Kenneth Branagh or maybe Gabriel Byrne. Think about it. You don't want to hear my other 3 choices! : )
Anyway, glad to see someone is interested in writing a more historically accurate Roman epic. As someone I know once said, Hollywood hates ancient history. Keep it the good work!

Tim, if you want to find some good European actors just watch SBS or World Movies. Some of the continental actors are brilliant, and their style is confronting, totally different to what I'm used to see in movies.

Still, the way England is these days you probably could find every nationality in the world living in the East End, so casting there would be pretty easy G

How's the idea coming along?? After sitting through another Hollywood history flick by the name of U5..something which has about 0 to do with what really happened your script seems even more appealing.

I think Jurgen Prochnow is an excellent suggestion - 'Das Boot' is one of my favourite war movies. Gabriel Byrne and Ken Branagh are also well worth considering. I find it easier to write a character's dialogue if I have a particular actor in mind, which is one of the reasons why I toying with actors names - I doubt I'll ever get the chance to cast any of these people!

Jurgen Prochow may make a good actor for Segemerus, Arminius' father, or for Marobaduus the leader of the Marcomanni. Gabriel Byrne might be good for one of Varus' subordinates - Eggius perhaps.

And I'm intrigued by who your other choices are - Danny De Vito? Billy Crystal? Madonna? ;>

Thanks for the encouragement. I've been neglecting this project lately and your feedback has inspired me to work on it a little more.

Cheers David.

Thanks for the SBS suggestion mate - my TV rarely strays from either SBS or ABC, I wouldn't watch the other trash if you paid me (apart from The Simpsons)

The Varus thingy has been progressing slowly because the new Germanic-L discussion list and it's home page *Theudawurdò have been keeping me busy. But I am writing again and hope to get time to update and revamp 'Clades Variana' soon. Then I'll e-mail everyone who's been contributing to this forum and see if we can kick-start some discussions again as well.

I'm happy to see Jeremy Irons is still winning on the 'Who Should Play Varus?' poll though.

Cheers mate.

Tim,

One thing strikes me about the sort of names discussed for Varus (Ralph Fiennes, Jeremy Irons, Kenneth Branagh etc).

Varus was consul in 13 BC. That means that by the time of the events depicted he must have been in his mid-50s at least - aren't these actors rather too young?

I would suggest someone like David Warner or Derek Jacobi (who has had plenty of practice at wearing a toga) as distinguished British actors of about the right vintage.

John Duncan

Dear Australis,

I am Italian on both sides of my family, and my hair is white-blond, my eyes are baby blue. My sister's hair is blond, same eyes. Took a trip to Italy-saw more blonds in Sicily than in Bavaria.

Pompey was blond! The Celts had mixed their genes with the romans from northern Italy so the army of Varus (from all of Italy) probably had a large fraction of clear eye/skin blonde legionaries. Even the central Italian Etruscan origin were not dark. Infact I would even suspect that the dark skined modern day Italian southerner has arab genes that arrived much later. But then go to Bari and you see blonde and blue eye Italians with Norse genes! Italy has so much variety that the sterotype is truely annoying. The reason american movie goers (and makers) associate Italians with dark skin is that the immigrants that went to the US were from the south. The northern Italian imigrants went to South America.

NEW FACE - OLD WOLFSKIN

Ulfhednar: "those wearing wolfskins".

I'm sure most of you already know the above considering the load of stuff conversed. Wow!

'lol'I love this thread! so many entries and friggn' romaphiles.

To cast a complete unknown is the way to go in ref to Herman*!* or any of his fellow tribesmen.

I am myself an unkown on the big stage/screen (with an exception to the local tas. arts industry)and have always hankered the opportunity of representing my ancestors in the context of such a project as this. In fact as have mentioned in the 'scenes i'd like to see' thread, I have toured experimental open-air theatre around Tasmania based on ancient Germanic doings in an attempt to inform/educate people of the pre-christian european world and also to experiance/research the origins of theatre outside of the classical greek context.

From that experiance I can say that most people are completely ignorant of their heritage, ie. is this a Braveheart thing?, even to the point of anger eg. A group Pentacostal Christains made an attempt at preventing one paticular performance from going on when they found my troupe bumping in our circle set of sun wheel* (*the one that Hiltler bastardised) banners and mounted bovine skulls in the local park (we were also in costume whilst doing this - me with long blonde hair red beard all of 6ft2 1/2 with ochre body/face paint etc. laughing in disbelief.) Anyway I will leave this info for the film audition, as well as why my last name is Savage and not Steiner-Jansen.

I can realate to AUSTRALIS re his feelings towards Germanic heritage. I am born of OZ to a Tirolian Austrian father and North Frisian Island German mother the latter of which has a family tree going directly back to 16th cent Sylt and Jutland. indirectly 170 BC - Freso Vithos and others eg. Boge der Cimbri Dannenkonig and his daughter Cumeran Bogensdatter 320 BC (strand*,sylt,helgoland,jutland).*now under the north see.

I see it as a personal goal for me to research the ancient Germaic experiance and as a proud Australian-Germanic performing artist what better way to do it than through theatre or film.

Please excuse the staggered thoughts, I just finished a late rehearsal for the of The Boys, the play by Gordon Graham (me as David Wenham character from the film). And I'm having a beer or more.

Back to the thread theme - I agree that it would be far more efficacious to work with anyone regardless of their nationality as it is most important that they look the part ie. tall teutonic or olive falisci/latino, and are sharp actors who can deliver the guts of the character which in itself outways the minute specifics of physicalilty (long roman (generalisation) nose, tall germanic forehead).

Tacitus: "with the people of Germany there has been given to the world a race unmixed by marriage with other races, a peculiar and pure, like no-one but themesleves, whence it comes to their physique, so far as can be said with their vast numbers, is identical: fierce blue eyes, red hair, tall frames, powerful".

So, can a brit play a roman, or for that matter a Cherusk**? Yes I think so due to the progressively mixed bag race that the brits are.

They are firstly (as far as I understand, please correct me if I am wrong) Iberian Pict, first wave Goidlic Celt, Second wave Brythonic Celt, Roman, (throw in some jewish economists), Anglo, Saxon, Jute, Danish Viking and whoever else had a boat, sword or good tongue. I guess that as long as the actor is superlative they will be able. I guess this goes for most cuacasian Australians,NZ's and Americans too. If you come across and Africaana, well then those guys aswell.

To quote Neitzsche: "all one needs to do to be able to be a dramatist is to talk out of strange bodies and souls"

**The heimat of the Blonde Germanic people being
Jutland/Scananavia. Tacitus : "initia gentus" where the race first arose.

Anyway I will end this note in the hope that this project and its magnifcent potential will come into being as a film.

Prost! to Tim.

Text to read for interesting perspectives on the battle etc.

The Well of Rememberance, Ralf Metzner
Landscape and Memory, Simon Schama
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to mention other texts on the net? I'm new to it.

Servus

Olaf, *RUM HAART KLAAR KIMMING - LIEVER DOD US SKLAV. (clear heart clear mind - better dead than slave) *ancient Sylter maxim

olafsavage@yahoo.com


and it is actually 1:50am

Yes, some Italians in South are blonde. No wonder since the Normans conquered the area in 11th century and setteld there for some time. As for the Arabic genes making them dark-haired, well France has a lot of dark-haired people and in fact only a tiny percentage of blonde people, yet the Arabs didn't settle there for more than a few years, and only in the south.

He is also part Maori.

Don't share your opinion that Arminius was "evil".
No more than any freedom fighter who is liberating his people from oppression. Brad Pitt would be ideal.

Flavus

Hi Tim,
nice to read you liked Das Boot, particularly since it has never been dubbed (if I remember correctly ...). But "KaLeu" Jürgen Prochnow as Varus? No way! In Air Force One he's shown his skills for a few moments - I'd rather see him play someone like Lucius Eggius, a praefectus castrorum who was honorably mentioned by Velleius Paterculus (2.119).
Don't ask him to do Numonius Vala - as far as I know, he literally hates horses!

<a href=

Hi Flavus,

actually I didn't want to say that Arminius was all evil, but there certainly is a kind of evil side or (iow) lack of "good" within this character that shows up in some of his actions. Tim describes him quite ambivalent and I really like the idea.
I don't think that freedom fighters are saints a priori - they always do evil things to pursue their intentions, however good those may be. Some say the end justifies the means, but I'd rather say, sometimes the opposite of good is well-meant.

Hence, I am still in favor of Brad Pitt, because he has it all.


Lucilla Cornelia

Greetings Lucilla.

Thankyou for your comment. I agree. I think that no freedom fighter or any other person for that matter is or can ever be perfect, although he/she may get close to it. I think it's not so much a state of being, as an ideal for humans to always try to move closer towards despite our own individual shortcomings. Also a lot depends on how we (each individual) define the word 'perfection'. What we consider or describe as this high state of completeness is very dependent on our own social upbringing in the context of the times and community moral standards expected of us; i.e. the standards and values which the social environment reflects, and instills in each individual, and esteems as extremely desirable.
Extending your hypothesis, I think it would be fair to assume that Varus' nature also has an imperfect side, considering his behaviour towards and treatment of the Cherusci, and the ultimate rebellion against his rule.
I think it would be interesting to reveal the shortcomings of his administration/nature that led to his demise to do justice to the portrayal of Teutoburg incident, as well revealing Arminius' own imperfections, although from my present level of knowledge, and my own values, I don't see too many.
Brad Pitt is a good choice. Although to be entirely candid with you I'd prefer to see an unknown obscure actor play the role, but with the depth, appearance and capabilities of Brad. I have used the nom de plueme of Flavus but by real name is Frank. In future I will use my own name. Frank.

Greetings, Frank!
The ideal of 'perfection' you implemented brings up the topic of ethics. Thus, we have a problem due to the different viewpoints in ethics between the Cheruscans and the other Germanic peoples involved in this conflict, the Romans and finally us who try to understand the causes and effects in this particular series of events whose climax was the clades Variana.
Nobody is independent from his (or her) individual point of view which is but a temporary (i.e. also mutable) "provisional result" of constant influences like education, culture, society, climate, our physical condition and many more. Tacitus presented us his point of view, Velleius another, so did Strabo etc.
I doubt that there is any chance to get an unbiased picture of the situation. So due to our own viewpoint we automatically somewhat value things, and all we can do, is try to isolate the different pairs of colored and cut glasses we are wearing ...

Personally, I do not prefer Varus from Arminius or v.v. In fact, I am interested and fascinated by both, however, even more by Arminius, of course, for being a 'man of two cultures'. I try to see things from a Roman standpoint (which is easier, of course, because we have literal sources on that), but also I try to understand Arminius' actions, his ("hybrid") cultural background, his motivations, although I know I cannot get them wholly or thoroughly. I don't think he was a villain, despite of his treachery against the Romans. In fact, I approach things concerning Arminius from an Aristotelean standpoint (according to the Poetics and the writings on ethics): Arminius certainly was (just my humble opinion, of course) a noble man - of origin and character - and a proud and ambitious one as well; he was an excellent military leader, part of the - in terms of military affairs - best army at the time of his life in Europe; torn in a conflict between loyalty and ambition, he decided on ambition; hence he gave up on ebing part of that best army and tried his luck with his own people opposing his former allies; having been organized as auxiliaries (which is part of the procedure named as in pace recipere) many of the warriors were equally equipped and (almost) equally trained like the Romans, in addition many of them may have been parts of warrior bands, and they knew the area well; but there were no constant reinforcements and supplies - so the longer the war lasted, the less these advantages worked for him. Which is, in my humble opinion, the reason why that cunning old devil Tiberius played his cunctator tactics on him.

Of course I cannot tell what exactly was Arminius' personal motivation, but I think I can narrow it down a bit. He certainly was no freedom fighter in the modern sense of the word, since the modern sense of 'freedom' does mean something completely different from any ancient concept of 'freedom'. But in a certain way, he matches the picture of a freedom fighter, of course.

Well, sometimes I'd really like to see things through his eyes for a day. What about time travel through a wormhole?

BTW, my RL first name is Iris.


Lucilla Cornelia

I hope that in this film, you will choise the actor who look like to the historical personnality.
In France even if we like Gerard Depardieu,it's quite agonizing to imagine that "Christophe Colomb", "Monte Cristo count", "Jean Valjean(The Miserables)" and Obelix look like Depardieu. So Please try to find news faces or good make up actors, and above all NOT GERARD DEPARDIEU.

I've often suspected that it's bad luck to try and cast something before you've written it. A little too pie-in-the-sky, but what the hell:

ARMINIUS:
Jude Law-good luck, he's being courted to play both young Hannibal Lecter and Alexander the Great
2d choice-
Alessandro Nivola-Jurassic III didn't give him much to do but he was scary in FACE OFF

SEGESTES: Juergen Prochnow
THUSNELDA: Lacey Chabert

VARUS:Rufus Sewell (A KNIGHT'S TALE, DARK CITY)
CAELIUS:Gabriel Byrne
AIUS:Ryan Phillippe, Jason Cerbone (THE SOPRANOS)

AUGUSTUS: (Cameo) Roberto Benigni

Just kidding.

Kevin Spacey's done unbilled cameos before, though. A real famous one.

Kirsten Dunst might still be young enough to pull off Thusnelda, and she's versatile enough to play foreign characters.

I forgot Heath Ledger is leading man du-jour.

Although personally, I don't see the appeal.

The closest living descendants to the ancient Romans (at least one group of them that I surely know of) exist in western Greece. They call themselves Roma'gnae (ro-main-yeah, kind of like the lettuce or like the french pronounce "roman"). The language they speak has been isolated from other Latin mutations produced through the language promoted by the Catholic church because of their isolation in Greece under the Turks and Greeks. The Turks even named their area "roumeli" which means "Roman" in Turkish. They have many strong Roman traditions and their features are very similar to many Ancient Roman busts found today. It is believed that they settled in Western Greece after the Macendonian Wars and were placed there as a garrison force and an occupying force to balance off the threat of the war like Aetolians. Their language is very similar to French, Portuguese, Spanish, Romanian, and of course Italian. Their expressions are very Ancient Roman-like and their attitude and culture were very Roman until 50 years or so ago. They lived in a vaccuum that let in very little outside influences. They despised anyone who married outside of the Roma'gnae and cast them out of their Roman society. One can be sure that they probably are the purest people surviving from the original classical Romans. To get a feel for what the ancient Romans looked like would be easy. I am 100% Roma'nu and can say that I have relatives with all sorts of different skin tone and coloring as well as sizes and builds. I am very dark and have dark black hair but have cousins who are blond and blue eyed and even have cousins and aunts with red hair and very pale skin. Another curious aspect about these Roman descendants is that they have old songs that point to them once being in Italy and their last names are even very similar to many old Roman last names. Curius=Curu, Manius=Manu, etc... I do believe that there are other Roma'gnae like us around Europe (like the speakers of the Romansh language in Switzerland I believe) and especially in Italy itself and Spain and France and of course Romania. What is interesting about our group is that the area we settled in and the style of Latin we speak suggest that we lived in isolation and that we left Rome shortly after the Macedonian wars before other Italians and non-Romans were allowed to call themselves Romans. There is a difference between the old Romans and the new Romans who were Italian possibly even Gaul and even Greek if given their citizenship. We are probably the most closely related descedants of the Romans who fought Hannibal and the Macedonians.
I always felt cheated as well when American, Italian, Jewish, or other actors of non-Roman origin portrayed my ancestors. But, who is to say what they REALLY looked like back then? Cary Grant is a perfect example of someone who is not supposed to have Roman blood in him at all but looks strikingly like one of my famous great-grand uncles (amazingly enough, his son was in England around the time that Cary Grant was supposed to have been conceived).
For people who really want to know what the Ancient Romans would be like today, studying the Roma'gnae dit Grecu would be of great interest.

Hi!
I saw the poll and I think that Jeremy Irons is fitting for the role. But on the otherhand I think that Sam Neill was perfect as a arrogant, scheming aristocrat in the TV-film "Ivanhoe". That´s just about the qualities we are looking for in Varus, who through his manners probably provoced the uprising. Another paralel is that the cheruscians may have been west-germans like the saxons in medieval England. Augustus of course has to be played by Richard Harris. But if the actor who was the slavedealer in "Gladiator" and Augustus in "I Claudius", wouldn´t have passed away, he should have played the part. For Tusnelda the obvious choice is Uma Thurman, who already played Marion in the not-so-famous-version of "Robin Hood". She has both anglo-saxon, german and swedish ancestry. Charming, disciplined and beatiful, perfect!
You can go to Anbytarforum and Kändisars härstamning and find here name in the alfabetical order.

http://genealogi.aland.net/discus/



Håkan Liljeberg

The slave dealer in Gladiator was played by Oliver Reed, who indeed passed away during the production of the flick. The actor who played Augustus in "I, Claudius", on the other hand, was Brian Blessed, who's alive and kickin' as we speak, if I'm not wrong. I like him a lot, but always thought him as being a bit of a miscast as Augustus, too big/burly etc. Richard Harris wouldn't be a good choice, unless they shave him and give him a decent haircut. He's also too fragile, IMO.

Remember what these people were like in history before casting. Varus was currupt. The Romans were lower class scum lead by upper class scum. The middle class were decent people all but wiped out. Augustus single handedly saved civilisation. He was a decent man. Tiberius was unloved and everyone's second choice for anything. Tiberius was unloved by Augustus but loved by Agrippa. Tiberius trusted nobody and loved his wife - Agrippa's daughter but then for political reasons, divorced the love of his life to marry Julia. Augustus' daughter and Agrippa's widow. Tiberius suspected everyone and trusted nobody. He was suspicious and bitter. He was an able and even gifted military commander but nothing he ever did could please his adopted father who loved Drusus, the brother of Tiberius. Jeremy Irons could play Tiberius. Varus was corrupt, debauched and married to the niece of Augustus. As a family member, Augustus trusted him with Legions. Only family could be trusted with the ultumate military weapon of the age - Roman Legions. Varus married to further his career and had been the Govenor of Syria. In Syria he corrupted the system foor his own gain. Greed was his only motive. Greed and pleasure. Varus was open to graft and corruption and treated the Syrians like dirt. All the excesses of Roman decadence were present in Varus and none of the Roman virtues. He was neither stoic not able. Varus was debauched, corrupt, greedy and a fool. Varus was no commander but a profiteer. The experienced officers took over in Teutoberg as Varus was a fool. Tiberius would never have allowed himself to be lured into Teutoberg forest. Varus was used to dealing with the effete Syrians and thus regarded all barbarians as weak and corrupt like the Syrians. Jeremy Irons is the last person to play Varus in my opinion. Thusnelda was a noblewoman, a Germanic aristocrat. Hermann was also of a noble house. The Cherusci were old Saxons who went to Brittain. Any aritocratic Anglo-Saxon would be the decendant of the house of the Cheruskers.

The ancient Romans were decendants from the same people as the Celts. The Celts were Austrian people who were in fact Germanic.

The Cherusci were more a half way between Celtic and Germanic than all Germanic.

The Latin Language and the Celtic language are both from the same origin. Later when Rome fell, slaves who were mostly from Semitic origin, interbred with the Romans.

In fact, once your land was conquered by the Romans, you were a Roman. Being a Roman citizen entitled you to the dole or free grain from the port of Rome which was called the Dole.

Racial adulteration was such a concern to the Romans that they paid "real" Romans to have more children. So the answer to "what did the Romans look like?" They looked like us.

The Romans and the Greeks were, and many still are, blonde haired and blue eyed. Modern Italians are no indication to the look of a people 2000 years ago as so much has changed in that time. Many invasions have occured et cetra.

Look at the statues of ancient Romans. They look nothing like the modern Italians of today. The statues of ancient Romans look like Celtic/Germanic Europeans which is exactly what the ancient Romans were.

The best people to play ancient Romans are Americans. I say thid for several reasons, mostly because they look the same and they also act the same.

Well I suspect you haven't ever visited Italy.
There is more variety than you think and I think that variety is very ancient.

The earliest romans probably were a bunch of etruscanized latins. Northern Italy already had Celts so when the romans expanded they mixed further. But lets not push the celtic culture too far south else we don't fit the facts.

There are plenty of modern italians that look just like the statues and busts of ancient romans. I have a friend that looks like Augustus. I would say the busts of ancient romans look more like Italians than, say, Bavarians (nearby germans).

ciao for now

Spaniards and French, Belgians and Portugese are all latin people. All Western Europeans were conquered, civilised and watered down by the Romans.

They were stopped once and for all at the Rhine by Arminius.The French, Italians, Spanish and Portugese people all have blondes with blue eyes and look like many German people.

Here in Australia we have many people from just about every nation on earth. I grew up with Italians and Greeks many of whom had blonde hair and blue eyes and who looked Germanic.Calabrians and Sicilians excepted.

The ancient Greeks and Romans left copious historic records of the descriptions of people they fought. Ceasar conquest of Gaul by Gaius Julius Caesar describes the Gauls as: Big,Blonde, fierce, love a feast and love to fight.That sounds like the Irish Rugby team or most Australians.(me included)

The point is, modern Italians,Spaniards, French et al, have mixed genes with many people since Teutoberg,

The English and the Germans are the same people geneticaly. DNA tests on the people (specificaly school children) on eastern Britain, show the DNA to be closely related to German DNA.

DNA of the people of western Britain show the Cornish, Welsh, Irish, Manx and Scots to match and are the same people. Western Britains and Eastern Britains are from different DNA pools but they look the same.

Gauls - Austrians - were all over Italy as you say and the Romans said they were taller but I will bet they looked the same.We are splitting hairs. Ancient Europe was geneticaly diverse just as modern Europe is.

America is diverse and Americans are like the Romans in more ways than most. White Americans are German, then English, then Irish geneticaly.The Dollar is a German coin. The doughnut is a German cake (Berliner) and the Hamburger comes from Hamburg and the Frankfurter comes from Frankfurt.

If anyone should play Romans it is the Americans.

Qunictilius Varus should be played by Alan Rickman - no doubt there. Arminius is a toss-up between Dennis Quaid and Val Kilmer. If the female lead is Paula Poriskova, I will be there stuffing popcorn in my face for every showing...

Before Americans will flock to this epic tale it must be marketed for what it was: the most influential result of the Classical Age on the English speaking peoples. I will digress with the following descant.

The English language is derived from Old Germanic more specifically the Anglo-Saxon dialect. Its existence did not manifest itself until the height of the Dark Ages roughly 800 years A.D. But the story really begins 850 years earlier when Julius Caesar sets his eyes on the conquest of Gaul. Like Hispania, Gaul was inhabited by Celts that spoke a similar tongue, distinct from the tribes of Germany but both considered barbaric to the Latin’s. The ignominious coinage came from the civilized world as to them these languages sounded like the “baa baa” sheep would make. As for Britannia no one knew what was spoken as the Druids had long vanished, eventually replaced by continental influences.

Caesar’s incursion then all-out invasion of Gaul sealed the fate of the mainland Celtic language. The vanquished tribes not only were prepared to give up their mother tongue for 0Latin they often embraced it lock, stock and barrel. This is not the only time as millennium later we will encounter this again instead this time being the most pivotal event in what lexicon we use today.

As for Caesar’s two ill-fated military landings, albeit political masterpieces, on Britannia we do find out the communication is a cross between Celtic and Old Germanic almost identical to what the Belgae spoke. It would be another 100 years before Latin was to be spoken on the island again.

But before we can see how this came about there is another monumental occurrence. For as soon as the western lands had become 'Latin-ized' the Romans looked to the east. Here were fierce German tribes who were not to be easily pacified let alone 'Roman-ized'. In 8 A.D. the chains of oppression were thrown off in the most remarkable ruse ever contrived lasting over 18 months even as it often seemed doomed. Nevertheless it reached its apex on the last 3 days as three fully supplied legions were slaughtered in the Teutonburger Wald (Teuton Forest). A German named Hermann, who had become the knighted Roman Arminius, through acumen and cunning forever ended Rome’s presence in Germany and it was his tribe’s descendants that were to be called the Anglo-Saxons.

Of course this is the history of English so we must again focus on events in Britannia. Still smarting from its German debacle Rome looked again at the mysterious island. Given they were not entirely uncouth and if a systematic way of trade was installed its raw materials could benefit the now vast Empire. So in 44 A.D. emperor Claudius again sent the legions across the channel but this time to stay. So began the next 350 years of Roman rule in which Latin was the official language of the land spoken in every town.

The problem was the indigenous peoples that resided in the countryside never gave up their mother tongue, a clear indication how tenuous was the relationship with their Roman masters. One case in point was in the 80’s an obscure uprising occurred in northern Britannia and the IX Legion was lost to the annals of history. Coinciding with this 80,000 Germans crossed the Rhine into the heartland of Gaul; all of whom were put to the sword. From here on out separating the barbarians from the civilized people – not expansion – was to be the foreign policy maxim. This has been far reaching as to this very day the German language is a “world apart” from its neighbors living only kilometers away.

In Britannia the famed Hadrian’s wall was built as while the wild northern tribes could be beaten in battle they could never be subdued. Much more than a military rampart it showed Roman might. Furthermore it kept the subjugated tribes in and served as a trade barrier ensuring all business was conducted in Latin.

However uneasy the peace was the status quo prevailed and all Britannia’s inhabitants saw no reason ever to sever ties with Mother Rome. While the years turned into decades and decades into centuries it could not last forever. Deep in the Asian steppe an inexorable force was developing as the Huns decided to move west cutting like a swathe anything in its path. This began the great German wanderlust, unable to stop this nomadic army instead burst into the rapidly disintegrating Roman Empire sealing its fate and the Latin language by 486 A.D.

It was a cold day in hell for Britannia in 407 A.D. as its last three “eagles” departed to relieve Rome. Surely they would be back. But this was not to be so and within less than 50 years Latin disappeared just like the morning frost in those waning warm fall days. Thus the stage was set for the Celtic vernacular to again return to its splendor as the island’s language at every level of society. Instead its permanent demise was on the horizon as Britannia became Germanic and by 500 A.D. English was born with never ending stream of Anglo-Saxons.

In sharp contrast to their continental counterparts the Saxons were little interested in the Roman good life. Apparently the word subjugation also did not exist, since as they disseminated across the countryside they hacked down its inhabitants. And so like the Druids, Britannia, its culture, its local tongue and its Latin heritage were completely wiped out. So this is really where the story should begin but the aforementioned backdrop not only precludes one the great ironies of history but will give us an idea of how resilient Latin would end up being especially given that it was a “dead” language.

It was now a period of time in which Old Germanic became Anglo-Saxon only to be transformed to Old English. Then as if from out of the bowels of hell, came the Viking raids and then settlements. Their impact on the Anglo-Saxons was significant except for this newly formed English vernacular. For the Vikings came from Norway, Sweden and Denmark who also spoke Old Germanic with minimal discernible differences. So now with over 400 years under its belt English was destined to be a first cousin of the German lexicon and pronunciation.

Unknown at the time was a maelstrom that was brewing that would have the most far-reaching effects turning English literally on its head. What was to happen was inconceivable as Latin was again to return to the island and become so interwoven it was to end up becoming over 40 per cent of the vocabulary. What is truly remarkable is it was Germanic Vikings that became the vehicle that propagated this paramount event.

At least they were originally Vikings. But these Vikings were even more savage than imaginable which culminated into the King of Norway sending this band into exile. Homeless they relied on their military prowess by landing in France and marching on Paris. In desperation the King of France offered them the lands on the English Channel to become Normandy, a play on Norseman. There was one catch though or actually two. First they had to become baptized in the Catholic Church and second French was to become their “first” language.

Within two generations Norse was barely even spoken in this Duchy as the Normans had become fully assimilated to French. That is in language only as when the Duke was planned his pilgrimage the question arose about a successor. Since he had no royal heirs it would seem quite the conundrum. This it wasn’t as the Norseman didn’t correlate royalty to being a legitimate heir. So the Duke explained he had been enjoying the pleasures of a young tanner’s daughter who had bore a child which he was sure was his.

Almost as scripted the Duke became ill and died on the trip. So William the Bastard at age 7 now became the William the Duke. The times still were that of intrigue, murder and internal war. For a perspective William arrived at a recalcitrant castle to find on its walls hung hides of animals the ultimate degradation to the young Duke’s lineage. After capturing the initial outpost the small garrison was taken, had their arms and legs chopped off and the flung from a catapult alive over the walls. Needless to say the gate was opened.

Since there is a veritable plethora of books, articles and documentaries of the story if not soap opera that lead to William’s claiming then taking of the English crown - first by political means and then by military action - will be left outside the scope of this short history. The ramification is the key to this entire descant. For it was the conqueror that was the last to invade England nearly 1000 years ago and it was the conqueror who brought the French language and made it the England’s official language for the next two hundred years.

As the commoner was unable to learn French and the barons found it expedient to learn some English a revolutionary amalgamation, if not metamorphosis, occurred. While in the German language the big words were coined by compounding the small ones, English instead just adopted the French, thus Latin, word as if it were its own. So it is today we can say that someone is good in choosing the best words to make his point easily seen without being smug or we can just say he writes with eloquence.

In closing though we must always keep in mind that the true bastardized Romance languages are still inflected as Latin was. This requires that one must be aware that this leads to inherent ambiguities and must be sorted out by the context and common sense. English is in contrast syntactically analytical making it ideal for communicating technical, scientific, business, legal, etc. matters but with all its Latin still allows for the art of rhetoric.

My hope in writing this is to attempt to offer some insight to our mother tongue. Of course a vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words has a far more complex history but I hope I have hit the highlights that would make a good conversation if the opportunity presented itself,

Before Americans will flock to this epic tale it must be marketed for what it was: the most influential result of the Classical Age on the English speaking peoples. I will digress with the following descant.

The English language is derived from Old Germanic more specifically the Anglo-Saxon dialect. Its existence did not manifest itself until the height of the Dark Ages roughly 800 years A.D. But the story really begins 850 years earlier when Julius Caesar sets his eyes on the conquest of Gaul. Like Hispania, Gaul was inhabited by Celts that spoke a similar tongue, distinct from the tribes of Germany but both considered barbaric to the Latin’s. The ignominious coinage came from the civilized world as to them these languages sounded like the “baa baa” sheep would make. As for Britannia no one knew what was spoken as the Druids had long vanished, eventually replaced by continental influences.

Caesar’s incursion then all-out invasion of Gaul sealed the fate of the mainland Celtic language. The vanquished tribes not only were prepared to give up their mother tongue for 0Latin they often embraced it lock, stock and barrel. This is not the only time as millennium later we will encounter this again instead this time being the most pivotal event in what lexicon we use today.

As for Caesar’s two ill-fated military landings, albeit political masterpieces, on Britannia we do find out the communication is a cross between Celtic and Old Germanic almost identical to what the Belgae spoke. It would be another 100 years before Latin was to be spoken on the island again.

But before we can see how this came about there is another monumental occurrence. For as soon as the western lands had become 'Latin-ized' the Romans looked to the east. Here were fierce German tribes who were not to be easily pacified let alone 'Roman-ized'. In 8 A.D. the chains of oppression were thrown off in the most remarkable ruse ever contrived lasting over 18 months even as it often seemed doomed. Nevertheless it reached its apex on the last 3 days as three fully supplied legions were slaughtered in the Teutonburger Wald (Teuton Forest). A German named Hermann, who had become the knighted Roman Arminius, through acumen and cunning forever ended Rome’s presence in Germany and it was his tribe’s descendants that were to be called the Anglo-Saxons.

Of course this is the history of English so we must again focus on events in Britannia. Still smarting from its German debacle Rome looked again at the mysterious island. Given they were not entirely uncouth and if a systematic way of trade was installed its raw materials could benefit the now vast Empire. So in 44 A.D. emperor Claudius again sent the legions across the channel but this time to stay. So began the next 350 years of Roman rule in which Latin was the official language of the land spoken in every town.

The problem was the indigenous peoples that resided in the countryside never gave up their mother tongue, a clear indication how tenuous was the relationship with their Roman masters. One case in point was in the 80’s an obscure uprising occurred in northern Britannia and the IX Legion was lost to the annals of history. Coinciding with this 80,000 Germans crossed the Rhine into the heartland of Gaul; all of whom were put to the sword. From here on out separating the barbarians from the civilized people – not expansion – was to be the foreign policy maxim. This has been far reaching as to this very day the German language is a “world apart” from its neighbors living only kilometers away.

In Britannia the famed Hadrian’s wall was built as while the wild northern tribes could be beaten in battle they could never be subdued. Much more than a military rampart it showed Roman might. Furthermore it kept the subjugated tribes in and served as a trade barrier ensuring all business was conducted in Latin.

However uneasy the peace was the status quo prevailed and all Britannia’s inhabitants saw no reason ever to sever ties with Mother Rome. While the years turned into decades and decades into centuries it could not last forever. Deep in the Asian steppe an inexorable force was developing as the Huns decided to move west cutting like a swathe anything in its path. This began the great German wanderlust, unable to stop this nomadic army instead burst into the rapidly disintegrating Roman Empire sealing its fate and the Latin language by 486 A.D.

It was a cold day in hell for Britannia in 407 A.D. as its last three “eagles” departed to relieve Rome. Surely they would be back. But this was not to be so and within less than 50 years Latin disappeared just like the morning frost in those waning warm fall days. Thus the stage was set for the Celtic vernacular to again return to its splendor as the island’s language at every level of society. Instead its permanent demise was on the horizon as Britannia became Germanic and by 500 A.D. English was born with never ending stream of Anglo-Saxons.

In sharp contrast to their continental counterparts the Saxons were little interested in the Roman good life. Apparently the word subjugation also did not exist, since as they disseminated across the countryside they hacked down its inhabitants. And so like the Druids, Britannia, its culture, its local tongue and its Latin heritage were completely wiped out. So this is really where the story should begin but the aforementioned backdrop not only precludes one the great ironies of history but will give us an idea of how resilient Latin would end up being especially given that it was a “dead” language.

It was now a period of time in which Old Germanic became Anglo-Saxon only to be transformed to Old English. Then as if from out of the bowels of hell, came the Viking raids and then settlements. Their impact on the Anglo-Saxons was significant except for this newly formed English vernacular. For the Vikings came from Norway, Sweden and Denmark who also spoke Old Germanic with minimal discernible differences. So now with over 400 years under its belt English was destined to be a first cousin of the German lexicon and pronunciation.

Unknown at the time was a maelstrom that was brewing that would have the most far-reaching effects turning English literally on its head. What was to happen was inconceivable as Latin was again to return to the island and become so interwoven it was to end up becoming over 40 per cent of the vocabulary. What is truly remarkable is it was Germanic Vikings that became the vehicle that propagated this paramount event.

At least they were originally Vikings. But these Vikings were even more savage than imaginable which culminated into the King of Norway sending this band into exile. Homeless they relied on their military prowess by landing in France and marching on Paris. In desperation the King of France offered them the lands on the English Channel to become Normandy, a play on Norseman. There was one catch though or actually two. First they had to become baptized in the Catholic Church and second French was to become their “first” language.

Within two generations Norse was barely even spoken in this Duchy as the Normans had become fully assimilated to French. That is in language only as when the Duke was planned his pilgrimage the question arose about a successor. Since he had no royal heirs it would seem quite the conundrum. This it wasn’t as the Norseman didn’t correlate royalty to being a legitimate heir. So the Duke explained he had been enjoying the pleasures of a young tanner’s daughter who had bore a child which he was sure was his.

Almost as scripted the Duke became ill and died on the trip. So William the Bastard at age 7 now became the William the Duke. The times still were that of intrigue, murder and internal war. For a perspective William arrived at a recalcitrant castle to find on its walls hung hides of animals the ultimate degradation to the young Duke’s lineage. After capturing the initial outpost the small garrison was taken, had their arms and legs chopped off and the flung from a catapult alive over the walls. Needless to say the gate was opened.

Since there is a veritable plethora of books, articles and documentaries of the story if not soap opera that lead to William’s claiming then taking of the English crown - first by political means and then by military action - will be left outside the scope of this short history. The ramification is the key to this entire descant. For it was the conqueror that was the last to invade England nearly 1000 years ago and it was the conqueror who brought the French language and made it the England’s official language for the next two hundred years.

As the commoner was unable to learn French and the barons found it expedient to learn some English a revolutionary amalgamation, if not metamorphosis, occurred. While in the German language the big words were coined by compounding the small ones, English instead just adopted the French, thus Latin, word as if it were its own. So it is today we can say that someone is good in choosing the best words to make his point easily seen without being smug or we can just say he writes with eloquence.

In closing though we must always keep in mind that the true bastardized Romance languages are still inflected as Latin was. This requires that one must be aware that this leads to inherent ambiguities and must be sorted out by the context and common sense. English is in contrast syntactically analytical making it ideal for communicating technical, scientific, business, legal, etc. matters but with all its Latin still allows for the art of rhetoric.

My hope in writing this is to attempt to offer some insight to our mother tongue. Of course a vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words has a far more complex history but I hope I have hit the highlights that would make a good conversation if the opportunity presented itself,

I won't go through every point that you have raised in this totally unrelated posting to this thread but here are a few of my initial thoughts:


Before Americans will flock to this epic tale it must be marketed for what it was: the most influential result of the Classical Age on the English speaking peoples. I will digress with the following descant.

The English language is derived from Old Germanic more specifically the Anglo-Saxon dialect [Are you sure that you mean dialect?]. Its existence did not manifest itself until the height of the Dark Ages roughly 800 years A.D. But the story really begins 850 years earlier when Julius Caesar sets his eyes on the conquest of Gaul. Like Hispania, Gaul was inhabited by Celts that spoke a similar tongue, distinct from the tribes of Germany but both considered barbaric to the Latin’s. The ignominious coinage came from the civilized world as to them these languages sounded like the “baa baa” sheep would make. As for Britannia no one knew what was spoken as the Druids had long vanished, eventually replaced by continental influences. [Apart from the various 'P' and 'Q' Celtic tongues which continue to be spoken in slightly amended forms in Cornwall, Ireland, Wales and the Highlands of Scotland]

Caesar’s incursion then all-out invasion of Gaul sealed the fate of the mainland Celtic language [As above apart from Breton and Basque]. The vanquished tribes not only were prepared to give up their mother tongue for 0Latin they often embraced it lock, stock and barrel. This is not the only time as millennium later we will encounter this again instead this time being the most pivotal event in what lexicon we use today.

As for Caesar’s two ill-fated military landings, albeit political masterpieces, on Britannia we do find out the communication is a cross between Celtic and Old Germanic almost identical to what the Belgae spoke. It would be another 100 years before Latin was to be spoken on the island again.[Strangely enough there is evidence at various sites in England for a continuing direct trade with Rome - notably at Calleva Atrebatum - Silchester where there is evidence for continued contact during the late Iron Age period before, during and after the three main Roman invasions.]


But before we can see how this came about there is another monumental occurrence. For as soon as the western lands had become 'Latin-ized' the Romans looked to the east. Here were fierce German tribes who were not to be easily pacified let alone 'Roman-ized'. In 8 A.D. the chains of oppression were thrown off in the most remarkable ruse ever contrived lasting over 18 months even as it often seemed doomed. Nevertheless it reached its apex on the last 3 days as three fully supplied legions were slaughtered in the Teutonburger Wald (Teuton Forest). A German named Hermann, [If I remember correctly that's one very late and loose translation of his name, which I'm sure Tim has commented on elsewhere] who had become the knighted Roman Arminius, through acumen and cunning forever ended Rome’s presence in Germany and it was his tribe’s descendants that were to be called the Anglo-Saxons.

Of course this is the history of English so we must again focus on events in Britannia. Still smarting from its German debacle Rome looked again at the mysterious island. Given they were not entirely uncouth and if a systematic way of trade was installed its raw materials could benefit the now vast Empire. So in 44 A.D. emperor Claudius again sent the legions across the channel but this time to stay. So began the next 350 years of Roman rule in which Latin was the official language of the land spoken in every town.

The problem was the indigenous peoples that resided in the countryside never gave up their mother tongue, a clear indication how tenuous was the relationship with their Roman masters. One case in point was in the 80’s an obscure uprising occurred in northern Britannia and the IX Legion was lost to the annals of history. [Not this old chesnut again there is sound historical evidence that Legio IX Hispania remained in Britain until around 120-130 AD and one of the strongest contenders for its loss may actually have been in the Judean Rebellion of 132AD - see the article at http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/ninth_legion.htm ] Coinciding with this 80,000 Germans crossed the Rhine into the heartland of Gaul; all of whom were put to the sword. From here on out separating the barbarians from the civilized people – not expansion – was to be the foreign policy maxim. This has been far reaching as to this very day the German language is a “world apart” from its neighbors living only kilometers away.[Like in the Netherlands?]

In Britannia the famed Hadrian’s wall was built as while the wild northern tribes could be beaten in battle they could never be subdued [More likely the Romans had better things to do with their manpower elsewhere in the Empire and the benefits to be gained from complete subjugation were increasingly small] . Much more than a military rampart it showed Roman might. Furthermore it kept the subjugated tribes in and served as a trade barrier ensuring all business was conducted in Latin.

However uneasy the peace was the status quo prevailed and all Britannia’s inhabitants saw no reason ever to sever ties with Mother Rome [Apart from several rebellions and attempts by some governors of the province to become Caesar in their own right as well as the semi-independent "Roman" Gaulish Empire - but we won't go into that]. While the years turned into decades and decades into centuries it could not last forever. Deep in the Asian steppe an inexorable force was developing as the Huns decided to move west cutting like a swathe anything in its path. This began the great German wanderlust, unable to stop this nomadic army instead burst into the rapidly disintegrating Roman Empire sealing its fate and the Latin language by 486 A.D.

It was a cold day in hell for Britannia in 407 A.D. as its last three “eagles” departed to relieve Rome. Surely they would be back. But this was not to be so and within less than 50 years Latin disappeared just like the morning frost in those waning warm fall days [Poetic but bullsh*t - Latin continued in use within at least the churches]. Thus the stage was set for the Celtic vernacular to again return to its splendor as the island’s language at every level of society. Instead its permanent demise was on the horizon [See above notes on Latin continuance] as Britannia became Germanic and by 500 A.D. English was born with never ending stream of Anglo-Saxons.

In sharp contrast to their continental counterparts the Saxons were little interested in the Roman good life. Apparently the word subjugation also did not exist, since as they disseminated across the countryside they hacked down its inhabitants. And so like the Druids, Britannia, its culture, its local tongue and its Latin heritage were completely wiped out. [Oh come off it, every country in the Western world has some form of direct Latin inheritance] So this is really where the story should begin but the aforementioned backdrop not only precludes one the great ironies of history but will give us an idea of how resilient Latin would end up being especially given that it was a “dead” language.

It was now a period of time in which Old Germanic became Anglo-Saxon only to be transformed to Old English. Then as if from out of the bowels of hell, came the Viking raids and then settlements. Their impact on the Anglo-Saxons was significant except for this newly formed English vernacular. For the Vikings came from Norway, Sweden and Denmark who also spoke Old Germanic with minimal discernible differences [I wouldn't have said that they were particularly close relatives but again I'm sure that Tim could explain it all to you if he wanted to]. So now with over 400 years under its belt English was destined to be a first cousin of the German lexicon and pronunciation [ but nowhere as near as Lallans].

Unknown at the time was a maelstrom that was brewing that would have the most far-reaching effects turning English literally on its head. What was to happen was inconceivable as Latin was again to return to the island and become so interwoven it was to end up becoming over 40 per cent of the vocabulary. What is truly remarkable is it was Germanic Vikings [What Germanic Vikings - have you been reading Himmler again?] that became the vehicle that propagated this paramount event.

At least they were originally Vikings. But these Vikings were even more savage than imaginable which culminated into the King of Norway sending this band into exile. Homeless they relied on their military prowess by landing in France and marching on Paris. In desperation the King of France offered them the lands on the English Channel to become Normandy, a play on Norseman. There was one catch though or actually two. First they had to become baptized in the Catholic Church and second French was to become their “first” language.

Within two generations Norse was barely even spoken in this Duchy as the Normans had become fully assimilated to French. That is in language only as when the Duke was planned his pilgrimage the question arose about a successor. Since he had no royal heirs it would seem quite the conundrum. This it wasn’t as the Norseman didn’t correlate royalty to being a legitimate heir. So the Duke explained he had been enjoying the pleasures of a young tanner’s daughter who had bore a child which he was sure was his.

Almost as scripted the Duke became ill and died on the trip. So William the Bastard at age 7 now became the William the Duke. The times still were that of intrigue, murder and internal war. For a perspective William arrived at a recalcitrant castle to find on its walls hung hides of animals the ultimate degradation to the young Duke’s lineage. After capturing the initial outpost the small garrison was taken, had their arms and legs chopped off and the flung from a catapult alive over the walls. Needless to say the gate was opened.

Since there is a veritable plethora of books, articles and documentaries of the story if not soap opera that lead to William’s claiming then taking of the English crown - first by political means and then by military action - will be left outside the scope of this short history. The ramification is the key to this entire descant. For it was the conqueror that was the last to invade England nearly 1000 years ago [Matilda against Stephen, Wallace and De Brus in the Scottish Wars of Independence, various factions in the English Civil War, William and Mary even idf invited brtought in their own troops. There were the Jacobite Uprisings including the Monmouth Rebellion, the Dutch in the Anglo Dutch Wars and lastly Hitler and the Channel Islands. I also seem to remember a couple of minor invasions/claimants to the throne who didn't get very far and I won't count John Paul Jones actions on behalf of America.] and it was the conqueror who brought the French language and made it the England’s official language for the next two hundred years [mainly at the various Royal courts and then for more like 600 years] .

As the commoner was unable to learn French and the barons found it expedient to learn some English a revolutionary amalgamation, if not metamorphosis, occurred. While in the German language the big words were coined by compounding the small ones, English instead just adopted the French, thus Latin, word as if it were its own. So it is today we can say that someone is good in choosing the best words to make his point easily seen without being smug or we can just say he writes with eloquence.

In closing though we must always keep in mind that the true bastardized Romance languages are still inflected as Latin was. This requires that one must be aware that this leads to inherent ambiguities and must be sorted out by the context and common sense. English is in contrast syntactically analytical making it ideal for communicating technical, scientific, business, legal, etc. matters but with all its Latin still allows for the art of rhetoric.

My hope in writing this is to attempt to offer some insight to our mother tongue. Of course a vocabulary of hundreds of thousands of words has a far more complex history but I hope I have hit the highlights that would make a good conversation if the opportunity presented itself, [Only if you had more salient facts related to the Roman period deealt with in this site rather than a mish mash of unsupportable contentions AND had presented them in a new thread rather than adding them to a totally unrelated discussion thread]

-- The Germanics --

Arminius (17 BC – 21 AD) – Josh Harnett

Segimerus – Rutger Hauer or Christopher Walken

Inguiomerus - Viggo Mortensen

Flavus – Heath Ledger

Segestes – Jürgen Prochnow

Dagameraz – Woody Harrelson or Bruce Willis


-- The Romans --

Varus (46 BC – 9 AD) – Joe Pesci or Al Pacino

Augustus (63 BC – 14 AD) – Ian Holm or Martin Scorsese

Livia Drusilla (Augustus’ Wife, 58 BC – 29 AD) - Sophia Loren

Germanicus (15 BC – 19 AD) – Tobey McGuire

Tiberius (42 BC – 37 AD) – John Torturo

Vinicius – James Gandolfini or Harvey Keitel

Polybius and Hilarion – Rowan Atkinson and Jim Carrey


Quintus Varanius Fimus – Tobias Moretti

Gaius Naevius Liberalis – Sean Penn

Lucius Olcinius Ambrosius- Sean Astin

Marcus Aius – Elija Wood

Marcus Caelius (56 BC – 9 AD) – Martin Sheen

Numerius Pontidius Grumio – Craig Parker

Lucius Sergius Facilis – Alec Baldwin

Marcus wrote:


-- The Germanics --

Arminius (17 BC – 21 AD) – Josh Harnett


Interesting choice - not one I would have thought of. But he's the right age and looks the part.


Segimerus – Rutger Hauer or Christopher Walken


Either would be good.


Inguiomerus - Viggo Mortensen


Another good one, but possibly expensive.


Flavus – Heath Ledger


Who could also make a good Arminius.


Segestes – Jürgen Prochnow



Dagameraz – Woody Harrelson or Bruce Willis


I imagine Dagameraz a bit older. Perhaps Anthony Hopkins.


-- The Romans --

Varus (46 BC – 9 AD) – Joe Pesci or Al Pacino


I'm not sure about Pesci as Varus. ;> But Al Pacino is one I hadn't thought of.


Augustus (63 BC – 14 AD) – Ian Holm or Martin Scorsese


Ian Holm would be my choice.


Livia Drusilla (Augustus’ Wife, 58 BC – 29 AD) - Sophia Loren


Excellent choice.


Germanicus (15 BC – 19 AD) – Tobey McGuire


Well, he would have been 24 in 9 AD, so McGuire would be a good choice.


Tiberius (42 BC – 37 AD) – John Torturo


Brilliant!


Vinicius – James Gandolfini or Harvey Keitel


I think Tony Soprano would be a good Vinicius.


Polybius and Hilarion – Rowan Atkinson and Jim Carrey


Ummm ... I'll get back to you on that one.


Quintus Varanius Fimus – Tobias Moretti


The Inspector Rex guy?


Gaius Naevius Liberalis – Sean Penn

Lucius Olcinius Ambrosius- Sean Astin


Perfect.


Marcus Aius – Elija Wood


The casting budget is going to need to be astronomical, but okay.


Marcus Caelius (56 BC – 9 AD) – Martin Sheen


I still prefer Patrick Stewart for Caelius, but Sheen would be good.


Numerius Pontidius Grumio – Craig Parker


Not sure I know him. What's he been in?


Lucius Sergius Facilis – Alec Baldwin


Another one I hadn't thought of.

Great cast though. I particularly liked John Turturro as Tiberius and Viggo as Inguiomerus.

Nice post.
Cheers,


Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster

Inguiomerus - Viggo Mortensen
Another good one, but possibly expensive

I’m not sure, at least he doesn’t have a very “greedy” image, since he has a rather leftist mind.


Dagameraz – Woody Harrelson or Bruce Willis
I imagine Dagameraz a bit older. Perhaps Anthony Hopkins

Well, I think he’s a great actor, but already too much of a “grandfather”. Like many people from Wales he hasn’t got the look of someone from the North of Europe. I would rather cast him for one of the older Romans, since the Celtic people of the British isles were basically a mixture of Mediterranean and Indo-European folks, just like ancestors of the Romans, too.


Varus (46 BC – 9 AD) – Joe Pesci or Al Pacino
I'm not sure about Pesci as Varus. ;> But Al Pacino is one I hadn't thought of

There are two portraits of Varus and other people from the Julian-Claudian-dynasty on coins that inspired me (http://www.romancoins.info/12C-JulioClaud.HTML). I don’t believe that actors who look “specifically British” like Ralph Fiennes or Jeremy Irons would fit better. They are those tallish Gentlemen-types I wouldn’t imagine to come from the south, plus too many British actors would give you the impression that this is something like the first part of “Braveheart”. I would rather see some actors that fit to that whole “la familia”-thing of this ruler class in Rome.


Augustus (63 BC – 14 AD) – Ian Holm or Martin Scorsese
Ian Holm would be my choice

He’s much more versatile, if you compare him to other British actors, and like the real Augustus rather small.


Livia Drusilla (Augustus’ Wife, 58 BC – 29 AD) - Sophia Loren
Excellent choice

I really think we should include more roles for females, maybe also Germanicus’ wife Agrippina I. They surely have more to say than this young Tusnelda. The biography about Tiberius even indicates that he was later also leaving Rome for Capri, because he wanted to get away from his ambitious and dominant mother.


Polybius and Hilarion – Rowan Atkinson and Jim Carrey
Ummm ... I'll get back to you on that one

I little bit of physical humour like in the old Stan&Olie-movies would be okay, for example when Augustus wakes up and Polybius has problems with dressing Augustus’ into his toga.


Quintus Varanius Fimus – Tobias Moretti
The Inspector Rex guy?

He isn’t such a bad actor as one could guess from that silly crime-show and he already played a Roman in the TV-mini-series about Julius Ceasar (where Christopher Walken appeared, too).


Marcus Caelius (44 BC – 9 AD) – Martin Sheen
I still prefer Patrick Stewart for Caelius, but Sheen would be good

I just guessed the look of the real Caelius from his tombstone. That would at least fit much better to Martin Sheen than to Patrick Stewart (who is also too much fixed with his role as Picard). But I made a little mistake – Caelius must have been born in 44 BC, since he was about 53 1/2 , when he died.


Numerius Pontidius Grumio – Craig Parker
Not sure I know him. What's he been in?

He was Haldir in LotR I+II. His normal look (http://www.craig-parker.net) suits quite well to the way I would imagine the Romans.


Other suggestions:

Claudius – Frankie Muniz (“Malcolm”) or Jake Gyllenhaal (“Moonlight Mile”)

Vinicius – Giovanni Trapattoni (coach of the Italian football-team) or Jean Paul Belmondo

Ahenobarbus – Nicolas Cage or Jean Hughes Anglade

Varus – Timothy Bottoms (“Bush for you!”) or Günther Maria Halmer (he already played a lot of small roles in international films like “Gandhi”)

Marcus Aius – Orlando Bloom

Lucius Sergius Facilis – Michael Schumacher

Dagameraz – Ralf Moeller (he played a small role in Gladiator)


Director: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Terry Gilliam, Peter Jackson, Wolfgang Petersen

okay, the last suggestions weren't that good - what about these?

Segimerus: William Hurt

Gudafrith: Thomas Kretschmann (The Pianist)

Hildirikaz: Mark Wahlberg

Old Germanic farmer: Armin Müller-Stahl


Varus: Timothy Dalton

Augustus: Dennis Hopper

Germanicus: Benoît Magimel (new star in France, reminds to the young Robert de Niro)

Tiberius: Daniel Auteuil

Vinicius: Ian McKellen or Brian Cox (does anybody know how old Vinivius was in 9 AD?)

Manius Oranius Gallio: Robert Carlyle

Marcus Aius: Michael Legge (young Irish actor, he played in Angela’s Ashestogether with Robert Carlyle)

Numerius Pontidius Grumio: Kyle MacLachlan

i just noticed that Flavus was only a small kid during the Clades Variana (if Tacitus was right), so Heath Ledger would be "a bit" old actually...

I don't know which passages of Tacitus you're thinking of Marcus, but I can't think of anything which precludes the idea that he was of military age in 9 AD. We know that he was certainly of military age seven years later, when he and Arminius confronted each other in 16 AD. But how old he was then and how long he had served in the Roman army we have no idea.

Of course, there's no evidence of his whereabouts in 9 AD, and he may indeed have still been quite young, but it makes sense to me that both Flavus and Arminius went to serve in the Roman army about the same time and that Flavus stayed in Roman service when Arminius revolted. There may have been some circumstance whereby a much younger Flavus left his people, after the revolt, and joined the Romans, but I can't see any evidence for this. So I think my assumption that both Flavus and Arminius were in Roman service in 9 AD makes rather more sense and that Heath Ledger, or some other young actor, would be suitable to play a 9 AD Flavus.

Just so long as it isn't that wooden dude who played Anakin in The Phantom Menace!
Cheers,

Tim O'Neill
Clades Variana Webmaster

Unfortunately, the only reference I found for the assumption that he was only 16 in the year 16 AD comes from the book “Die Germanen. Legende und Wirklichkeit von A-Z” by Hannsferdinand Döbler. I don’t know where he got this information from, since he didin’t mentioned any sources for this assumption. He also said that Flavus had the rank of a Centurio, an ensign and that he was disfigured by a wound – I also find this pretty unlikely for a 16 years old…..

Actually, both Julius Caesar and Augustus were reputed to have been fair haired. Also, remember that the roman soldiers were midgets! Average height 5'4" due to their diet which was entirely grain based.

I would suggest the following choices.

Augustus - Brian Blessed

Livia - S. Phillips

Claudius (Older) Dereck Jacobi

As you can see I'am a fan of the Series I Claudius and I would love to see the actors in the series (or some of them) reprise the roles they played.

Since a Eagle was retrieved during the reign of the Emperor Claudius I can see D. Jacobi reprising his Role for that. (A sort of flash-forward scene), both Brian Blessed and S. Phillips are ol enough to do the actual Augustus and Livia at the time given that they were both old in 9 C.E.

Pierre

I was thinking Dennis Storhoi (Norwegian actor) for Arminius.
[img][/img]
I don't have much time now but I'll think about other actors too.

Freda

Gotta be a part for Sean Bean in here somewhere.

one of the reasons there are so many blonds in italy is that they have felt the need to surrender to all comers over the last 1500 years. Sicily and the Kingdom of naples were under frankish possession for centuries, Aragon for a bit, German for several periods- not to mention having a healthy imput of crusaders, traders and slavers for centuries.
Personally id like to see kevin spacey as varus- or failing that timothy spall (whos suitably slobbery and plays the coward well). As for Marcus Aius it has to be Clive Owen. Segestes is supposed to be a big old guy so probably Michael Gambon?
Seeing as we dont actually KNOW much about Thusnelda (or whatever her name is)id prefer she wasnt in it at all, but i suppose we have to have a love story in it. I bet they dont show her getting captured by rome several years later and shipped off (pregnant) to servitude in Gaul though. I feel an Alexander/Troy travesty moment coming on.

as an afterthought- seeing as this film is going to have to be HORENDOUSLY violent, perhaps a little balancing light romance wouldnt hurt. Im not sure the American film audience is ready for a 9 year old love interest (bit too Lolita) so what about Natalie Portman?

Greetings:

I couldn't help but butt in.
Being an amature film director who has put his camera aside to get his history degree, I'm really excited to see someone atempting to make a historically acurate movie.
Though the topic is about who should play who, enough people are chasing rabbits right now for me to feal comfortable in saying a few words a little off subject.

On the ethnicity/hair,eyes/nationality of the actors:
Though I would like for the actors to be as close to the original ethnicity (cultural/ethnic terms are always a pitfall) of the people they portray I don't agree with the idea of looking for actors using a racial grocery list. People of the ancient world tended to intermingle quite frequently. The victorian ideals of 'nations' of people is a pretty modern (and flawed) idea. I think the assimulation of the peoples the Romans conquered is a good example that when servival is on the line people don't care what the name is of the country they live in. That said, I'm very proud of my own European heritage, and I'm not discounting the importance of cultural identity.
Just somthing to keep in mind.

On the actors themselves:
Go for unknowns! When you cast a well known star (especialy the kind Americans tend to flock to), you are sending the message that you don't have faith in your film as a story. When you cast unknowns you send the message that the acting abilities of these people, as well as the story itself, can stand alone without big names. I've always looked at it as a mater of principle.

By the way, I'm really excited about a film that shows the 'Barbarians' for who they were: People.
Keep up the good work. (And pardon my spelling: it's the Norman's fault)

One person who sprang immediately to mind was...yes I know it sounds rather improbable...but check out the resemblance to Mr Bean!! [Rowan Atkinson]

Arminius - Jaquine Phoenix
Tiberius - Peter O Tool
Varus - Russel Crowe

Besides: The Romans won the battle in the Teutoburg forest. Take a look at:
http://www.pugna-in-saltu-Teutoburgiensi-facta.

Kind regards
Thomas Fuchs

The ideal Arminius would have been Thomas Kretschmann at around the date of 'Stalingrad': urbane enough to dine with Varus, but dangerous - potentially to himself as well as others, as Arminius was. The best Arminius I've seen recently is Chung Woo Sung (watch 'Musa - the Warrior' and you'll see): he kept hovering over an Arminius novel I've just finished writing, obscuring the suitable blonds I was trying to keep in my mind's eye for descriptive bits. Though Korean he's certainly far more plausible than any of the middle-aged and more or less clapped-out Hollywood cliches that everyone else is suggesting - the age is right and eyes are pure Velleius - but he'd need dubbing, to say the least. On the other hand, if this project is to be seriously accurate it needs to be in Latin and very early Plattdeutsch, so a Korean would have as good a chance as anyone else - look at the multinational cast all murdering Latin in Derek Jarman's 'Sebastiane'...
Seriously? Oh, all right - a rising classical actor with hardly any distracting pre-associations and the age, looks and physique du role: Oliver Boot. Looked good in a Roman breastplate in 'Antony and Cleopatra' at the Globe Theatre a couple of years ago, and deserves big chances. Go for him.