The Caesars

The only reason it is I Claudius, and not The Caesars, that people remember and fawn over today is The Caesars is in black and white and did not get nearly as much hype in its day.

It is a damn shame, as The Caesars is a superior show to I Claudius, from the acting to the choice of actors, to the portrayal of the main characters, it is simply far better.

Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus, Claudius and Caligula are excellently portrayed here as believable human beings, with human motives, not like the tiresome 2d grotesques and borderline psychotics in I Claudius. Tiberius's character especially moved me.

If only it had been made in colour, it would be vastly more known and have the respect that is due to this wonderful show.

Instead of remaking, I Claudius, THIS should be remade with the same script. It is miles ahead.

Buy it or steal it, you are missing out.

I rarely give any production 10 out of 10 but this series, made in black and white in the 1960s, believed lost for many years, deserves it. 'The Caesars' focuses mainly on the reigns of two Roman Emperors, Tiberius (Andre Morell) and Caligula (Ralph Bates), although it touches on others along the way (Claudius, an excellent performance of someone playing the fool for survival from Freddie Jones; a regal Augustus; a vain Sejanus; and a foolish Germanicus) to make up the six episodes. Female characters also register strongly, with performances coming through clearly from the likes of Caroline Blakiston and Nicola Pagett.

A script of power, superlative acting, restrained depiction of reigns of terror (compare this Caligula with the one enacted by Malcolm McDowell in the 1970s film) makes this series still watchable without it having been dated. The end of the episode 'Sejanus' is excellent and extremely moving, and the standard remains high throughout the whole of the series.

Welcome to DVD and well worth watching.

Having seen "The Caesars" when I was at school, I could not understand the swooning praise heaped on "I Claudius" which is comparatively superficial, inaccurate and a travesty.

To take just one example, the real Augustus was physically slight, intellectually subtle and personally formidable so casting Brian Blessed as Augustus in "I Claudius" was grotesquely wrong. Roland Culver was an infinitely better choice.

This was a series about the realities of power in any period - and rather closely followed the surviving record of the sophisticated and lurid Roman historian Suetonius.

The DVD was released in April 2006 - PAL/Region 2 - and is available from Amazon in the UK - but IMDb does not seem to have heard of this yet. The picture is sometimes rather dodgy but it is probably as good as we will get - and TV production was pretty rough in 1968 (compared to today's digitalised everything).

The writing and acting are still superb.

Excellent series, but misguided to compare it to "I, Claudius"

While Ralph Bates was a good actor for Hammer and other companies, and is adequate here, comparing him to John Hurt's award-winning performance as Caligula in "I, Claudius" is just dumb. The Robert Graves story is a work of FICTION, while "The Caesars" is an attempt at being historical - which it utterly fails at, as the dialog is entirely speculative. Also, great swaths of events and characters are completely absent. These at least appear in "I, Claudius." There are no Roman crowd scenes, either in the city or the provinces, and these would have added to the series somewhat. Still, what there is is excellent: solid acting, good script, and production values being adequate for the budget. A treat to watch.

I don't agree with the previous comments comparing The Caesars and I Claudius. Both series are masterpieces of casting, interpretation,dialogs and filming.

Someone referred to Suetonius "12 Caesars" and seems to believe that this work , I read, is a reliable source on the way Rome was administered at that time.

I will try to translate as closely as possible what is said in Wikipedia's French article concerning the Roman writer:

"The amount of archives consulted by Suetonius is often a matter of discussion and generally considered less important than believed, says Andrew Wallace-Hadrill and Luc de Coninck.

Suetonius bears very little interest to the history and administration of th Empire; he is interested in the acts and personalities of the Caesars and particularly in their vices and misbehavior; this lead commentators to consider Suetonius, as stated by Alexis Pierron, to be an anteroom pedlar! Of reporting rumors which authenticity were often dubious.

As Pierron said,"Suetonius was listening behind doors but did not hear carefully what was said"...

I will say personally that I would consider him as the people magazine writer of that time. Interesting but unreliable.

In conclusion it is impossible for us to this day to be certain of the facts as well as of a great part of the historical events which are presented in full details in both series. We should not consider both series as historical testimonials.

They are just fantastic playwrights, beautifully brought to the screen, each with the means and possibilities of Television of their times of shooting. Color Television in 68 was at its debut with an American standard which deficiencies was so obvious that the NTSC acronym was translated as "Never The Same Color"!!! Probably today if a new version was made, it would put the accent on special effects,sex and violence not to say gore as it seems to be the dangerous habit of our XXIst century.

I will buy the 68 edition hoping that the DVD has a better quality than the youtube version I've just watched.

I shall assimilate this version to the fantastic Shakespearian broadcasts of the BBC of the same period. Actors of superb diction, not overplaying and punching you through the screen with their unsurpassed talent!