chunk_id
stringlengths 3
8
| chunk
stringlengths 1
1k
|
|---|---|
9688_17 | Home media and streaming
In the United States and Canada, Shout! Factory released Friendship Games on DVD (Region 1), Blu-ray disc, digital download release, and in a box set alongside its two predecessors on October 13, 2015. DVD and Blu-ray special features consist of four storyboard animatic deleted scenes, audio commentary, sing-alongs, and five animated shorts. Primal Screen released a Region 2 DVD on November 2, 2015, and includes the five animated shorts and a recap of the first two Equestria Girls films.
On November 30, 2015, the My Little Pony Facebook page posted an advertisement promoting that the film will be added to Netflix on December 1, 2015. The version used on Netflix is the same as the one found on the DVD and Blu-ray versions of the film with the end credits song, "Right There in Front of Me", playing over the film's end credits.
Merchandise and other media |
9688_18 | The film is a part of sport-themed Friendship Games lineup, a third installment in the My Little Pony: Equestria Girls toy line and media franchise, which was first displayed at London's 2015 Toy Fair in January, and mentioned with other supporting products, alongside this film, during Hasbro's investor presentation in February that year. LB Kids published a novelization of the film.
Animated shorts
A series of animated prequel shorts for Friendship Games, similar to those produced for Rainbow Rocks, was announced on February 13, 2015. On July 31, 2015, the My Little Pony Facebook page posted some instructions for playing in the "Friendship Games Fantasy League" and indicated that a new short would be released every Saturday during August 2015. Like the Rainbow Rocks shorts, these are also separate from the film. A total of five shorts were released; the first four of these, paired with a 10-minute preview of the film, aired on Discovery Family on August 29, 2015. |
9688_19 | Apart from the shorts above, a Friendship Games "blooper reel" was posted on the official Equestria Girls website on May 3, 2016, containing fictional outtakes of various scenes from the film.
Soundtrack
The film's soundtrack was released on September 17, 2015 on iTunes and on Amazon.com on September 18, 2015. The first three singles, "Friendship Through the Ages", "My Past is Not Today" and "Life Is a Runway", were first released by Hasbro's YouTube channel on March 31, 2015; later re-uploaded on April 2, 2015.
Reception
Television viewership
When the film was premiered on Discovery Family on September 26, 2015, it was viewed by 436,000 viewers. According to the Nielsen ratings, it was watched by approximately 120,000 of adults 18-49. |
9688_20 | Critical response |
9688_21 | The film received mixed-to-positive reviews by critics. Daniel Alvarez of Unleash the Fanboy gave the film a score of 8 out of 10, calling it "another quality installment in the Equestria Girls series." He praised the film's characters, calling Sunset Shimmer "a great focus", as well as the film's songs and "epic climax." However, he noted that several negatives "hold it back from being near perfect", such as Principal Cinch, whom he called "the worst antagonist." Geekscape'''s Adam Lemuz praised the film as "a great follow-up to Rainbow Rocks." He further complimented that "fans of the previous films will get a lot of enjoyment out of it as it delivers plenty of solid laughs and noteworthy songs." Ed Liu of Toon Zone called the film "solid addition to the Equestria Girls franchise", but felt it was "overly familiar" and "a little padded" when comparing it to the first film's story. He also praised Sunset Shimmer's development from "a vintage mean girl to a strong, assertive character |
9688_22 | in her own right", calling her character arc initiated from the first film "a wonderful long-form story". Mike Cahill of The Guardian'' gave the film two out of five stars, calling it "craven commercialism", but adding that "it's not unattractively designed, and its peppy collegiate spirit trumps the sappiness of Disney's Tinkerbell spin-offs". |
9688_23 | Notes
References
External links
My Little Pony: Equestria Girls
English-language films
2015 computer-animated films
2015 television films
2015 films
2010s musical comedy films
2010s American animated films
2010s children's comedy films
2010s musical fantasy films
American children's animated adventure films
American children's animated comedy films
American children's animated fantasy films
American films
American children's animated musical films
American fantasy adventure films
American flash animated films
American musical comedy films
American sequel films
American television films
Canadian animated feature films
Canadian animated fantasy films
Canadian children's fantasy films
Canadian musical fantasy films
Canadian sequel films
Canadian films
Equestria Girls films
2010s fantasy adventure films
Film spin-offs
Hasbro Studios films
American musical fantasy films
DHX Media films
Demons in film
Magical girl films |
9689_0 | Connectivism is a theoretical framework for understanding learning in a digital age. It emphasizes how internet technologies such as web browsers, search engines, wikis, online discussion forums, and social networks contributed to new avenues of learning. Technologies have enabled people to learn and share information across the World Wide Web and among themselves in ways that were not possible before the digital age. Learning does not simply happen within an individual, but within and across the networks. What sets connectivism apart from theories such as constructivism is the view that "learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing". Connectivism sees knowledge as a network and learning as a process of pattern recognition. Connectivism has similarities with |
9689_1 | Vygotsky's zone of proximal development (ZPD) and Engeström's Activity theory. The phrase "a learning theory for the digital age" indicates the emphasis that connectivism gives to technology's effect on how people live, communicate, and learn. Connectivism is an integration of principles related to chaos, network, complexity, and self-organization theories. |
9689_2 | History
Connectivism was first introduced in 2004 on a blog post which was later published as an article in 2005 by George Siemens. It was later expanded in 2005 by two publications, Siemens’ Connectivism: Learning as Network Creation and Downes’ An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. Both works received significant attention in the blogosphere and an extended discourse has followed on the appropriateness of connectivism as a learning theory for the digital age. In 2007 Kerr entered into the debate with a series of lectures and talks on the matter, as did Forster, both at the Online Connectivism Conference at the University of Manitoba. In 2008, in the context of digital and e-learning, connectivism was reconsidered and its technological implications were discussed by Siemens' and Ally. |
9689_3 | Nodes and links
The central aspect of connectivism is the metaphor of a network with nodes and connections. In this metaphor, a node is anything that can be connected to another node such as an organization, information, data, feelings, and images. Connectivism recognizes three node types: neural, conceptual (internal) and external. Connectivism sees learning as the process of creating connections and expanding or increasing network complexity. Connections may have different directions and strength. In this sense, a connection joining nodes A and B which goes from A to B is not the same as one that goes from B to A. There are some special kinds of connections such as "self-join" and pattern. A self-join connection joins a node to itself and a pattern can be defined as "a set of connections appearing together as a single whole". |
9689_4 | The idea of organisation as cognitive systems where knowledge is distributed across nodes originated from the Perceptron (Artificial neuron) in an Artificial Neural Network, and is directly borrowed from Connectionism, "a software structure developed based on concepts inspired by biological functions of brain; it aims at creating machines able to learn like human".
The network metaphor allows a notion of "know-where" (the understanding of where to find the knowledge when it is needed) to supplement to the ones of "know-how" and "know-what" that make the cornerstones of many theories of learning.
As Downes states: "at its heart, connectivism is the thesis that knowledge is distributed across a network of connections, and therefore that learning consists of the ability to construct and traverse those networks". |
9689_5 | Principles
Principles of connectivism include:
Learning and knowledge rests in diversity of opinions.
Learning is a process of connecting specialized nodes or information sources.
Learning may reside in non-human appliances.
Learning is more critical than knowing.
Maintaining and nurturing connections is needed to facilitate continuous learning. When the interaction time between the actors of a learning environment is not enough, the learning networks cannot be consolidated.
Perceiving connections between fields, ideas and concepts is a core skill.
Currency (accurate, up-to-date knowledge) is the intent of learning activities.
Decision-making is itself a learning process. Choosing what to learn and the meaning of incoming information is seen through the lens of a shifting reality. While there is a right answer now, it may be wrong tomorrow due to alterations in the information climate affecting the decision. |
9689_6 | Teaching methods
Summarizing connectivist teaching and learning, Downes states: "to teach is to model and demonstrate, to learn is to practice and reflect."
In 2008, Siemens and Downes delivered an online course called "Connectivism and Connective Knowledge". It covered connectivism as content while attempting to implement some of their ideas. The course was free to anyone who wished to participate, and over 2000 people worldwide enrolled. The phrase "Massive Open Online Course" (MOOC) describes this model. All course content was available through RSS feeds, and learners could participate with their choice of tools: threaded discussions in Moodle, blog posts, Second Life and synchronous online meetings. The course was repeated in 2009 and in 2011.
At its core, connectivism is a form of experiential learning which prioritizes the set of formed by actions and experience over the idea that knowledge is propositional. |
9689_7 | Criticisms
The idea that connectivism is a new theory of learning is not widely accepted. Verhagen argued that connectivism is rather a "pedagogical view." |
9689_8 | The lack of comparative literature reviews in Connectivism papers complicate evaluating how Connectivism relates to prior theories, such as Socially Distributed Cognition (Hutchins, 1995), which explored how connectionist ideas could be applied to social systems. Classical theories of cognition such as Activity theory (Vygotsky, Leont’ev, Luria, and others starting in the 1920s) proposed that people are embedded actors, with learning considered via three features – a subject (the learner), an object (the task or activity) and tool or mediating artifacts. Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1962) claimed that people learn by watching others. Social learning theory (Miller and Dollard) elaborated this notion. Situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Greeno & Moore, 1993) alleged that knowledge is situated in activity bound to social, cultural and physical contexts; knowledge and learning that requires thinking on the fly rather than the storage and retrieval of conceptual |
9689_9 | knowledge. Community of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991) asserted that the process of sharing information and experiences with the group enables members to learn from each other. Collective intelligence (Lévy, 1994) described a shared or group intelligence that emerges from collaboration and competition. |
9689_10 | Kerr claims that although technology affects learning environments, existing learning theories are sufficient. Kop and Hill conclude that while it does not seem that connectivism is a separate learning theory, it "continues to play an important role in the development and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly more autonomous learner."
AlDahdouh examined the relation between connectivism and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) and the results, unexpectedly, revealed that ANN researchers use constructivism principles to teach ANN with labeled training data. However, he argued that connectivism principles are used to teach ANN only when the knowledge is unknown. |
9689_11 | Ally recognizes that the world has changed and become more networked, so learning theories developed prior to these global changes are less relevant. However, he argues that, "What is needed is not a new stand-alone theory for the digital age, but a model that integrates the different theories to guide the design of online learning materials.".
Chatti notes that Connectivism misses some concepts, which are crucial for learning, such as reflection, learning from failures, error detection and correction, and inquiry. He introduces the Learning as a Network (LaaN) theory which builds upon connectivism, complexity theory, and double-loop learning. LaaN starts from the learner and views learning as the continuous creation of a personal knowledge network (PKN). |
9689_12 | Schwebel of Torrens University notes that Connectivism provides limited account for how learning occurs online. Conceding that learning occurs across networks, he introduces a paradox of change. If Connectivism accounts for this changing in networks, and these networks change so drastically, as technology has in the past, then theses like this must account for that change too, making it no longer the same theory. Furthermore, citing Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Schwebel notes that the nodes can impede on the types of learning that can occur, leading to issues with democratised education, as content presented within the network will both be limited to how the network can handle information, and what content is likely to be presented within the network through behaviourist style principles of reinforcement, as providers are likely to recirculate, reproduce and reiterate information that is rewarded through things such as likes.
See also
References
External links |
9689_13 | Connectivism: A learning theory for today's learner
Web Presentation (Oral/Slide show) on Connectivism
Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused?
Learning theory (education)
Philosophy of education
Technology integration models |
9690_0 | Nadodi Mannan () is a 1958 Indian Tamil-language action adventure film directed by M. G. Ramachandran in his debut as a filmmaker. He stars in dual roles alongside P. Bhanumathi, M. N. Rajam and B. Saroja Devi. P. S. Veerappa, M. N. Nambiar, M. G. Chakrapani, T. K. Balachandran and Chandrababu play supporting roles. The film revolves around a king being replaced by a look-alike after getting abducted on the eve of his coronation. The look-alike begins to implement social and economic reforms to uplift the poor which irks the kingdom's high priest, who has kidnapped the very person the look-alike resembles. The rest of the film shows how the look-alike saves the man he impersonates and defeats the high priest. |
9690_1 | Made on a budget of 1.8 million, Ramachandran co-produced the film with Chakrapani and R. M. Veerappan under the banner of Em.Gee.Yar Pictures. C. Kuppusami, K. Srinivasan, and P. Neelakantan were in charge of the screenplay. Kannadasan and Ravindar undertook the responsibility of writing the dialogues. The cinematography was handled by G. K. Ramu while K. Perumal and C. P. Jambulingam did the editing. S. M. Subbaiah Naidu and N. S. Balakrishnan composed the film's soundtrack and score. Songs from the soundtrack like "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey", "Thadukkathey", "Summa Kedandha", and "Senthamizhe" became popular hits. |
9690_2 | Filmed in both black and white as well as Gevacolor, Nadodi Mannan was released on 22 August 1958 and garnered positive critical reception. It was a commercial success, grossing 11 million in its lifetime, thereby becoming only the second Tamil film to earn 10 million after another Ramachandran starrer Madurai Veeran (1956); it became a silver jubilee film. Nadodi Mannan acquired cult status in Tamil cinema, and became a turning point for Ramachandran in terms of both his acting and political career. |
9690_3 | Plot
The kingdom of Ratnapuri is besieged by food shortages and high unemployment. Since the king's only daughter Ratna is missing and the king dies without naming a successor, Marthandan, a member of the royal family, is chosen by a majority of the imperial council of Ratnapuri to be its new ruler. However, the kingdom's Rajaguru (high priest) Vijayavarman plans to kill Marthandan and make Pingalan, Marthandan's cousin, king. Meanwhile, Veerabahu, a loyal bodyguard of the late king, and his men, including his son Bhupathi and daughter Madhana, are not pleased to see Marthandan as a king and are equally saddened by the situation of Ratnapuri's people. |
9690_4 | Violent protests erupt all over the kingdom led by Veerangan, Marthandan's look-alike, with the support of his friend Sagayam. The protestors march to the palace condemning the monarchy and demanding democracy. Veerangan is imprisoned for his actions in Naganathapuram, a nearby town. Madhana is also incarcerated in the same prison on a similar charge. They are pardoned and released on the occasion of Marthandan's coronation. They travel together to Ratnapuri. Sharing the same ideals and revolutionary thoughts, they fall in love. |
9690_5 | In the meantime, Marthandan arrives at Ratnapuri. Vijayavarman asks him to stay in an isolated palace on the outskirts and tells him that he should not meet his wife Manohari until the coronation, as the current moment is inauspicious. On entering a hotel in Ratnapuri, Veerangan and Sagayam beat up a gang of rowdies. Hired by Vijayavarman, they mistake Veerangan for Marthandan. Veerangan is chased by palace guards and ends up in Marthandan's room. Marthandan and Veerangan meet face to face. Veerangan tells him of the pathetic state of the people of Ratnapuri, and Marthandan agrees to set everything right as soon as he takes charge. |
9690_6 | On the eve of the coronation, Vijayavarman arranges for Marthandan to be poisoned. He carries out his plan with the help of Karmegam (M. G. Chakrapani), a royal advisor. Marthandan swoons after drinking a few sips of the poisoned beverage, but is soon saved by Veerangan and Ratnapuri's commander-in-chief. However, Marthandan is still unconscious and incapacitated. The commander-in-chief, and one of the ministers, persuade Veerangan to take Marthandan's place to ensure that the coronation takes place as scheduled. A reluctant Veerangan agrees to do so in the interests of the state, and arrives just in time for the coronation. It takes place smoothly and Veerangan, as Marthandan, becomes Ratnapuri's new king. Vijayavarman and Pingalan are taken aback and send men to investigate. They find the unconscious Marthandan and kidnap him. |
9690_7 | Veerangan now finds himself saddled with the role of a king for more days than he had initially bargained for because of Marthandan's sudden disappearance. He does not let this setback deter him and puts the opportunity to good use by beginning many reforms, and enacting several measures to uplift the poor. These steps are supported by the people while causing a political upheaval among the elite. However, he is troubled by the fact that he is deceiving Manohari who believes him to be Marthandan. Unable to keep it a secret from her, he tells her the truth. Perceiving his noble character, Manohari accepts him as her brother. Madhana is killed by Pingalan, and a grief-stricken Veerangan vows to avenge her death. He discovers through Veerabahu that both Marthandan and Ratna have been kidnapped and held in custody on an island named Kanni Theevu. |
9690_8 | Veerangan sails to Kanni Theevu and comes across Ratna, who falls in love with him; he reciprocates her feelings. Pingalan and Karmegam arrive there only to find that the island's chieftain is none other than Vijayavarman, who has kidnapped Ratna after she was born. Vijayavarman plans to marry Ratna himself, get rid of Pingalan, and declare himself the ruler of Ratnapuri. Pingalan decides to take Ratna back and make himself king legally by marrying her. Ratna does not approve of it. Pingalan takes her away by force. Veerangan saves her from Pingalan's clutches. The duo then frees Marthandan and Karmegam, who had been captured by Vijayavarman and is now reformed. Both Marthandan and Veerangan defeat Vijayavarman. Veerangan marries Ratna, and Marthandan issues a proclamation stating that Ratnapuri is a democracy.
Cast |
9690_9 | Male actors
M. G. Ramachandran as Marthandan and Veerangan
P. S. Veerappa as Vijayavarman
M. N. Nambiar as Pingalan
M. G. Chakrapani as Karmegam
T. K. Balachandran as Bhupathi
Chandrababu as Sagayam
K. R. Ramsingh as Veerabahu
Female actors
P. Bhanumathi as Madhana
M. N. Rajam as Manohari
B. Saroja Devi as Ratna
G. Sakunthala as Nandini
T. P. Muthulakshmi as Nagamma
K. S. Angamuthu as Pappa
Production |
9690_10 | Development
After the release of Naam (1953), M. G. Ramachandran and his brother M. G. Chakrapani, who were its co-producers and shareholders, were keen to make a film under their own production banner. Hence, they established Em.Gee.Yar Productions and hired M. Karunanidhi to draft a script for their company's debut film titled Vidivelli. The film was shelved after Karunanidhi was imprisoned for participating in the Kallakudi demonstration in July 1953. Ramachandran and Chakrapani then dissolved Em.Gee.Yar Productions and established the Em.Gee.Yar drama troupe instead, but the idea of producing a film was still on Ramachandran's mind. |
9690_11 | Ramachandran had dreamt of making his own film ever since he attended a screening of Frank Lloyd's historical drama, If I Were King (1938) starring Ronald Colman, in Calcutta. This occurred while he was playing a minor role in Maya Machhindra (1939). He wished to make a film that would express his political views and interests to the people of Tamil Nadu. To this end, he assembled a team of three people: R. M. Veerappan, V. Lakshmanan and S. K. T. Sami. He gave them suggestions about the outline of the story and urged them to watch If I Were King and two other films: The Prisoner of Zenda (1937), another Colman film, and Elia Kazan's Viva Zapata! (1952). After several brainstorming sessions, the team came up with a story loosely based on the three films and decided on the title Nadodi Mannan. The trio then helped make it look more Indian. |
9690_12 | Nadodi Mannan was produced on a budget of 1.8 million, which was considered approximately two-and-a-half times more expensive than the average Tamil film made at the time. Nearly a year was spent on pre-production and casting. K. Ramnoth was appointed initially to direct the film, but died before production began resulting in Ramachandran taking over the position himself, thereby making his directorial debut. This was the second film produced by Ramachandran, and the first under the production banner of Em.Gee.Yar Pictures, which was handled by Ramachandran, Chakrapani and Veerappan. Kannadasan and Ravindar, who assisted Veerappan, Lakshmanan and Sami with the story, wrote the dialogues. The screenplay was written by the trio of C. Kuppusami, K. Srinivasan and P. Neelakantan. G. K. Ramu, K. Nageswar Rao and R. N. Nagaraja Rao were in charge of cinematography, art direction and stills. K. P. Ramakrishnan and Arunachalam acted as stunt doubles for Ramachandran. |
9690_13 | Film historian Film News Anandan noticed publicity stills of Nadodi Mannan on Veerappan's office desk when he happened to visit the office of Em.Gee.Yar Pictures. He then offered to distribute them to the press. Veerappan agreed knowing that Anandan was then a member of the South Indian Film Journalists Association. After a few days, stills of the film were published in many magazines. Ramachandran was impressed with Anandan's work and, at Veerappan's suggestion, hired him as the film's public relations officer (PRO). This was Anandan's debut film as a PRO; however, his name does not appear in the opening credits. |
9690_14 | Casting |
9690_15 | During the filming of Alibabavum 40 Thirudargalum (1956), an advertisement for Nadodi Mannan was released describing it as an adaptation of The Prisoner of Zenda. Two days later, Bharani Pictures, the production company co-founded by P. S. Ramakrishna Rao and P. Bhanumathi, released an advertisement for a film whose concept was similar to The Prisoner of Zenda. When Ramachandran and Bhanumathi heard their films were similar, they tried to convince each other to change their film's storyline. After much deliberation, Ramachandran told Bhanumathi that he was keeping "only the section of a commoner switched to king" in the original, while the rest of the film would be different. Ramachandran accepted that they were both confused over what to do next. A few days later, for unknown reasons, Bharani Pictures' planned film was shelved. Bhanumathi informed Ramachandran and told him he could go ahead with his film. She offered Ramachandran her shelved film's script, written by A. K. Velan, and |
9690_16 | asked him to use it for Nadodi Mannan. Ramachandran thanked her for her generosity, and offered her the role of Madhana; Bhanumathi agreed. |
9690_17 | M. N. Rajam was cast as Manohari, the queen of Ratnapuri, and king Marthandan's wife. Ramachandran wanted Rajam for the role to avoid her being typecast as a character-driven by jealousy and malice. For the role of Ratna, B. Saroja Devi was selected after a successful audition. Saroja Devi was not fluent in Tamil at the time, so her dialogues were written in such a way that she would find it easier to pronounce them. P. S. Veerappa, M. N. Nambiar and Chakrapani played the antagonists Vijayavarman, Pingalan and Karmegam. T. K. Balachandran, who was prominent in Malayalam films, was cast as Bhupathi. K. R. Ramsingh was selected for the role of Madhana and Bhupathi's father, Veerabahu, after Ramachandran was impressed by his performance in one of the stage plays he featured in. Chandrababu played Veerangan's friend and sidekick, Sagayam. T. P. Muthulakshmi was cast as Nagamma, a native of Kanni Theevu, who wants a husband. G. Sakunthala played Manohari's lady-in-waiting Nandini and K. S. |
9690_18 | Angamuthu the restaurateur Pappa respectively. |
9690_19 | Filming
Nadodi Mannan was filmed in black-and-white for the sequences in Ratnapuri, and in Gevacolor for the later scenes depicting the happenings on Kanni Theevu. The film's colour sections were processed at the Film Centre laboratory in Bombay. Principal photography took place from 1956 to 1957 over a period of 156 days, which was more than the usual amount of time taken for shooting as most films in that period were completed in 40–50 days. The song "Sammadhama" was the first sequence to be shot. The underwater sequence for the song "Kannil Vanthu Minnalpol", the dance scenes for the song "Maanaithedi Machchaan", and "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey" took 12, 9 and 3 days each to shoot. The climax portions involving Ramachandran, Saroja Devi and Veerappa required 11 days of filming, while the sword fights between of Ramachandran and Nambiar were shot in a week. |
9690_20 | As the director, Ramachandran wanted the end result to be perfect and shot multiple retakes for the same scene. Bhanumathi found his perfectionist directorial style demanding as she was used to finishing her scenes in a single take. She complained about the same, opining that Ramachandran should leave the job of directing the film to someone else instead, only then would she provide her commitment without charging any additional cost. Ramachandran asked her to either do the role as he preferred or leave the project. Bhanumathi left, and her remaining scenes were altered by having her character, Madhana, die. Since Ramachandran shot retakes, a lot of film was wasted. At the time, film studios allowed the use of only a small number of film rolls to avoid budgetary concerns. Ramachandran bought from outside sources for 500, which was considered expensive. As a result of these various problems during the project's production, it was dubbed as Komali Mannan ("Jester King") by the magazine |
9690_21 | Dina Thanthi. |
9690_22 | During filming, Ramachandran received support from various members of the Tamil cinema industry. B. Nagi Reddy allowed Ramachandran to build the sets for Nadodi Mannan at Vijaya Vauhini Studios. Likewise, S. S. Vasan of Gemini Studios volunteered his equipment to ensure that the climax scenes came out well; it was the only time the studio's equipment was used outside its premises. The outdoor sequences were shot in collaboration with Aruna Films. Ramachandran asked director K. Subramanyam to participate in the filmmaking as an overseer. Subramanyam was impressed with Ramachandran's approach and felt there was no need for anyone to supervise him. Subrahmanyam also helped make arrangements for filming some outdoor shots at Munnar. These were done in collaboration with Aruna Films. Aarumugam handled the editing initially, but left during the beginning of the film's principal photography; he was later replaced by K. Perumal. C. P. Jambulingam took responsibility for editing the film's |
9690_23 | colour portions after Perumal suddenly fell ill. The final length of Nadodi Mannan was . |
9690_24 | Themes
Nadodi Mannan was inspired by films such as The Prisoner of Zenda, If I Were King and Viva Zapata!. Ramachandran, in an account about the film he wrote in 1959, mentioned three specific differences from The Prisoner of Zenda. In the original, the look-alike and the queen have an intimate relationship while in Nadodi Mannan, Veerangan rejects Manohari's advances. When she realises that Veerangan is not Marthandan, she addresses him as her brother instead. Secondly, the look-alike was related to the king and shared the same interests. Veerangan is not related to Marthandan and initially has contrasting traits until they meet. Thirdly, the character of Vijayavarman, and the sequences in Kanni Theevu, do not feature in the original, while these were incorporated as part of Nadodi Mannans main plot. |
9690_25 | Sri Lankan film historian Sachi Sri Kantha noted that several of Ramachandran's films reflect the 1950s trend of films being "costume dramas" that focus on princes and folk heroes, citing Nadodi Mannan as an example. Kantha points out that the protagonist featured in a "riding scene with an educational (or philosophical) song" with "either the heroine or a side-kick (comedian) or an actor in a minor role" alongside him is a recurring theme in many films starring Ramachandran. According to Kantha, this was after the song "Ethanai Kaalam Thaan Ematruvar Indha Naatinile" from Malaikkallan (1954) became popular. In Nadodi Mannan, the song "Summa Kedandha" which features Ramachandran alongside Bhanumathi, and "Uzhaipa Thilla" which features an extra, were described by Kantha as "educational songs with a riding scene". |
9690_26 | R. Ilangovan of Frontline magazine believed the lyrics for "Summa Kedandha", which were written by Pattukkottai Kalyanasundaram who was a member of the Communist Party of India, "are a classic example of how he presented forcefully the idea of radical reforms". Ilangovan mentions the presentation of reforms by Kalyanasundaram in the song is indicated by two lines: "Kadu velanchenna machan, namakku kaiyum, kalum thane mitcham" (What if the fields are lush with crops, we are left with mere hands and legs) reflects a pessimistic tone, while “Kadu vilayttum ponnae, namakku kalam irukkuthu pennae” (Let the fields sprout, young lady, our time will come), presents an optimistic feel. |
9690_27 | Nadodi Mannan is considered by many critics, historians and intellectuals to be a propaganda film of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) as Ramachandran was affiliated with the party at that time. Film historians Ashish Rajadhyaksha and Paul Willemen, Vaasanthi, S. Rajanayagam and politician S. Jagathrakshakan note that the black and red flag of the DMK, as well as the party's rising sun symbol, are seen in the film. Rajadhyaksha and Willemen further state that Vijayavarman's corrupt nature is "a thinly disguised reference to the Congress Party". Both Vaasanthi and another film historian, Selvaraj Velayutham, mention a scene where Ramachandran issues a decree that can be passed off as "a DMK election manifesto". According to both Erik Barnouw and Sisir Kumar Das, the song "Senthamizhe" represents the glorification of the Tamil language, identity and culture. It also symbolises what Das describes as "a medium of propagation of D.M.K. ideology". Of the same song, Ramachandran's |
9690_28 | biographer R. Kannan found it to be a continuation of including songs with political messages in films beginning with Malaikkallan. Ramachandran even went on to say, during the celebration of the film's 100th-day theatrical run, that: "Nadodi Mannan has been produced to show that the DMK is the party which is serving the people of this country." |
9690_29 | Music
N. S. Balakrishnan composed the songs "Paadupattathannale", "Sammadhama" and "Senthamizhe" while the rest were by S. M. Subbaiah Naidu, who was also in charge of the background score. The songs' lyrics were written by Pattukkottai Kalyanasundaram, Suratha, Kavi Lakshmanadas, N. M. Muthukkoothan and M. K. Athmanathan. The song "Varuga Varuga Vendhe", written by Suratha, was also composed in Kannada, Malayalam and in Telugu with lyrics by Vijaya Narasimha, P. Bhaskaran, and Narayanababu respectively. The track "Summa Kedandha" was written earlier for the news agency Janasakthi before Kalyansundaram used it for the film with a few minor changes in the lyrics. The songs were recorded on 45 RPM records produced by The Gramophone Company of India Ltd label, which also released the soundtrack. Plans for the inclusion of another track, "Kaalai Maatai Paal Karaga Paarkiraanga", were dropped since a pair of bullocks were used as the symbol of the Congress Party at that time. |
9690_30 | The soundtrack received positive feedback with songs like "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey," "Thadukkathey", "Summa Kedandha" and "Senthamizhe" becoming popular hits. Sachi Sri Kantha called "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey" a "magical educational song," further describing it as one of the songs that Ramachandran used to direct "his attention on the listlessness among Tamil workers". Rajadhyaksha and Willemen mention in their book, Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, that "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey" had inaugurated "MGR's personal political programme". Both Sridhar Swaminathan of Hindu Tamil Thisai and Maayan of the Tamil magazine Ananda Vikatan also cite the same song as a good example of children's education. A reviewer from The New Indian Express called the songs "philosophy-espousing" while noting how they "spelt the Dravidian tenets".
Release |
9690_31 | Nadodi Mannan was released on 22 August 1958. The expenses made for the film resulted in Ramachandran not having enough money to buy release prints. Hence, Veerappan and Chakrapani decided to acquire a legal loan of 50,000 from AVM Productions. However, Ramachandran's signature was required for the loan contract. When they consulted with him on this issue, he asked Veerappan and Chakrapani to tell the studio's founder A. V. Meiyappan that they would repay the loan and keep the price paid by the production company, Cinemas Limited, for distribution rights for the film's release in Sri Lanka as collateral. Meiyappan agreed to provide the loan, which was repaid by Veerappan immediately after the film's release.
Reception
Critical reception |
9690_32 | The film received positive critical response. A review carried by Ananda Vikatan dated 7 September 1958, appreciated the film for being a commercial entertainer, describing it as a treat to the eyes. The review concluded that the film could be seen more than once. K. Jeshi from The Hindu appreciated the filmmaking techniques used to portray Ramachandran's dual roles, noting that it was "technically superior". A reviewer from the entertainment and news website Sify called it "a pucca mass entertainer".
Rajadhyaksha and Willemen mention that Nadodi Mannan was made "in a style derived from Gemini's post-Chandralekha (1948) films". James K. Norton, the author of the book Global Studies, India and South Asia, called the film "a prime example of how rhetoric and action were combined to build an image as a hero of the oppressed". Rajanayagam however, criticised Ramachandran's role as Marthandan, pointing out that the character's mannerisms are "overdone to the point of annoyance". |
9690_33 | Box office
Shortly before its release, Ramachandran's take on the film's fate was: "I am a king if this were to succeed. If not, I will be a vagabond." The film turned out to be an unprecedented success at the box office, grossing 11 million, becoming only the second Tamil film to earn more than 10 million after Madurai Veeran (1956), which also featured Ramachandran in the lead. The film ran for 100 days in 23 theatres worldwide. It went on to achieve a theatrical run of 175 days and become a silver jubilee film. It was dubbed into Telugu as Anaganaga Oka Raju and as Hamen Bhi Jeene Do in Hindi. |
9690_34 | The DMK party celebrated the success of Nadodi Mannan with a public function on 16 October 1958 at the Tamukkam Ground in Madurai. The function, which was attended by 200,000 people, saw Ramachandran being taken in a procession on a chariot drawn by four horses and garlanded twice. He was awarded a golden sword worth 110 pounds by the party leader C. N. Annadurai and member V. R. Nedunchezhiyan. Ramachandran later donated the sword to the Kollur Mookambika Temple.
The film's 100th-day theatrical run celebrations were held on 30 November 1958 at the Alagappa College in Madurai. Another round of celebrations were held on the same day at the SIAA Grounds in Chennai where Annadurai praised Ramachandran, calling him his "Idhayakkani" or "heart's fruit", also stating, "Praising MGR is like me praising myself". Ramachandran later called that moment as the most memorable one in his life.
Legacy
Impact and influence |
9690_35 | Nadodi Mannan was a turning point in Ramachandran's career as both an actor and a politician. The film's success earned him the nickname "Puratchi Thalaivar" ("revolutionary leader"). Biographer Kannan dubbed the film as "the biggest propaganda blitzkrieg for the DMK till then. Film historian Swarnavel Eswaran Pillai called Nadodi Mannan Ramachandran's "defining film as a star". The film acquired cult status in Tamil cinema and propelled Saroja Devi to stardom. T. S. Subramanian of Frontline noted that it was one among many of Ramachandran's films in the 1950s where he "espoused his personal ideals such as helping the poor, being chivalrous and fighting injustice." Film historian and critic Randor Guy labelled Nadodi Mannan as among the most memorable films both Nambiar and Veerappa had worked in. |
9690_36 | Ramachandran planned his second directorial film to be titled after the song "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey", but the project was abandoned, and the song was instead used as the title for a 1983 film starring Kamal Haasan. In their 2006 reviews of Imsai Arasan 23rd Pulikecei, both Baskaran of The Hindu, and S. Sudha of Rediff.com, mention the film shared similarities with Nadodi Mannan. In July 2007, S. R. Ashok Kumar of The Hindu asked eight Tamil film directors to list their all-time favourite Tamil films; K. Bhagyaraj named Nadodi Mannan. Bhagyaraj selected the film because he "enjoyed the way both heroes combine acting prowess with entertainment". In the film Padikkadavan (2009), Assault Aarumugam (Vivek) is disguised as a woman and is chased by two thugs who mistake him for a real woman. During the chase, the song "Maanaithedi Machan" is played in the background. |
9690_37 | Baradwaj Rangan, writing for The Hindu in 2014, mentions in his review of Kaththi that the film's basic plot was "the old template, shaped with a relevant, burning social angle." For the same newspaper, Namrata Joshi noted that Prem Ratan Dhan Payo (2015) bore a resemblance to Nadodi Mannan in terms of a prince's look-alike taking his place. Lyricist Thamarai mentions in her interview with Rangan that she wishes to write songs as beautiful as "Thoongathey Thambi Thoongathey".
Cancelled sequel
Ramachandran had planned a sequel to Nadodi Mannan titled Nadodiyin Magan, but the project was abandoned.
Re-releases
Nadodi Mannan was first re-released on 4 August 2006 in Chennai and Chengalpattu by Divya Films, which spent 300,000 on poster designs and promotions for its re-release. The film opened to a positive response from the audience. It received another successful re-release on 18 March 2011 in Madurai.
Notes
References
Bibliography
External links |
9690_38 | 1950s Tamil-language films
1958 films
Indian action adventure films
Films scored by S. M. Subbaiah Naidu
Films about royalty
Films shot in Munnar
1950s action adventure films
Indian films
1950s historical adventure films
Indian swashbuckler films
Indian historical adventure films
1958 directorial debut films |
9691_0 | Caesar's Civil War (49–45 BC) was one of the last politico-military conflicts of the Roman Republic before its reorganization into the Roman Empire. It began as a series of political and military confrontations between Gaius Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Before the war, Caesar had led an invasion of Gaul for almost ten years. A build-up of tensions starting in late 49 BC, with both Caesar and Pompey refusing to back down led, however, to the outbreak of civil war. Eventually, Pompey and his allies induced the Senate to demand Caesar give up his provinces and armies. Caesar refused and instead marched on Rome. |
9691_1 | The war was a four-year-long politico-military struggle, fought in Italy, Illyria, Greece, Egypt, Africa, and Hispania. Pompey defeated Caesar in 48 BC at the Battle of Dyrrhachium, but was himself defeated decisively at the Battle of Pharsalus. Many former Pompeians, including Marcus Junius Brutus and Cicero, surrendered after the battle, while others, e.g. Cato the Younger and Metellus Scipio fought on. Pompey fled to Egypt and was killed upon arrival. Scipio was defeated in 46 BC at the Battle of Thapsus in North Africa. He and Cato committed suicide shortly after the battle. The following year, Caesar defeated the last of the Pompeians under his former lieutenant Labienus in the Battle of Munda and became dictator perpetuo (Dictator in perpetuity or Dictator for life) of Rome.
Background |
9691_2 | The main issue at hand in the lead-up to the war was how Caesar, who had been in Gaul for almost ten years before 49 BC, was to be re-integrated into the political fabric of Rome after accumulating immense power and wealth in Gaul.
Starting from 58 BC, the year after his consulship in 59, Caesar had held the proconsulship of Cisalpine Gaul along with Illyricum under the terms of the lex Vatinia and Transalpine Gaul at the assignment of the Senate. Caesar had allied himself with Crassus and Pompey in the so-called First Triumvirate during his consulship. The alliance of three men "induced a sharp restructuring of alliances and alignments" with temporary benefit to them but harm in the long-run with aristocratic groups coalescing in opposition. The short-term benefits to the three emerged from their own purposes: ratification of Pompey's eastern settlement, agrarian measures involving Pompey and Crassus. |
9691_3 | The political alliance between the three began to fray in the mid 50s BC, but was put on hold with a renegotiation and the joint consulship of Pompey and Crassus in 55 BC. Their joint consulship assigned new provincial commands to the consuls, with Pompey receiving Spain while Crassus went to Syria to fight the Parthians; Caesar, for his part, had his proconsulship in Gaul renewed. |
9691_4 | After Crassus' departure from Rome at the end of 55 BC and following his death in battle in 53 BC, the alliance started to fracture more cleanly. With the death of Crassus, and that of Julia (Caesar's daughter and Pompey's wife) in 54 BC, the balance of power between Pompey and Caesar collapsed and "a faceoff between [the two] may, therefore, have seemed inevitable". From 61 BC, the main political fault-line in Rome was counterbalancing against the influence of Pompey, leading to his seeking allies outside the core senatorial aristocracy, i.e. Crassus and Caesar; but the rise of anarchic political violence from 55–52 BC finally forced the Senate to ally with Pompey to restore order. The breakdown of order in 53 and 52 BC was extremely disturbing: men like Publius Clodius Pulcher and Titus Annius Milo were "essentially independent agents" leading large violent street gangs in a highly volatile political environment. This led to Pompey's sole consulship in 52 BC in which he took sole |
9691_5 | control of the city without convening an electoral assembly. |
9691_6 | Political agitation to strip Caesar of his command and his legions had already started in the spring of 51 BC: M Claudius Marcellus argued in that year that the capture of Alesia and victory over Vercingetorix meant that Caesar's provincia (i.e., task) in Gaul was completed and therefore his command had lapsed. He also argued that Caesar's expected desire to stand for a second consulship in absentia was no longer justified after his victory. Regardless, the Senate rejected Marcellus' motion, as well as his later motion to declare Caesar's term in Gaul to end on 1 March 50 BC. At this time, Pompey was also instrumental in rejecting the proposed motions. |
9691_7 | After summer of 50, "positions had been hardened and events progressed irreversibly toward cataclysm", with Pompey now rejecting any Caesar's standing for a second consulship until he gave up his army and provinces. The Senate as a whole was relatively pacific, strongly supporting a proposal by Caesar's ally C Scribonius Curio, who was then tribune of the plebs, that both Pompey and Caesar give up their armies and commands. The proposal passed in the Senate by 370 in favour to 22 against on 1 December 50 BC, it was rejected by Pompey and the consul. The consul, C Claudius Marcellus then seized upon rumours that Caesar was preparing to invade Italy and charged Pompey with defending the city and the Republic. |
9691_8 | One of the reasons given as to why Caesar decided to go to war was that he would be prosecuted for legal irregularities during his consulship in 59 BC and violations of various laws passed by Pompey in the late 50s, the consequence of which would be ignominious exile. However, the prosecution theory emerging from Suetonious and Pollio is in "highly dubious territory" and "dubious in the extreme". There is no evidence from the period 50-49 BC that anyone was seriously planning on putting Caesar on trial. Caesar's choice to fight the civil war was motivated mostly stumbling in efforts to attain a second consulship and triumph, in which failure to do so would have jeopardised his political future. Moreover, war in 49 BC was advantageous for Caesar, who had continued military preparations while Pompey and the republicans had barely started preparing. |
9691_9 | Even in ancient times, the causes of the war were puzzling and perplexing, with specific motives "nowhere to be found". Various pretexts existed, such as Caesar's claim that he was defending the rights of tribunes after they fled the city, which was "too obvious a sham". Caesar's own explanation was that he would protect his personal dignitas; both Caesar and Pompey were impelled by pride, with Caesar refusing to "yield submissively to the blusterings of the conservatives, much less to the bullying of Pompey" in Gruen's words, and Pompey similarly refusing to accept Caesar's proposals, delivered as if they were directives. There was little conscious desire for war until the last weeks of 50 BC, but "the boni had entrapped themselves... in a political vise from which they could not emerge with dignity except by aggressive self-assertion" while Caesar could not "permit [his status and reputation] to collapse through submission".
Civil War |
9691_10 | For the months leading up to January 49 BC, both Caesar and the anti-Caesarians composed of Pompey, Cato, and others seemed to believe that the other would back down or, failing that, offer acceptable terms. Trust had eroded between the two over the last few years and repeated cycles of brinksmanship harmed chances for compromise. |
9691_11 | On 1 January 49 BC, Caesar stated that he would be willing to resign if other commanders would also do so but, in Gruen's words, "would not endure any disparity in their [Caesar and Pompey's] forces", appearing to threaten war if his terms were not met. Caesar's representatives in the city met with senatorial leaders with a more conciliatory message, with Caesar willing to give up Transalpine Gaul if he would be permitted to keep two legions and the right to stand for consul without giving up his imperium (and, thus, right to triumph), but these terms were rejected by Cato, who declared he would not agree to anything unless it was presented publicly before the Senate. |
9691_12 | The Senate was persuaded on the eve of war (7 January 49 BC) – while Pompey and Caesar continued to muster troops – to demand Caesar give up his post or be judged an enemy of the state. A few days later, the Senate then also stripped Caesar of his permission to stand for election in absentia and appointed a successor to Caesar's proconsulship in Gaul; while pro-Caesarian tribunes vetoed these proposals, the Senate ignored it and moved the senatus consultum ultimum, empowering the magistrates to take whatever actions were necessary to ensure the safety of the state. In response, a number of those pro-Caesarian tribunes, dramatising their plight, fled the city for Caesar's camp.
Crossing the Rubicon |
9691_13 | On the 10th or 11th of January, Caesar crossed the Rubicon, a small river marking the boundary between the province of Cisalpine Gaul to the north and Italy proper to the south. Crossing the Rubicon, Suetonius claims Caesar exclaimed alea iacta est ("the die is cast"), though Plutarch maintains Caesar spoke in Greek quoting the poet Menander with anerriphtho kubos ("ἀνερρίφθω κύβος," "let the die be thrown"); Caesar's own commentaries do not mention the Rubicon at all. This marked a formal start to hostilities, with Caesar being "undoubtedly a rebel". |
9691_14 | On both sides, the rank and file soldiers followed their leaders: "the Gallic legions obeyed their patron and benefactor [who] deserved well of the res publica... others followed Pompey and the consuls [who] represented the res publica". Caesar made sure to address his men: according to his own account, he spoke of injustices done to him by his political enemies, how Pompey had betrayed him, and focused mostly on how the rights of tribunes had been trampled by the Senate's ignoring tribunician vetoes, parading the tribunes who had fled the city before the troops in their disguises. On the senatus consultum ultimum, Caesar argued it was unnecessary and should be confined only to circumstances in which Rome was under direct threat. |
9691_15 | For most Romans, the choice of what side to pick was difficult. Only a small number of people were committed to one side or the other at the onset of hostilities. For example, Gaius Claudius Marcellus, who as consul in 50 BC had charged Pompey with defending the city, chose neutrality. The then-young Marcus Junius Brutus, whose father had been treacherously killed by Pompey during Brutus' childhood, whose mother was Caesar's lover, and who had been raised in Cato the Younger's house, chose to leave the city, setting off a post in Cilicia and thence to Pompey's camp. Caesar's most trusted lieutenant in Gaul, Titus Labienus also defected from Caesar to Pompey, possibly due to Caesar's hoarding of military glories or an earlier loyalty to Pompey.
March on Rome |
9691_16 | Caesar's timing was far-sighted: while Pompey's forces actually vastly outnumbered Caesar's single legion, composing at least 100 cohorts, or 10 legions, "by no stretch of the imagination could Italy have been described as prepared to meet an invasion". Caesar captured Ariminum (modern day Rimini) without resistance, his men having already infiltrated the city; he captured three more cities in quick succession. News of Caesar's incursion into Italy reached Rome around 17 January. In response Pompey "issued an edict in which he recognized a state of civil war, ordered all the senators to follow him, [and] declared that he would regard as a partisan of Caesar any one who remained behind". This led his allies to leave the city along with many uncommitted senators, fearing bloody reprisals of the previous civil wars; other senators simply left Rome for their country villas, hoping to keep a low profile. |
9691_17 | In late January, Caesar and Pompey were negotiating, with Caesar proposing that the two of them return to their provinces (which would have required Pompey to travel to Spain) and then disband their forces. Pompey accepted those terms provided that they withdraw from Italy at once and submit to arbitration of the dispute by the Senate, a counter-offer that Caesar rejected as doing so would have put him at the mercy of hostile senators while giving up all the advantages of his surprise invasion. Caesar continued to advance. |
9691_18 | After encountering five cohorts under Quintus Minucius Thermus at Iguvium, Thermus' forces deserted. Caesar quickly overran Picenum, the area from which Pompey's family originated. While Caesar's troops skirmished once with local forces, fortunately for him, the population was not hostile: his troops were refraining from looting and his opponents had "little popular appeal". In February 49 BC, Caesar received reinforcements and captured Asculum when the local garrison deserted. |
9691_19 | Only when he reached Corfinium did he encounter serious opposition led by Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, recently appointed governor of Gaul by the Senate. Pompey had urged Ahenobarbus to retreat south and join Pompey, but Ahenobarbus had responded with requests for support; regardless, Caesar prepared for a siege. After Ahenobarbus received a letter from Pompey denying support, he claimed help was on the way but was caught planning a personal escape; in response, his men arrested him and sent envoys to surrender to Caesar after a short week-long siege. Among the surrendered were some fifty senators and equestrians, all of whom Caesar allowed to go free. When Corfinium's local magistrates handed over some six million sestertii that Ahenobarbus had brought to pay his men, Caesar returned it to the men and asked them to take an oath of loyalty, which they did. |
9691_20 | Caesar's advance down the Adriatic coast was surprisingly clement and disciplined: his soldiers did not plunder the countryside as soldiers had during the Social War a few decades earlier; Caesar did not avenge himself on his political enemies as Sulla and Marius had done. The policy of clemency was also highly practical: Caesar's pacificity prevented the population of Italy from turning on him. At the same time, Pompey planned to escape east to Greece where he could raise a massive army from the eastern provinces. He therefore escaped to Brundisium (modern Brindisi), requisitioning merchant vessels to travel the Adriatic. |
9691_21 | Caesar pursued Pompey to Brundisium, arriving on 9 March with six legions. By then, most of Pompey's forces had departed, with a rearguard of two legions waiting for transport. While Caesar tried to block the harbour with earthworks and reopen negotiations, the earthworks were unsuccessful and Pompey refused to negotiate, escaping east with almost all of his men and all the ships in the region.
Spain and Africa |
9691_22 | Following this setback and taking advantage of Pompey's escape east, Caesar marched west to Hispania. While in Italy, he assembled a meeting of the rump Senate on 1 April; turnout was poor. There, Caesar repeated his grievances and requested senatorial envoys be sent to negotiate with Pompey; though the motion was passed, nobody volunteered. A meeting of the concilium plebis also was called; although Caesar promised every citizen a gift of 300 sestertii and a guarantee of the grain supply, the reception was muted. When one of the tribunes, L Caecilius Metellus interposed his veto against Caesar's attempt to raid the state treasury, his veto was either ignored or his life threatened until he backed down. This also showed the sham nature of Caesar's supposed casus belli in protecting the rights of tribunes: "the man who had proclaimed that he was championing the rights of the tribunes in January was now as ready as his opponents... [to] threaten one of these magistrates". Caesar's raid |
9691_23 | captured some 15 thousand gold bars, 30 thousand silver bars, and 30 million sestertii, even seizing a special fund kept over the centuries to defend against Gallic attack. |
9691_24 | Leaving Mark Antony in charge of Italy, Caesar set out west for Spain. En route, he started a siege of Massilia when the city barred him entry and came under the command of Domitius Ahenobarbus. Leaving a besieging force, Caesar continued to Spain with a small bodyguard and 900 German auxiliary cavalry. He arrived in June 49 and at Ilerda he defeated a Pompeian army under legates Lucius Afranius and Marcus Petreius. Pompey's remaining legate in Spain, Marcus Terentius Varro surrendered shortly thereafter, putting all of Spain under Caesar's control.
Concurrent to Caesar's invasion of Spain, he sent his lieutenant Curio to invade Sicily and Africa assisted by Gaius Caninius Rebilus, where his forces were decisively defeated in the Battle of the Bagradas River in August 49 BC. Curio was killed in battle. |
9691_25 | Returning to Rome in December 49 BC, Caesar left Quintus Cassius Longinus in command of Spain and had praetor Marcus Aemilius Lepidus appoint him dictator. As dictator, he conducted elections for the consulship of 48 BC before using the dictatorial powers to pass laws recalling from exile those condemned by Pompey's courts in 52 BC, excepting Titus Annius Milo, and restoring the political rights of the children of victims of the Sullan proscriptions. Holding the dictatorship would have been the only way to avoid giving up his imperium, legions, provincia, and right to triumph while within the pomerium. Standing in the same elections he conducted, he won a second term as consul with Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus as his colleague. He resigned the dictatorship after eleven days. Caesar then renewed his pursuit of Pompey across the Adriatic.
Greek and Macedonian campaign |
9691_26 | Arriving at Brundisium, Caesar did not have enough transports to sail his entire force, meaning that multiple voyages across the Adriatic would be needed; this was complicated by a Pompeian fleet stationed on the eastern side of the Adriatic under the command of Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus. Sailing on 4 January 48 BC – in reality, due to drift from the Roman calendar, late autumn – Caesar took the Pompeians by surprise, with Pompey's troops dispersed to winter quarters and Bibulus' fleet not ready. Bibulus' fleet, however, quickly sprung into action and captured some of Caesar's transports as they returned to Brundisium, leaving Caesar stranded with some seven legions and little food. Caesar then pushed to Apollonia with little local resistance, allowing him to secure a base and some food stores; seeing that the main Pompeian supply base was at Dyrrachium, Caesar advanced on it but withdrew when Pompey arrived first with superior forces. |
9691_27 | After receiving the remainder of his army from Italy under Mark Antony on 10 April, Caesar advanced against Dyrrachium again, leading to the Battle of Dyrrachium. After attempting circumvallation of the Pompeian defenders, Caesar attempted to capture the vital Pompeian logistics hub of Dyrrachium but was unsuccessful after Pompey occupied it and the surrounding heights. In response, Caesar besieged Pompey's camp and constructed a circumvallation thereof, until, after months of skirmishes, Pompey was able to break through Caesar's fortified lines and force Caesar into a strategic withdrawal for Thessaly. |
9691_28 | After the victory, seeking to spare Italy from invasion, prevent Caesar from defeating Scipio Nasica's forces arriving from Syria, and under pressure from his overconfident allies who accused him of prolonging the war to extend his command, Pompey sought to engage Caesar in a decisive battle. After meeting up with Scipio Nasica's Syrian reinforcements, Pompey led his forces after Caesar in early August, seeking favourable ground for a battle. After several days of cavalry skirmishes, Caesar was able to lure Pompey off of a hill and force battle on the plain of Pharsalus. During the battle, a flanking manoeuvre led by Labienus failed against a reserve line of Caesar's troops, leading to the collapse of the Pompeian infantry against Caesar's veterans. Shortly after the battle and sometime in October, Caesar was named dictator for the second time, for an entire year. |
9691_29 | Pompey, despairing of the defeat, fled with his advisors overseas to Mytilene and thence to Cilicia where he held a council of war; at the same time, Cato's supporters regrouped at Corcyra and went thence to Libya. Others, including Marcus Junius Brutus sought Caesar's pardon, travelling over marshlands to Larissa where he was then welcomed graciously by Caesar in his camp. Pompey's council of war decided to flee to Egypt, which had in the previous year supplied him with military aid.
Egyptian dynastic struggle |
9691_30 | When Pompey arrived in Egypt, he was greeted by a welcoming delegation made up of several Egyptians and two Roman officers who had served with him years before. Shortly after boarding their boat, he was murdered in sight of his wife and friends on the deck. Caesar pursued vigorously as Pompey's skill and client networks made him the largest threat; travelling first to Asia and then to Cyprus and Egypt, he arrived three days after Pompey's murder. There, he was presented with the head of Pompey, along with his signet ring; Caesar wept when he saw the ring and recoiled from the head: "his disgust and sorrow may well have been genuine, for from the beginning he had taken great pride in his clemency". |
9691_31 | Egypt by this time had been embroiled in repeated civil wars, also frequently arbitrated by Rome – helped in part due to the massive bribes Egyptian monarchs gave to Roman leaders – which eroded the realm's independence. While in Egypt, Caesar started to get involved a dynastic dispute between Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra, who in the will (registered in Rome) of the last Egyptian king (Ptolemy XII Auletes) had been made co-rulers. By 48 BC, relations between the two co-rulers had broken down, with the two shadowing each other with armies on opposite sides of the Nile. |
9691_32 | Caesar demanded a ten million denarii payment of a large debt promised to him by the previous king; a demand almost certainly motivated by the "massive financial commitments" needed to pay his troops; he also declared that he would arbitrate the succession dispute between Ptolemy XIII and Cleopatra. In response, Pothinus (Ptolemy XIII's eunuch regent), apparently summoned an army to the city and besieged Caesar's occupation of the royal quarter; Caesar summoned reinforcements from Roman Asia. |
9691_33 | While under siege in Alexandria, Caesar met Cleopatra and became her lover when she secreted herself into the royal quarter. Around this time, Caesar also produced his decision on the dynastic dispute: the will's terms were clear and both would have to be co-rulers. Ptolemy XIII impressed, probably already aware of Caesar and Cleopatra's relationship. After some months of siege, Caesar's forces were relieved by forces under Mithridates of Pergamum from Syria, bringing the Egyptians to battle with Caesar's forces where the Egyptians were utterly routed. Ptolemy XIII fled but drowned when his boat capsized. |
9691_34 | After the victory, Caesar gave the Roman province of Cyprus to Egypt, likely secured payment of his financial demand, and invested Cleopatra (along with a new co-ruler Ptolemy XIV Philopator, Cleopatra's younger brother) with rule of Egypt. While Caesar's Alexandrian War implies he left Egypt forthwith, he actually stayed for some three months cruising with Cleopatra along the Nile, mostly to rest and perhaps also partly to make clear Rome's support for Cleopatra's new regime.
News of a crisis in Asia persuaded Caesar to leave Egypt in the middle of 47 BC, at which time sources suggest Cleopatra was already pregnant. He left behind three legions under the command of a son of one of his freedmen to secure Cleopatra's rule. Cleopatra likely bore a child, which she called "Ptolemy Caesar" and which the Alexandrians called "Caesarion", in late June. Caesar believed that the child was his, as he allowed use of the name.
War against Pharnaces |
9691_35 | Aware of the civil war, Pharnaces II desired to reclaim his father's lands lost during the Third Mithridatic War and promptly invaded large parts of Cappadocia, Armenia, eastern Pontus, and Lesser Colchis. Roman sources paint him cruelly, ordering the castration of any captured Romans; these attacks were uncontested after Pompey stripped the east for troops until Caesar's legate Gnaeus Domitius Calvinus fought him unsuccessfully near Nicopolis in December 48 BC with a inexperienced force.
Caesar moved from Egypt north along the eastern Mediterranean coast, moving directly for Pharnaces' invasion, seeking to protect his prestige, which would suffer substantially if a foreign invasion were to go unpunished. Pharnaces attempted to treat with Caesar, who rejected all negotiations, reminding him of his treatment of Roman prisoners. Caesar demanded him to withdraw immediately from all occupied territories, return their spoils, and release all prisoners. |
9691_36 | When the Romans arrived near the hilltop town of Zela, Pharnaces launched an all-out attack as the Romans were entrenching. The attack caused confusion among Caesar's forces but they quickly recovered and drove Pharnaces' forces down the hill. After a breakthrough on the Caesarian right, Pharnaces' army routed. He fled back to his kingdom but was promptly assassinated. The whole campaign had taken just a few weeks.
Caesar's victory was so swift that in a letter to a friend in Rome, quipped "Veni, vidi, vici" ("I came, I saw, I conquered"), a tag repeated on placards carried in his Pontic triumph; he also mocked Pompey for making his name fighting such weak enemies.
Brief return to Rome |
9691_37 | At Rome, however, during these Egyptian and Pontic campaigns, politics continued. Publius Cornelius Dolabella was serving as one of the tribunes for 47 BC. During his term, he proposed the abolition of all debts and a rent holiday. This led to Antony, who was serving as Caesar's magister equitum in the dictatorship, to intervene against the proposals. When Antony had left for Campania to deal with a mutiny in Caesar's Ninth and Tenth legions, domestic violence again flared up in Rome, leading to the Senate to invoke the senatus consultum ultimum but the lack of any magistrates with imperium present meant that nobody was able to enforce it; only after some time did Antony return, restoring order with serious loss of life, dealing a serious blow to his popularity. |
9691_38 | At the same time, Cato led his forces from Cyrenaica across the desert to Africa (modern day Tunisia), linking up with Metellus Scipio; they, along with Labienus, induced the defection of one of Caesar's governors in Hispania Ulterior.
Caesar returned to Italy and Rome late in 47 BC, meeting and pardoning Cicero, who had given up hope in Pompeian victory after Pompey's death, at Brundisium. Upon his return, he made it clear that his confidence in Antony, but surprisingly not Dolabella, had been lost. Caesar elected suffect magistrates for 47 and magistrates for the new year (46 BC); he packed his men into the priestly colleges and the suffect magistracies, expanding the number of praetors from eight to ten, to reward them for their loyalty. For himself, he declined to continue the dictatorship, instead taking the consulship with Lepidus as his colleague. |
9691_39 | The mutineers in Campania were not calmed by Caesar's return. Caesar sent one of his lieutenants, the future historian Gaius Sallustius Crispus (also appointed praetor for 46 BC), to parley with the men, but Sallust was almost killed by a mob. Caesar then went in person to the troops, who were then nearing Rome under arms; he granted them immediate discharges, gave promises that they would receive their land and retirement bonuses, and addressed them as quirites (citizens). His men, shocked by their casual dismissal, begged Caesar to take them back into service; feigning reluctance, he allowed himself to be persuaded and made notes to put the mutiny's leaders in exposed and dangerous positions in the upcoming campaign. |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.