the Battle of Bosworth is responsbile for the slant in all of Shakespeare's histories.

the slant in all of Shakespeare's histories.

Click to expand...

Please explain o wise and knowledgeable one how this works in Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra?

I've never really seen the point of 'if historical event A' never happened, then B wouldn't have happened. If Prince Henry [son of James VI] had not gone swimming in the Thames he wouldn't have died of Typhoid, and Charles I would never have been King. Then we would have a completely different monarchy - and parliamentary system today.

Anyway, I've always found Shakespeare studies a fascinating insight into the Tudor and Stuart psyche.

Shakesbear said:

Please explain o wise and knowledgeable one how this works in Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra?

Click to expand...

Regardless of when they were set, Shakespeare's Roman plays were written for a Tudor audience, so you could argue that for a Plantagenet audience they might have been different?

Well, for a start I doubt if Richard III would have been written as propaganda. Henry VIII would not have happened so neither would the play. MacBeth - written, some argue to complement James I and VI - possibly would not have happened. The other histories - Richard II may not have been seen as radical because of the deposition scene. I do not think that the Roman plays ( Julius Caesar, Anthony and Cleopatra, Coriolanus) would have been changed that much. Shakespeare was born in 1564 and whilst speculation as to who may or may not have been the ruler during his creative period it is not, in my opinion, possible to say that how a change of monarchy would have changed the audience. If England had remained Catholic the social, political, economic, and religious aspects would have had a knock on effect on the theatres and audience which would have had a very different perspective.

Shakesphere lived during what was called the little ice age and famine was also a big motivation in his writings. As a matter of fact, he was considered a horder of grain and barley and sold at very high prices. He was even considered a tax dodger. I don't think any of that would have changed...

Anything that does away with Richard III is NOT OK. That is by far my favorite of the histories.

I'd have far rather had the Britain King Richard III would probably have ruled than the Shakespeare play.

The Battles of Bosworth and Hastings are probably two of the most horrible tragedies in English history.

thothguard51 said:

Shakesphere lived during what was called the little ice age and famine was also a big motivation in his writings. As a matter of fact, he was considered a horder of grain and barley and sold at very high prices. He was even considered a tax dodger. I don't think any of that would have changed...

Click to expand...

Opinion is divided on the price issue. Some think he and his wife hoarded so they could sell to hard up neighbours when the going got tough.

Dr Archer said Shakespeare should not be judged too harshly as hoarding was his way of ensuring his family and neighbours would not go hungry if a harvest failed.

Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-mid-wales-21993857

RichardGarfinkle said:

Have you read much Alternate History? If you haven't, it's similar in underlying questions to some forms of SF. Stories that ask 'what might the world be like if this aspect of it were different?' The fun lies in playing out the chain of consequence.

It's not for everyone, but no writing genre is.

Apropos tangentially of the Roman plays and AH, the first Alternate History I know of is a short section on Livy's History of Rome. He speculates about what would have happened if Alexander the Great had tried to conquer Rome. Livy's conclusion was that Rome would have beaten Alexander. Of course, Livy was not the most objective of historians.

Click to expand...

I'm a student of Ancient History and Archaeology [Leicester University, for the Richard III buffs .] Virgil wrote The Aeneid to buff Augustus' ego. What you hypothesize is tantamount to asking what if Cleopatra and Marcus Antonious had won the battle of Actium, then the Aeneid wouldn't exist.

My point is, all Romans excelled at self-promotion.

RichardGarfinkle said:

How about Cinncinatus?

Click to expand...

A model of Roman virtue...