Hi u/spoonguy123

I also thoroughly enjoy the I, Claudius series, but as a Classicist, I can there's definitely some plot points that stuck out to me as iffy. The thing to understand about Graves' work, is that it's historical fiction, so he's taken all of the most salacious rumors about the Julio-Claudians (and there were MANY salacious rumors) and compiled them into a novel. His purpose was entertainment. While much of his information is based on ancient texts, those texts are chock full of rumors and slander, meaning that his information is quite accurate to the sources, but not necessarily to reality. Let's break down some of the most historically problematic story arcs:

​

First and foremost is Graves' characterization of Livia Augusta. In both the books and the BBC TV show, the empress is portrayed as cruel, cold, and violently ambitious. In the story, Livia is responsible for the deaths of a shocking number of her family members for her own gain. Based on what I know of Livia, I would refute most of this characterization. Even Tacitus, a harsh critic of Livia, admits that there is absolutely no evidence that she killed any of her family members. That said, there have been rumors suggesting Livia to be a narcissistic murderess, willing to kill anyone to advance her son Tiberius' career, since her lifetime. It's my belief (one that's shared by most modern historians) that she was an incredibly powerful and assertive woman in a time where ambitious women were often the victims of misogynistic slander. She was as far from the ideal of a demure, pious Roman matron, but as I said before, there's nothing to suggest that she was behind the deaths of any of her relatives, let alone as many as she is in I, Claudius. What is true is that she was very influential, intelligent, and calculating, as well as a tireless advocate for Tiberius. She was far from perfect, but I don't believe she was a murderer. However, if you were hoping for some murderous mothers, Antonia Minor really did starve her daughter Livilla to death for her indiscretions.

​

​

Secondly, I also disagree with the depiction of the relationship between Caligula and Drusilla. It's been a rumor since the time of the Julio-Claudians that the brother and sister were sexually involved, but there's virtually no evidence of this in the historical record. The rumor likely comes from the incredible closeness of the siblings, with Caligula making Drusilla the head of his household in between his marriages, leading many to assume incest. It's important to understand the trauma Caligula and Drusilla endured together as children, watching as their mother and brothers were executed by Tiberius and then sent away as orphans. It seems natural that the two would have bonded through the trauma of their childhoods and remained close into adulthood as kindred spirits. Additionally, it's generally known and accepted that Drusilla died young, but from a fever, not at the hand of a deranged Caligula as happens in Graves' novel. (A side note here, but while John Hurt was wonderful as Caligula, he played the role in his late thirties, while the real Caligula took the throne at the age of only twenty-four).

​

​

In the same vein, the incestuous relationship between Nero and Agrippina Minor seems unlikely. Agrippina was by all accounts an overbearing mother and shrewdly ambitious through her son, something that led to whispers about the nature of their relationship. However, there's no reason to believe that this story of incest was actually trye. I would have to assume that Agrippina's promiscuous reputation and Nero's famous debauchery also helped this rumor gain traction. In reality, Nero had more than one recorded and genuine love affair with other women (namely Claudia Acte and Poppaea Sabina), and generally disliked his mother, eventually having her killed at least partly over her disapproval of Poppaea.

​

​

This is a smaller note, but as delightful as Brian Blessed was in the role of Augustus in the BBC series, the demeanor of the emperor is known to have been thoughtful, intellectual, and reserved as opposed to I, Claudius' portrayal as a boisterous, jolly, and emotional man. In addition, the emperor's physical appearance is noted as slight, shorter than average, and light-eyed. Normally that would be unimportant, but Augustus' demeanor and stature were instrumental in his ascent to power, with many seeing him as the antithesis of men like Caesar and Antony.

​

To balance things out, here are some points Graves got right:

​

Claudius' physical disabilities are very well portrayed. His stutter, twitching, and limp were all hallmarks of what many modern researchers assume was likely cerebral palsy.

​

The Teutoberg Forest disaster is well portrayed by Graves, with the details listed being very true to the historical record. This is an impressive feat considering the complexity of the culture around the event.

​

Graves' depiction of the life of Sejanus was very well done. He stuck close to the record, and accurately described his career and personal life to the best of our knowledge. The same is true of the life of Messalina, including the sex contest and illicit marriage to Gaius Sillius under Claudius' nose.

​

Unfortunately, we have every reason to believe that Caligula really did "fight" Neptune for seashells, have the Praetorian Prefect Macro murder Tiberius, and truly was quite unhinged; although, it's likely that the "horse consul" was intended as an insulting joke towards the Senate, implying that a horse could do a better job than the senators.

​

All of that said, Graves has done a fairly good job of capturing the intrigue and essence of the Julio-Claudians. He makes sure to include important milestones in their history such as the downfall of Tiberius, the deaths of Marcellus and Germanicus, and the campaigns of Agrippa and Drusus. The nature of historical fiction is the inclusion of some level of sensationalism, so it really can't be said that Graves is a reliable source for good history. All things considered though, the man knows his stuff, artistic liberties or not. He certainly went out of his way to include every nasty rumor ever uttered about a Julio-Claudian, but as a whole, it's an excellent series and a wonderful introduction to Roman history, plus great entertainment for those already familiar. If you have any other specific plot points you'd like addressed, I'd be happy to help out. As far as source reliability, I actually answered a similar question about that that I'll link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/gyq479/how_do_historians_filter_out_exaggerations_in/ftcq5fs?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

​

For further reading about the Julio-Claudians, here are my preferred sources (all of which I referenced for this answer):

​

Primary:

Cassius Dio's Historia, Books 58-63

Tacitus' Annals and Historia Romana

For some ancient gossip on the Julio-Claudians a la Graves, check out the first five sections of Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars

​

Secondary:

Julio Claudian Emperors by Thomas Ernst Josef Wiedemann

The Julio-Claudian Dynasty: The History and Legacy of the First Family to Rule the Ancient Roman Empire by Charles Riveras