Authencity of "Rome" tv show?

[ziegenpeter]

Hi folks!
I'm not an expert of roman history, but right now I'm watching the 2nd season of "Rome" and there a some questions I have about this show. Right now I wont remember all, so there are more to come.
1. Why is Cato the only one not weaaring the typical senator toga?
2. Was it at these days inapropriate for a women of the upper class to participate an an orgy? (Octavia S2e05)
3. What kind of weapon is that? https://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1019/romehellebarde.png

thx so far

[athanaric]

3. What kind of weapon is that?

From what I can see, it's definitely a type of halberd.


Apart from some inaccuracies (and too much sex), the series is good IMO, and far more historically correct than any other commercial stuff about the Roman world I've seen so far.

[Skullheadhq]

Hi folks!
2. Was it at these days inapropriate for a women of the upper class to participate an an orgy? (Octavia S2e05)


OF course it was, and it was inappropriate for women of lower classes as well

[Watchman]

As for #3, those are some very Medieval-looking halberds right there...

[ziegenpeter]

OF course it was, and it was inappropriate for women of lower classes as well

Ok, orgies were only for men and slave women?


From what I can see, it's definitely a type of halberd.


Authentic or fantasy? It plays in bithynia. But that looks rather late medieval.

[athanaric]

Authentic or fantasy? It plays in bithynia. But that looks rather late medieval.

Like Watchman said, halberds like these are Medieval. I somehow doubt they were around at that time. I've never read or heard about halberds being used in Mikra Asia or other parts of the Hellenic/Roman world. Maybe the Chinese used some time of halberd at that time (the distinctively shaped halberds from around the Warring States period comes to my mind*), but those would have looked different. Good eye though, I didn't notice that myself when watching the series.

*
https://img219.imageshack.us/img219/704/cimg4133u.jpg (https://img219.imageshack.us/i/cimg4133u.jpg/)

[Watchman]

The Chinese had their peculiar "dagger-axes" and light halberds, but those looked *very* different - the latter were basically spears with an usually crescent-shaped separate blade affixed to the shaft below the tip, for example.

Actually AFAIK the whole idea of combining the axe-blade, spear-tip and reverse-side hook/spike en bloc didn't occur to weaponsmiths before the later part of High Middle Ages or thereabouts, plus I understand it was slightly structurally tricky. AFAIK knights had been fitting spearheads atop their battleaxes for quite a while before that (to improve the versatility of the weapon), but that's obviously rather different.

TL;DR - somebody in the props departement made a wee bit of a screw-up.

[athanaric]

The Chinese had their peculiar "dagger-axes" and light halberds, but those looked *very* different - the latter were basically spears with an usually crescent-shaped separate blade affixed to the shaft below the tip, for example.


Yup, edited my post to show some of the Chinese ones.

[Aemilius Paulus]

TL;DR - somebody in the props departement made a wee bit of a screw-up.
Meh, they probably got a whole load of props used in some past film for a pence, due to the lack of demand for them. Same stories happen all the time. You would not believe how many times those Starship Troopers armour suits were re-used.

Speakign of inaccuracies, by the end of the series, Octavian's troops are wearing a peculiar bronze-looking variant of Lorica Segmentata, which was not even invented until much later, not to mention the date at which it became widespread.

[Cimon]

1. Why is Cato the only one not weaaring the typical senator toga?

If I remember correctly, one of the ancient authors/sources mentions that Cato often wore black, I think as a method of "mourning" the current status quo of the Roman state. Not surprising for someone who was (at least apparently) so dedicated to the republican ideals, given the amount of corruption that occurred in his day.

Anyone remember which author it was?

[Watchman]

Meh, they probably got a whole load of props used in some past film for a pence, due to the lack of demand for them. Same stories happen all the time. You would not believe how many ties those Starship Troopers armour suits were re-used.Eh, I daresay the "smart guns" of Aliens take the cake in that regard. The wonders you can do by taking some MG42 derivative props and sticking bicycle handles on them, and covering it all up with much technobabble and attitude... :laugh4:
Honorary also-rans include the creatively reinterpreted WW2 props of Star Wars (the original trilogy; the next three movies Did Not Happen) and cleverly pimped-out modern guns of Robocop. :2thumbsup:

[ziegenpeter]

Please guys, lets stay ot.
What about the rotation system with the whistle?
Did the soldiers grab the guy in front of them on his hamata?

[Alsatia]

Let us all remember that TV Documentaries are not a good way to reasearch information. Better to get a book.

[teh1337tim]

i assume they did not actually grab the hamata in front of them, a battle scene in the begining and at philipii showed the legionaires as having their sword in the right hand and the shield in their left, unless they have three hands its not really possible. (yes, switch ranks with nothing in sword arm = good plan)


BTW to Chinese used "halberd" type weapons (by european standards) since Mid Zhou era if im not mistaken. And these weaponry are varried among armies and smiths + also units with some as long if not longer than sarissas (it was said during the warring states that some of these units had pikes up to 20 feet long). A infantry would have one similar to a spear length (6-9 feet) while calvalry would have 12-14 foot with chariot riders even longer. Over time they were replaced with the spear and by the three kingdoms era was definately gone from the armies of the Han etc

BOT, that is definately a medieval type halbard...

[Watchman]

What about the rotation system with the whistle?Seems like totally impracticable BS to me. AFAIK all infantry rotated fresh men to the frontline during the inevitable lulls in the fighting - which they pretty much must have had, as there's just no way anyone's stamina could have held up for nonstop hand-to-hand combat for the kinds of times heavy-infantry fighting could go on for.
Did the soldiers grab the guy in front of them on his hamata?You know I for one fail to see what there is in the hamata for them to grab, anyway... but sounds to me like the makers confused them with one of the posited explanations for those peculiar "yokes", presumably of leather strip, Byzantine infantry around one time wore over their mail; it has been suggested this was in part to adjust the "fit" of their mass-produced mail to the individual soldiers' frames, and possibly so they could if necessary grab a hold of the front guy to brace the formation against enemy charges or somesuch.

[Owen Glyndwr]

It looks a lot like the billhooks of the English

http://therionarms.com/armor/polearm2.jpg

Images of Elizabethan billhooks

[Watchman]

Except, you know, they kinda acutely lack the eponymous hook thingy in the cutting side and instead have the "stretched square" axe-blade that was very popular in particularly Swiss halberds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hallebardes-p1000544.jpg) at one time.

[Whatever Scortamareva]

I reckon it's better to appreciate the fact that it put the ancient world back into the public eye for a bit, rather than pointing out historical inaccuracies. And, for the main part, there was quite a lot of factual stuff in there. Sexual mainly, but factual too.

[Space_Ed]

From how I understand it Rome is a relatively historically accurate depiction of Rome at the time. One of the things I've never been sure of is how similar the actors playing the Romans look to ancient Romans. To me the Scot playing Lucius Vorenus and his half Indian wife Niobe strains credibility. Not too sure about old Pullo and the second actor who plays Octavian? Any comments? I personally think Atia was well cast as was Posca. I don't think Marcus Antonius was too badly cast either. What do you guys think?

Edit: I thought Cleopatra looked ok to me but I'm not sure about those weird Egyptian costumes in the show.

[moonburn]

as for all the sex complaints i must say that romans where very minded on sex war and strenght wich was the basis of their original society searching for a "vigorous" soldier type that could keep rome safe from all the dangers at it´s doors

someone explained this better by quoting tacitus and other authors on how the imperial era was actually rome´s old age (if we compare it with a normal human life lenght) so yes i don´t believe the sex part (appart from it´s comercial interest) is historically inacurate

as for cato i always found him a facinating caracther of rome cause while he was born in a roman senatorial family (remember he was brutus uncle) and he anexed cyprus to the roman sphere of influence (taking back an huge treasure and roping barrels to every single gold box so that in case of a sinking ship the gold wouldn´t be lost and he couldn´t be acussed of stealing from the roman people) (wich one may add seems very wierd when we know that bibulus cato´s best friend did tryed to steal the syrian gold when he was nominated governor of the syrian province of rome)

cato was very much against the corruption and expecially against epicurists and since he wasn´t an epicurist he hated everything that was considered a luxury like wine or even slaves he only had 2 greek philosophers as personal slaves i believe and was considered a terrible host cause his wine was the cheapest of wine available (but he did married his daughter originally to one of rome´s richest man and most proeminent "lawyer" some soucers claim as a lawyer he and cicero where at the same level)

actually one could write an entire history book on cato wich could explain the several tendencys that romans fallowed during the late republic after sulla´s dictatorship where sulla anihilated 3000 "noble" romans

[paramedicguyer]

as for all the sex complaints i must say that romans where very minded on sex war and strenght wich was the basis of their original society searching for a "vigorous" soldier type that could keep rome safe from all the dangers at it´s doors

someone explained this better by quoting tacitus and other authors on how the imperial era was actually rome´s old age (if we compare it with a normal human life lenght) so yes i don´t believe the sex part (appart from it´s comercial interest) is historically inacurate

as for cato i always found him a facinating caracther of rome cause while he was born in a roman senatorial family (remember he was brutus uncle) and he anexed cyprus to the roman sphere of influence (taking back an huge treasure and roping barrels to every single gold box so that in case of a sinking ship the gold wouldn´t be lost and he couldn´t be acussed of stealing from the roman people) (wich one may add seems very wierd when we know that bibulus cato´s best friend did tryed to steal the syrian gold when he was nominated governor of the syrian province of rome)

cato was very much against the corruption and expecially against epicurists and since he wasn´t an epicurist he hated everything that was considered a luxury like wine or even slaves he only had 2 greek philosophers as personal slaves i believe and was considered a terrible host cause his wine was the cheapest of wine available (but he did married his daughter originally to one of rome´s richest man and most proeminent "lawyer" some soucers claim as a lawyer he and cicero where at the same level)

actually one could write an entire history book on cato wich could explain the several tendencys that romans fallowed during the late republic after sulla´s dictatorship where sulla anihilated 3000 "noble" romans



I believe you are experiencing Cato the philosopher, not Cato the politician. One can argue that Cato himself was instrumental in the downfall of the republic. While Cato publicly disdained corruption that did not stop him from participating in massive bribery to get bibulus elected. Additionally, he was against prosecution of clodius (for actions during his tribunate, which really were illegal) because that would in fact anull his annexation of cyprus. Additionally, he was in fact a drunk, which make his famous quip to caesar (read about the cataline conspiracy, cato called ceasar a drunk, caesar in fact rarely drank). If you would like me to further my assertation that Cato was in fact instrumental in the establishment of the principate, send me a PM.
I am not trying to be mean, but I am quite sick of people eulogizing cato, in the same way i am sick of people condeming sulla.
As cicero himself lamented Cato lived in plato's republic not in romulus' sink.

My main goal is to simply say that while inredibly entertaining and vivid. "Rome" presents an unrealistic description of events, by grossly skimming down details to simplistic forms and in many cases completely removing major characters while inserting imaginary ones.

I would place the series in the same category as the movie "JFK", enthralling and exciting but without a solid historial basis

[moonburn]

i´m not stating that i didn´t knew about that (except perhaps for that bibulus bribings wich i might have not noticed but then again bibulus didn´t need any help to use illegal means to better himself)

cato´s anexation of cyprus was never in question since the egyptians didn´t wanted to fight the romans for it
his conduct however was (the reason why he placed barrels of air and tied them to the coffers so they could be recovered if something happened and thus not be accused of theft) but then again it was a time in rome where an honest man could be draged to court and be forever in judicial crap for the rest of his active life thus robbing a good roman of his destiny while lesser men could continue to persue their goals after removing the better man (ceasar´s reason for crossing the rubicon with a legion behinde him to protect himself while there was the 13th and 14th of pompey in rome about to sail for hispania wich could have been used to end the civil war right away)

if we compare cato´s life with for instance his nephew brutus wich abused his power and entered into the high finances extorting money from the rich lands that lucullos (?) conquered (and pompey got the credit for) we can see he might have done many wrong things but all he did was never to better himself but out of his beliefs of what was best for rome and such a man with such inner discipline is someone worth analysing cause rome had a tradition of individuals who always sacrificed themselfs for the res publica and cato believed he was one of them.

clodious was another matter since it seemed he was another crazy reformer probably the 1st true plebocratian wishing to remove the nobles power to better himself
but to the best of my knowledge clodious was murdered by milan wich was not conected to the boni (?) thus cato´s persecution of clodious was just another of his actions to protect the res public (this time from the brainless masses who would obey clodious on everything)

as for the cataline conspiracy i have very litle information about it (read an article on wiki thats how weak i am there)

as for cato being instrumental in the downfall of the republic that is true cause had pompey not given batle to cesar and he would have won but then without cesar who would stop pompey from becoming dictator for life ? (thus cato would have been instrumental again for the downfall of the res public)

the way i see it cato the politician is a matter of taste he brought down the republic while trying to protect it you are clearly not a big fan of the old man who would rip his own hair off when talking about ceasar

i do not wish to get into a childish debate i was just trying to share my opinion and a bit of my small knowledge in here but if proven wrong then i will apologyse and recognise my mistake but not on matters that are up to personal interpretation of historical actions and figures.

the grachus brothers where the 1st reformers and sulla was someone who fallowed on their footsteps in an attempt to change roman ways that where becomign decadent and authoritarian (for the best of my knowlege) i didn´t made any attack on sulla wich is actually someone i have a keen interest in but sadly i can hardly get any decent information outside the average historical romance wich are inacurate (at best). and the final reformer was ofc gaivs jvlivs (altough this can be debatable since his nephew octavian trying to prove his rightfull rights had to make ceasar the greatest roman that had ever lived to be able to challange marc anthony with his title of cesar´s son)

so i would never attack sulla i just stated that after sulla´s attempts on reforms wich ended with 3000 dead knights (the 2nd class of roman nobles) the way roman politics where made became diferent

actually one could bring this back to the grachus brothers that for the 1st time saw assassins being used as a political leverage weapon in roman politics (not that they weren´t used before but because they had never been used against such influential individuals)

[option]

All the important events of the show are correct. Dramatic license is taken with some characters, but it's not a big deal because the show is amazing. James Purefoy's portrayal of Mark Antony in particular is possibly the greatest acting performance ever.

[Aemilius Paulus]

James Purefoy's portrayal of Mark Antony in particular is possibly the greatest acting performance ever.
Agreed :yes:, his performance was brilliant, although I do believe much better and more well-known performances exist in multitudes. Caesar, or the actor who played him, was rotten however, and his looks (face of Spock) did not help either.

Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire)(BBC) is a series I would recommend to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, and they have absolutely the right actor for Caesar, although their Anthony is as lousy as Caesar in HBO. That series is, however, is an "action" documentary (docudrama), which follows the lives of the pivotal figures in real-time and otherwise normal fashion but with a narrator commenting very frequently. Thus, not to be compared with the HBO series.

[bobbin]

To me the Scot playing Lucius Vorenus and his half Indian wife Niobe strains credibility

Given that the character is said to come from the Po valley its not too much a stretch the of the imagination to have a red haired celt playing the part.

I can understand the half indian wife one though(even if the actress is part italian), not that it bothers me indian/middle eastern/european people have quite similar features anyway.

[lenin96]

Agreed :yes:, his performance was brilliant, although I do believe much better and more well-known performances exist in multitudes. Caesar, or the actor who played him, was rotten however, and his looks (face of Spock) did not help either.

Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire)(BBC) is a series I would recommend to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, and they have absolutely the right actor for Caesar, although their Anthony is as lousy as Caesar in HBO. That series is, however, is an "action" documentary (docudrama), which follows the lives of the pivotal figures in real-time and otherwise normal fashion but with a narrator commenting very frequently. Thus, not to be compared with the HBO series.

I thought that was a good series, unfortunately there weren't many episodes but it was good.

[Holysahib]

Agreed :yes:, his performance was brilliant, although I do believe much better and more well-known performances exist in multitudes. Caesar, or the actor who played him, was rotten however, and his looks (face of Spock) did not help either.

Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome:_The_Rise_and_Fall_of_an_Empire)(BBC) is a series I would recommend to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, and they have absolutely the right actor for Caesar, although their Anthony is as lousy as Caesar in HBO. That series is, however, is an "action" documentary (docudrama), which follows the lives of the pivotal figures in real-time and otherwise normal fashion but with a narrator commenting very frequently. Thus, not to be compared with the HBO series.

I love "Rome" because it just looks great. Most rome drama is far too polished and "classicistic", "Rome" had grime, filth and roughly weaved toga's. As for historicity, they have the same problem as all hollywood style historical drama, as in that all details (clothes, lamps, graffiti) is meticulously recreated, while in the story, some dramatic liberties are taken. I don't mind it, it's not a historical document.
As for the acting, although Mark Anthony is very very entertaining, there's also a pinch of overacting going on, as with most of the cast. "I am not leaving this bed! Until I've fucked someone":laugh4:

Caesar in BBC "Rise and Fall" is a femine Russell Crowe that starts beating up his soldiers when they should fight for him, it's really ridiculous. The BBC episodes on Gracchus, Nero and Vespasian are nice though. Caesar in "Rome" is way better, but is also not a complete character because he is viewed thorugh the eyes of the other characters, he is in a sense more a "phenomenon" (for example, in the episode where Erastes Fulman wants to kill Lucius Vorenus)

For the Cato question, it's already been answered (the mourning thing), but it's also nice to add that he doesn't wear a tunica under his toga, which being a Greek infuence, was not done for the true roman Cato.

[Tartaros]

3. What kind of weapon is that?
Could it be a fasces???
could be the only explanation outside of an medieval hellebard...

[Skullheadhq]

A fasces doesn't exist. Fasces is plural

[Tartaros]

singular fasces
verbum plurale fascis

more common today:
plural subject fascismus
it´s not fascesmus

[Fluvius Camillus]

I really love the series! Awesome characters, and for a commercialized serie, very accurate.

The best characters:

1. Mark Anthony, definately!!! The extreme dick attitude of him made me laugh so much. His foul political play and his jokes are awesome... Who does not remember the scene where he starts peeing in a plantpot, during one of his threatenings to Cicero (S01E04, if not mistaken). And his disrespect for anything suits him so well.

2. Atia, the extremely cunning woman (probably not too realistic). (I swear on Jupiter's black stone that I did not kill your husband - Atia talking to Octavia, denying she murdered Octavia's husband).

3. Vorenus, the serious, fast to anger man, who has much suffering but has an amazing story.

Another good actor, Octavian, his personility really looks like the view I have about Aemilius Paulus, no offence meant if you take that. If you dont understand why, I will go into further detail if necesary.

Battles, GREAT fights, Pullo in the arena, great. Phillipi, awesome! And not to forget the Aventine street fight where Pullo rips out Memmio's tongue.

Amount of sex, it was good, some nice scenes, and probably made more people view (then making more people know the basics of the Romans evolving into an Empire). I really liked the scenes, but that is not the reason I viewed the series.

I probably forgot other points where I express why this serie is so great. I am watching the series a third time and still enjoying!:2thumbsup:

~Fluvius

[pezhetairoi]

I have to beg to differ with Fluvius on one small point though--I thought Phillipi the most ridiculous Roman battle re-enactment ever. And the battle of Alesia a close second behind. Both were also possibly among the most inaccurate re-enactments in the modern day.

Watching Alesia at the start of the series I went weak at the knees at the fact they were dressed ACCURATELY--then I realised that at Alesia they were supposed to be fighting on ramparts, not in the open field--and then they did that stupid front-row-rotation thing and I realised something was very fishy.

Then came Phillipi, a set-piece battle (apparently) with only a whole bunch of Romans walkinginto each other. Seriously. If you don't throw pila that's fine enough--but already bad enough. But not even bothering to charge? Which army walks to the attack? Not to mention the Romans were in far, FAR too deep a formation. It was just one solid block of men.

Yeah maybe it's because I've studied too much ancient history and played too much EB, but the battles were very much worse than the rest of Rome--which was awesome. And, of course, the fact that there's a voulge (I think that's what it is) in Caesar's tent means that when I get back my access to my Rome discs I shall have to look out for it just so I can chuckle at it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nothing portrayed in ROME was accurate, the soldiers were not dressed properly, everthing was archaic or nonsense. The only excpetions be SOME of the mail shirts and scuta.

So all those applauding it for looking good, don't.

[satalexton]

Shouldn't Julius Caesar be pronounced "U-Li-Us Kaisar"? =/ irks me when watching that BBC show....other than the fundamentality of wt the romans really are.....

[Blxz]

Shouldn't Julius Caesar be pronounced "U-Li-Us Kaisar"? =/ irks me when watching that BBC show....other than the fundamentality of wt the romans really are.....

They should also be speaking Latin. But its in English and so they need to Anglicise his name. Its a concession to the people watching. Lowest common denominator remember. Honestly it really doesn't matter.

[Jolt]

I agree that Mark Anthony's acting was brilliant as well.

Though I must say that picking stereotype British barbarians to play Romans sucks. Most of the main cast had light colored eyes and far too pale skin. Vorenus, Pullo, Atia, Octavius, Servilia, Cato, Cicero, etc.

Curiously enough, most of the actors portraying barbarians were actually Italians. :-x

Like Vercingtorix (Gallic), Eirene (Germanic), and Lyssandros (Greek), as far as I recall.

Obviously the story had to be streamlined to fit the series, and even with such a simplified story, Rome was still the biggest production in history and had to be cancelled due to a major expenditure problem it was giving. Obviously, if it wanted to appease the puritans and explain the complex relations of the two Civil Wars, it would take some five seasons before Caesar left Rome. Asking for a extreme detailed props and set, and/or storyline was and isn't simply feasable, unless someone is willing to spend countless millions to get 2 seasons which advance the plotline only a short bit.

Considering the logistical difficulty of actually making a series depicting the time-frame seriously, Rome did one hell of a bloody good job.

[Fluvius Camillus]

I have to beg to differ with Fluvius on one small point though--I thought Phillipi the most ridiculous Roman battle re-enactment ever. And the battle of Alesia a close second behind. Both were also possibly among the most inaccurate re-enactments in the modern day.

Watching Alesia at the start of the series I went weak at the knees at the fact they were dressed ACCURATELY--then I realised that at Alesia they were supposed to be fighting on ramparts, not in the open field--and then they did that stupid front-row-rotation thing and I realised something was very fishy.

Then came Phillipi, a set-piece battle (apparently) with only a whole bunch of Romans walkinginto each other. Seriously. If you don't throw pila that's fine enough--but already bad enough. But not even bothering to charge? Which army walks to the attack? Not to mention the Romans were in far, FAR too deep a formation. It was just one solid block of men.

Yeah maybe it's because I've studied too much ancient history and played too much EB, but the battles were very much worse than the rest of Rome--which was awesome. And, of course, the fact that there's a voulge (I think that's what it is) in Caesar's tent means that when I get back my access to my Rome discs I shall have to look out for it just so I can chuckle at it.

About the battles, I just enjoyed watching the raw slaughter. I did not actually mean they were so realistic.

~Fluvius

[Gabeed]

Actually, for me, the battles were the worst part (besides the overabundance of sex--especially Octavia sex :no:), not because of their historical inaccuracies, but because of their lack of grandure in every case. I realize that this wasn't a Michael Bay movie in terms of budget, but never did I get the impression that there were actual armies marching along and fighting. I can tell the producers tried hard to give this impression, but it didn't convince me. The worst case of this is when Caesar is trapped with like 12 legionaries in Alexandria by a Ptolemaic force that we don't really see, and the "battle" is merely montaged.

Overall, though, I love the show.

[machinor]

Jeez guys, it's a >>TV SHOW<<, which means that a) it's not a documentary and doesn't want to be one, it's entertainment first, realism/accuracy later which is perfectly fine in a tv show (or movie) as long as the plot and the acting is good; and b) they have a limited budget, not those billion zillion dollar budgets they get in hollywood. Of course they can't recreate huge battles with several dozen thousands of people. I like the battles in Rome because they show ancient battles for what they were: pure bloody slaughter. That is what they wanted to convey and not the correct battle formation or whatever.
I like Rome very much, especially because it doesn't get dragged down in battle-after-battle nonsense but instead focuses on the characters and the plot which is absolutly brilliantly written. Especially the fact that they do not even show most of the huge battles but tell the viewer about them through messengers etc. is absolutly brilliant since that is a plot device which was typical in theater since antiquity. The series is not about armies, it's about characters. Criticising that they focused on the important part would be like criticising Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" for being historically inaccurate and not showing huge battles on stage.

[Aemilius Paulus]

SOME of the mail shirts and scuta.

The lorica hamata I understand, as I also had the opinion many of them were accurate, but the scutum? The scuta the carried seemed to me as wholly inaccurate due to being more representative of Augustus' legionaries.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Just like machinor said - it's a tv show and you can't expect historical accuracy from them.
If you want historically accurate battles and shows then invent a time machine and go back to what ever time you want. But I bet that when you come back with what ever you filmed a lot of people would say - it's historically inaccurate(even though you used time machine to film actual events).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The lorica hamata I understand, as I also had the opinion many of them were accurate, but the scutum? The scuta the carried seemed to me as wholly inaccurate due to being more representative of Augustus' legionaries.

As I said, some, there are accurate Republican "full" and "clipped" scuta, there are also Imperial ones and ones from the 1930's-60's films.

Some things are accurate though, like when the girl touches Pullo's sword balde and he immediately wipes it off. That's because the acid in your sweat etches the blade.

[Aemilius Paulus]

As I said, some, there are accurate Republican "full" and "clipped" scuta.
Oh, I did not remember seeing the accurate ones. Just the Imperial-era ones. But I am not such an attentive person when watching films, so I fully believe you here. Shoot, I never spotted the halberds either...

[Watchman]

What I don't get is, why put the halberds there in the first place ? They cannot have had any kind of shortage of perfectly good prop spears after all...

[Alsatia]

I assume that they place them there to make it seem more "historical". Putting a Halberd there will seem more fancy than a spear or sarissa on the wall.

[Jolt]

I assume that they place them there to make it seem more "historical". Putting a Halberd there will seem more fancy than a spear or sarissa on the wall.

Though I doubt guards posted inside tents would be equipped with sarissas.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I assume that they place them there to make it seem more "historical". Putting a Halberd there will seem more fancy than a spear or sarissa on the wall.
Yes, right on the spot! 99% of viewers would not be able to spot the inaccuracy, so why bother? Faux-historical look sells well. Just try to find a Cleopatra film without LS Roman legionaries and without the Return of the Mummy Egyptians. People will expect certain things, even if they erroneously do so in our view.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes, right on the spot! 99% of viewers would not be able to spot the inaccuracy, so why bother? Faux-historical look sells well. Just try to find a Cleopatra film without LS Roman legionaries and without the Return of the Mummy Egyptians. People will expect certain things, even if they erroneously do so in our view.

Actually, Cleopatra is much more accurate. Cleo is portrayed as Macedonian (explicitely stated), and the Romans all wear copies of actual helmets and best-guess body-armour. Bear in mind it was made in 1963, before the discovery of the Corbridge hoard and the modern cataloguing of Roman helmets, or even before the re-calibration of carbon-dating had really taken effect.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Actually, Cleopatra is much more accurate. Cleo is portrayed as Macedonian (explicitely stated),
It is not so much the '63 one, as the others, although my post focused on the Ptolemaic Egyptian soldiers portrayed in all those films. And regardless of the body of knowledge on the Roman armour in the sixties, or at any other time period, the Romans still wear the segmented armour, whether it was due to the lack of historical material or a simple denial of fact.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Romans in many films use LS only because it's much easier to produce and it looks better than LH.
And when I say LS is much easier to produce then I mean it's much easier to produce Hollywood LS.

[A Very Super Market]

I assume that they place them there to make it seem more "historical". Putting a Halberd there will seem more fancy than a spear or sarissa on the wall.

A highly doubt many of their viewers have an idea of what a sarissa is... They'd probably call them out for giving Macedonians huge spears and silly hats if there ever was a battle scene.

[Gabeed]

b) they have a limited budget, not those billion zillion dollar budgets they get in hollywood. Of course they can't recreate huge battles with several dozen thousands of people. I like the battles in Rome because they show ancient battles for what they were: pure bloody slaughter.

I hear what you're saying, and, in fact, I said what you're saying. I don't care immensely about the nitpicked historical inaccuracies, but I do care if it looks good, as does just about everyone else. This is why we don't see tons of TV shows based around being historical epics--there's an obligation to show the grandeur of the age which a TV show budget is hard-pressed to meet. ROME did an amazing job overall with this, but its' battles were History Channel-esque in presentation, almost laughable in certain examples (such as the aforementioned Alexandria siege night scene). Maybe I've been spoiled by movies such as Gladiator and whatnot, but if you're going to attempt a historical tale with major battles in TV or in movies, you can't half-ass it. So while I appreciate that the producers managed to get an elephant for the aftermath of the battle against Cato and Scipio in North Africa, it and the mere dozen bodies around it pulled me from the immersion of the show.

[Bumblebee]

Caesar fails to say "Et tu, Brute?"

It is a point of debate that he may also have just said nothing, but I found it surprising that he didn't say it when killed on the Senate floor since many people are familiar with that line. But overall, I liked the series for it's dramatic elements. Especially Vorenus and Pullo who seem to get caught up in all the big events that the series covers. It's like they just can't catch a break :laugh4:

[Cimon]

Caesar fails to say "Et tu, Brute?"

It is a point of debate that he may also have just said nothing, but I found it surprising that he didn't say it when killed on the Senate floor since many people are familiar with that line. But overall, I liked the series for it's dramatic elements. Especially Vorenus and Pullo who seem to get caught up in all the big events that the series covers. It's like they just can't catch a break :laugh4:

I've forgotten where I heard it, but wasn't he supposed to have actually said, "Kai su technon?" (not sure on the spelling/transliteration, but basically, "You too, my child?" in Greek).

[Bumblebee]

Something like that. But like I said, it's been debated back and forth that he may or may not have said anything.

[pezhetairoi]

I for one thought his not saying anything was far more elegant--the look in his and Brutus' eyes as Brutus stabbed him in the throat was eloquent enough. Not to mention after you're stabbed in the throat it's going to be hard to SAY anything...

[IrishHitman]

1. Why is Cato the only one not weaaring the typical senator toga?
2. Was it at these days inapropriate for a women of the upper class to participate an an orgy?
3. What kind of weapon is that?

1. Cato wore black to demonstrate his complete commitment to Roman values of being simply dressed, hardened and completely masculine.
2. Not really, though Octavia doing so might be a bit dodgy. Orgies weren't a thing you'd declare you'd been to in public unless you already had a reputation for such a thing, but they weren't socially repulsive to anyone except the ultraconservative lot. Such as Cato.
3. A halberd I think. A mistake I suspect.

[keiskander]

The little ive read is that Cato most likely did not wear a black toga but rather a purple one since he was abit of a snob.

The series Rome itself i enjoyed alot though.

[machinor]

I hear what you're saying, and, in fact, I said what you're saying. I don't care immensely about the nitpicked historical inaccuracies, but I do care if it looks good, as does just about everyone else. This is why we don't see tons of TV shows based around being historical epics--there's an obligation to show the grandeur of the age which a TV show budget is hard-pressed to meet. ROME did an amazing job overall with this, but its' battles were History Channel-esque in presentation, almost laughable in certain examples (such as the aforementioned Alexandria siege night scene). Maybe I've been spoiled by movies such as Gladiator and whatnot, but if you're going to attempt a historical tale with major battles in TV or in movies, you can't half-ass it. So while I appreciate that the producers managed to get an elephant for the aftermath of the battle against Cato and Scipio in North Africa, it and the mere dozen bodies around it pulled me from the immersion of the show.
Well, one might dispute if the grandeur of the classical age is not a bit of a romanticism dating back to the Neoclassicism. As I already said, I like the very classical theatrical approach of focusing on characters and plot and not wasting time with cgi-masturbation. I'm perfectly fine if that is being left for Hollywood-bogus like Gladiator. ~;)

[Gabeed]

Well, one might dispute if the grandeur of the classical age is not a bit of a romanticism dating back to the Neoclassicism. As I already said, I like the very classical theatrical approach of focusing on characters and plot and not wasting time with cgi-masturbation. I'm perfectly fine if that is being left for Hollywood-bogus like Gladiator. ~;)

I know what you mean, but we're talking about figures who are remembered for their battles and skills as generals as much as their political maneuvers. If "Rome" actually focused on a Roman family in the countryside far away from the politics of the time, I'd feel like they have no obligation to throw battle scenes at us just because it took place in the Classical period. But Rome was focusing on the great men of the time, whose destinies were determined by both political maneuvering and battles.

As I keep saying, I still love the show. And while I also enjoy their focus on the characters and plot rather than 300-style battle scenes, I can't help but note how lacking the battles are. If they're striving for realism in an effort to immerse the audience, you need to do it in all facets of the story.

[Apázlinemjó]

Caesar fails to say "Et tu, Brute?"

It is a point of debate that he may also have just said nothing, but I found it surprising that he didn't say it when killed on the Senate floor since many people are familiar with that line. But overall, I liked the series for it's dramatic elements. Especially Vorenus and Pullo who seem to get caught up in all the big events that the series covers. It's like they just can't catch a break :laugh4:

That was the series' point actually, showing the decline of the Roman Republic through two legionaries' eyes. :o

[IrishHitman]

The little ive read is that Cato most likely did not wear a black toga but rather a purple one since he was abit of a snob.

The series Rome itself i enjoyed alot though.

Purple is a royal colour, I don't think he'd be caught dead wearing purple...

[Ludens]

Purple is a royal colour, I don't think he'd be caught dead wearing purple...

Didn't Clodius propose for the senate that Cato be given the right to permanently wear a purple-bordered toga (like those worn by magistrates) to honour his settlement of Cyprus? He turned it down, if I remember correctly. But even if he didn't, an entirely purple toga would be the height of extravagancy, quite unlike the austere, conservative image that Cato tried to project.

[IrishHitman]

Didn't Clodius propose for the senate that Cato be given the right to permanently wear a purple-bordered toga (like those worn by magistrates) to honour his settlement of Cyprus? He turned it down, if I remember correctly. But even if he didn't, an entirely purple toga would be the height of extravagancy, quite unlike the austere, conservative image that Cato tried to project.

Purple borders and entirely purple are different things entirely.

Purple would be considered traditionally effeminate, royal, Eastern and un-Roman.