Printable View
Actually, I think this is more of a reflection on how appallingly bad accuracy is on everything set in Rome, and probably quite a lot else set remotely outside the present. Yes there are inaccuracies in Rome, but it's still one of the better efforts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Whats wrong with the way that the legionairres were depicted in the series Rome? They wore Lorica Hamata, they were wearing montefortino helmets, and they were not using the rectangular shields of the imperial era.
Those aren't monifortino helms.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image..._stevenson.jpg
This is:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/..._jpg_small.jpg
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/..._jpg_small.jpg
And this:
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/..._jpg_small.jpg
http://www.romanarmy.com/cms/images/..._jpg_small.jpg
The cheekpieces for such helms look like this were broad and fairly plain. ROME's helms are based on the Atticised carvings of Trajan's column around 100 years later and represent and artistic departure from reality typical of Roman sculpture.
http://www.teevblogger.com/images/romex1206.jpg
See the things on Vorenus' shoulders? Pure fantasy. The baldrics and strapping? 50-100 years out of period. In fact that sort of broad baldric doesn't appear until about 180 AD or so. Vorenus' sword is also on his right rather than left hip as befits a Centurian. The Gladii in the series are Pompeii pattern which are strictly post-Augustan or at best late Augustan.
http://www.arsdimicandi.net/ad_1_i000462.gif
See the shields? Fantasy again and the breeches are a barbarian affectation which didn't start to appear in the Legions until well into the Principate. The standard on the left should also have a spear head, not an Aquila.
An actual Marian/Caesarian Legionary would look more like this:
https://img507.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roman3ww6.jpg
https://img464.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roman4sg0.jpg
Augustan:
https://img241.imageshack.us/my.php?image=roman5an7.jpg
another thing to say about ROME is that in the main the shields were wrong and in fact in some cases worse than the ones in Sparticus, which were as wrong as they could be whilst still being recognisable.
at least they arent in Segmentata, which is a big step for society.
They are in series two, and that's lifted straight from Trjan's column as well.
To be honest, I'm not bothered about the layman needing to recognise correct Roman armour for the time period; in fact, I'm more than glad that an effort was made to make a tv-series like Rome, considering the budget involved, and that as a whole they made a pretty decent series out of it.
As long as the real experts are accurate and know what things were (roughly) like I couldn't care less about the view propagated by Hollywood or elsewhere to the public, though it is of course disappointing to hear people again and again thinking they know it all from a bit of Gladiator or a bit of Braveheart and possibly Wikipedia (heya, family!).
Braveheart pissed me off so bad it isn't funny . And it wasn't how they made WW but the whole sterling bridge battle . I expected pikemen WTF pwning some idiots on a bridge , not horses charging a phalanx .
Definitely agree with Russia there, Braveheart was an AWWWFUL film, mainly because, and I'm sorry Scotland, but you lost! Even with us Irish with you at Falkirk we couldn't win. But back to the thread of Roman Armies, I reckon Gladiator was the best, not because I know it was right (in fact I know hardly anything) but because we looked so badass when we beat those barbarians. Oh yeahhhh:2thumbsup:
About armour: I read in one article that LS was founded in Teutoburg!:shocked: Can anyone confirm this?
IIRC several EB members confirmed this. But the team never denied it was in use in Augustus' time, merely that it wouldn't be common until half a century later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge
One of the things I like to say about Gladiator is that through genius or dumb luck Ridley Scott created both a modern and a Roman hero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Long lost Caesar
As to Braveheart, what do you mean lost? Wallace lost, The Bruce won.
And it's not correctly displayed on Trajan's column, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Exactly.
So what is up with that column then? Am I assuming correctly that Trajan put lots of soldiers in Segmentata on the column as a propaganda maneuver?
Hey, Braveheart help spur the Scotish nationalism that got them their Parliament back. :beam:
One of the things I hate about Braveheart is the French princess. Who was a small child in France at the time and didn't marry Edward II until he was king.
Haha, yeah, but the thing was that Gibson knew that, when he made the movie. You should watch the DVD with Audio Commentary, it's hilarious. He doesn't remember half of the actors' names ("Great acting there, that dude's great!"). He says they made many decisions from a moviemaker perspective. So yeah, historical accuracy suffers, he admits that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Best quote is in the final scene, as the Scots charge:
Voice over: "The Scots, starved and outnumbered, charged the fields of <Idontremember>."
Gibson: "Yeah starved, except for the fat guy in the front row..."
Anyhow, off topic. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Indeed - the Hollywood philosophy that no movie is good without a love story stinks. Braveheart is a classic example of the said attitude: a half-assed, totally irrelevant romance storyline which only purpose is to get some female audience for a movie that is mostly about unwashed kilt-wearers shouting patriotic warcries and killing things.
The column isn't total drival but Roman sculptors had a tendancy to "Atticise" that is Make Greek the depiction of Roman soldiers, probably because the sculptors were themselves Greek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Adventurer
Marcus: I suggest you look into the political reality of the Scottish Parliament and the circumstances that led to the personnal and political union on the two Crowns.
Which book did you get those photos from? Those are pretty neat pictures, and if the rest of book has equally good illustrations, I'd like to get my hands on it!:book:
Also, Trajan's columm isn't exactly "First Class" - it's the cheap and cheerful department.
Rome should be considered a good start .
I want a movie with cataphracts though . Didn't the Fall of the Roman Empire have fully armored cataphracts in it ?
It's like abillboard really, PR.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Russia, you might want to read the topic before replying.
I'm guessing you mean that Robert De Bruce outlived Wallace, since Scotland was eventually conquered. Here's where Im a dumbass: did the ENGLISH (Medieval rulers of England) conquer Scotland, or was it the British (gave England te stereotypical "tally ho, pip pip what what?")Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla, thanks for correcting me with the equipment inaccuracies for the Rome series. The pics made your point loud and clear. Where did you get the legionairre pics from?
It's a scan from The Roman Legions in Colour Photographs by Daniel Peterson.
To all those who think that it's ok to portray history as was done in ROME I would say that the inaccuracies I have highlighted are merely the easiest to demonstrate. Such inaccuracies plague historical dramas of all eras and until the media are willing to listen to the archaeologists and historians they will continue to do so.
As a result an errenous version of history is perpetuated which damages our understanding of the realities of the past.
Firstly, I concur with everything P. V. Calicvla said about the crappy legionaries and officers of HBOs Rome. To add to this is the strange idea that the feminalia was a common piece of the "uniform" of the legionaries at that early date.Quote:
Originally Posted by GracchusTheGreat
Secondly, why do you think that the legionaries rotated in the manner shown in HBOs Rome? Rotation is at least rather doubtful; as far as I know there is no source to confirm such a tactical manoeuvre. So it is not at all a must-have in EB.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Adventurer
Traian's column is a propaganda piece. it was made to promote his campaigns. The artists changed a lot of the equipment and other things depicted (suggestions are that they maybe didn't even see the troops). Reasons for those changes are:
visibility: so all legionaries are depicted in segmentata, all auxiliaries in hamata to make a distinction possible from even further away. shields and cheek-/neckguards on helmets are depicted smaller than they are so the soldiers are visible.
style: greek/hellenic influence on the depictions
Traian's column
there is another monument errected by the troops at Adamklissi depicting the same events. you will notice the differences, especially that the majority of the legionaries is wearing hamata:
Adamklissi Metopes
historians and later film makers in earlier centuries made the mistake of copying from Traian's column. That's for example where you get the weird helmets shown in HBO's Rome from, with those strange rings on top (the only helmet which was found looking like that, the so called "Toledo helmet" proofed to be a fake)
Yes, I saw that one, with Gracchus, in Carthage, one of his men was dresses as a Hastai, with the plate covering his solar plexis. Totally loved the battle of Carthage and the pre-Marian uniforms shown.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Damages our understanding of the realities of the past? Quite frankly, a large percentage of the population has no understanding whatsoever about the exact accuracies and probably doesn't care all that much regardless. If they don't care, that's fine, but if they decide on the basis of such a series that they're interested in the subject matter and want to know more they'll very quickly find out that there's more to the Roman army than Lorica Segmentata. As for the rest, they're not bothered and there's know loss (or gain) of historical knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
So how does a series such as Rome damage understanding of actual history? As far as I'm concerned as long as there are still historians and archeologists working to expand knowledge on such matters it won't and can't. I could understand that there would be worries if a popular series were to start portraying recent history in such a way as Rome did for ancient times, since modern history directly influences states and peoples and can easily be abused for propaganda purposes; but whenever that happens there tends to be far more outcry in the press due to the relevant groups mostly still being around to protest today.
L.C. Cinna, I would disagree with you on hellenistic influences. I would argue that the monument is overwhelmingly Plebian in style.
Awesome link though.