HBO Rome

There must be a topic on this already, couldn't find it though. I was just curious regarding historical accuracy here. I don't mean the specific events and the order in which they are presented (battles, etc) and it's really obvious that a number of liberties must have been taken with some of the more lively characters (mark antony and atia are both awesome :laugh4:). But I was wondering if the everyday-life elements shown are correct. Slavery, what it meant being a citizen, religion, sexual promiscuity etc..Or if this is a slightly more sophisticated Zena?

I would say about 85 % accurate in general, 15 % entertainment. On everyday life of Romans (and for that matter Marus Antonius' character if we believe Cicero), higher. On battles, motivations, characters, etc, less. As for their promiscuity, which offends many, Romans were promiscuous, and they are no worse than Danes or any other Western country.

Just like a computer game, a series like that has to cover some of the holes in our knowledge with assumptions and guesses in order to get the whole picture and thus an actual series or game. A TV-series also has to cater to the non-historians, and entain all the entertaining bits.

If you are interested, this book http://books.google.dk/books?id=Evww...age&q=&f=false, though getting on a bit in age is a good resource.

I've been searching for such a book for a while fantastic post

have one of this on me :D :balloon2:

Thanks, but it is nothing. I am just fortunate to have read it as part of my education (well, skimmed some, read some, skipped some, for then I could not afford it).

But thanks.

In terms of the day to day life, in my Roman Social history class, our prof often used pictures out of HBO's Rome, she thought the everyday citizens where portrayed rather well.

Beside the fact that nobody actually knows how romans thought or lived I think its well done :yes:
My father who teaches latin disaagrees, because of some things like the promiscuity of the woman, which was severly punished and mostly happened in the local brothels and not like in rome.

Depends when, in the Late Republic- Early Principate we have several examples of women of noble families being quite promiscuous.

Caecilia Metella Calva
Clodia Metelli
Atilia
Julia the Younger?
Albucilla

To name but a few.
However, "officially" of course, promiscuous women were condemned...

Romans are for the most part very well represented.

Ptolemaic Egypt & some areas outside Rome though (Bithynia being shown as some Arab kingdom)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Krusader

(Bithynia being shown as some Arab kingdom)...

---

What is the name of Mithradates? What sort of junk are they smoking over there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Beside the fact that nobody actually knows how romans thought or lived I think its well done :yes:
My father who teaches latin disaagrees, because of some things like the promiscuity of the woman, which was severly punished and mostly happened in the local brothels and not like in rome.

---

Yeah, I agree with Macilrille - early to mid Republic your father's right, but I get the feeling that it became less and less so in the very Late Republic and the early principate (ps. Macilrille, you forgot the most obvious example: Messalina). We have examples of people like Clodia (aka. Lesbia) who never really got punished for their...whoring - although Clodia did get pretty badly chewed out by Cicero. -M

My gut feeling says more or less it's the same as right now. Sometimes it's taboo sometimes it's not. Certain people celebrate it, some other are just ugly crones who cannot appreciate it. Of course if you're of some important family you can be sure anything will be used against you. Were they punished? Sure. Did they hate sex? Romans are humans like us. The "whores" in the show are all widows and or single. Why is it so strange they mess around?

It's just typical human hypocracy and barbaric tendancies to up/down-play facts for one's own benefits.

:clown: HBO portrayal of Barbaropolis, darn accurate in certain aspects huh?

i wish they wud make a third series was so good my gf bought me both box sets last christmas, sad to see such a good series get old :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionhard

i wish they wud make a third series was so good my gf bought me both box sets last christmas, sad to see such a good series get old :(

---

They dropped a third series because they were not getting enough money to support the apparently very expensive "Rome". Instead they made Tudors, which I have not seen, but which is also rumoured (like Real Life (TM) ) to have sex in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mulceber

Yeah, I agree with Macilrille - early to mid Republic your father's right, but I get the feeling that it became less and less so in the very Late Republic and the early principate (ps. Macilrille, you forgot the most obvious example: Messalina). We have examples of people like Clodia (aka. Lesbia) who never really got punished for their...whoring - although Clodia did get pretty badly chewed out by Cicero. -M

---

You know that many historians doubt the informations about clodia, but even more about Messalina.

Anyway my personal opinion is just that we cant know anything about that time. Sad but true :book: The facts you can know(Like buildings etc) are presented very well in rome.

BOLLOCKS a third series would have owned tudors bull @£%@^£@^@&@

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lionhard

BOLLOCKS a third series would have owned tudors bull @£%@^£@^@&@

---

yes but the question remains if it would have been profitable or not

i would love to see at least 1 episode with clodious and milan and clodia

an entire series dedicated to marius and sertorius and sulla (that one would certainly rock for sure)

I loved Rome, but I don't think a third series would be needed. Afterall one of the 2 main characters is dead and I feel the story effectively reached a conclusion.

If you havn't seen it, watch the Tudors, it is excellent. I'm not particularly knowledgable myself about this time period but I have heard that the writers of this show take a few more liberties with history this time around.

I have seen most of the Tudors, I like it, especially Henry's transformation from a brat with too much power under the sway of nobles jockeying for influence, to an arrogant hard core power politician playing everybody against everybody and slaughtering all who are in his way to absolutism. While casually having every woman he wants. It's good to be king indeed.

Still, Rome would have been better.

Well thats interesting, because when I was asked about The Tudors, I said "Like ROME but in Renaissance times". I think you can clearly see the characteristics they have in common.

So the producers was like: Ahhh, this goddam antiquity, to expansive! Let's do the same but in Renaissance, at least there are still some of this time's castles around.

Tudors was absolutely unwatchable. Worst historical TV serie ever.

Il b honest it bored me but i never actually sat down and watched it properly, im an action man, cant stand too much talkin and nothin happening

HBO's Rome was quite good for the standards we are used to see in TV or movie representations of antiquity. I liked the fact that they took 2 names from Commentarii de Bello Gallico and used them as the main characters, while Caesar, Mark Anthony and the most known ones run through parallel stories.

I think that they made a very good effort to represent everyday life in the Roman world in that period. The casting and acting was mixed, some of the characters are great (Titus Pullo, Lucius Vorenus, Mark Anthony) but others are far too stretched from what we know about them (Mark Anthony, Pompey Magnus, Atia).

I wish they had a better budget to represent the battles, sometimes it feels like watching those History Channel reenactments, with a close-up on 8 romans trying to represent a battle line.

But compared to other "historical" movies or series like Gladiator, Alexander, etc, I think it stands out.

There is a project on the move to make a Rome movie.

http://www.movieweb.com/news/NE7R0f7eRCvNac

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

Anyway my personal opinion is just that we cant know anything about that time. Sad but true :book: The facts you can know(Like buildings etc) are presented very well in rome.

---

As a historian I have to say we cannot know anything about any time period, not even our own. That is the extreme post-modern view. However, we can use the sources we have, and Antiquity is much better documented than my specialisation, Denmark Iron Age to 1250-ish, which is why we historians always- ALWAYS!!! apply a generous dose of source criticism in order to make a good estimate of what happened.

Everyday life seems to me quite well represented in Rome I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian

I think that they made a very good effort to represent everyday life in the Roman world in that period. The casting and acting was mixed, some of the characters are great (Titus Pullo, Lucius Vorenus, Mark Anthony) but others are far too stretched from what we know about them (Mark Anthony, Pompey Magnus, Atia).

---

:inquisitive::dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziegenpeter

:inquisitive::dizzy2:

---

Sorry, that should have been Caesar in the first place. :embarassed:

What is HBO?

Home Box Office; The makers of the series "Rome", "Band of Brothers", "The Tudors" etc as I suspect you already know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HBO

http://www.hbo.com/

A Google search got me those links, so I wonder why you ask.

Most famously known for "The Sopranos" and in general source of the few high quality tv-series that come out of the US these days.

HBO isn't very known outside of the States, btw.

Seriously? It's very known in Europe IMHO. I watched many series of HBO, my friends as well, + the TV was advertised a lot.

And i'm from Slovenia:2thumbsup:

Back on topic.

I loved the show. It kinda sucked, that it spaned for almost 20 years, while Vorenius and his children remained the same. But hack, it was extremly fun

Well, yeah ROME and Tudors are known, but I think even among those europeans who know these series, less than 50% would know HBO.

Im from the Netherlands and I only knew about HBO by buying the dvd box. Each time I put in a dvd it forces me to watch a bright scene with letters HBO. Until then I knew only about HBO school wise (HBO in holland means something like American college).

~Fluvius

That will teach you Fluvius, to be aware of HBO! ;-)

I was not trying to slag, demean or ridicule SkullHQ, merely curious.

Of HBO I have only seen BoB and Rome, both covers periods that interests me mightly (notice my baloon count) well.

Well Rome was also produced by the BBC (I believe the BBC even was more involved in 'making' the series then HBO was, but that HBO provided the necessary funds), and they are more well known here (the Netherlands).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

HBO isn't very known outside of the States, btw.

---

HBO is pretty well known in Hungary actually. My parents paid for it for 7 years at home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apázlinemjó

HBO is pretty well known in Hungary actually. My parents paid for it for 7 years at home.

---

i can attest the same for Macedonia. actually Rome and Band of Brothers are the 2 out 3 of my favortite shows of all times...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tarem

i can attest the same for Macedonia. actually Rome and Band of Brothers are the 2 out 3 of my favortite shows of all times...

---

I mean the channel itself. Not the series. Sure everybody knows Star Trek, but noone has any clue which broadcast network originally produced it.

For instance, everybody knows what BBC is regardless of if they ever saw its programmes. Most people in Europe (I'll make the reservation of "that I know of" then), never heard of HBO, and those that heard or know it, know it exclusively associated to one of their successful series. Now for people who didn't watch Rome or Band of Brothers or Heroes (Isn't it from HBO also? Or is it Fox? Bleh.) have absolutely no idea what HBO is.

maybe you are right. i know of it though and so do the people i hang around with (mostly from satelite TV and the shows), but then if you ask the average joe what HBO is, they'd give you the :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anubis88

Seriously? It's very known in Europe IMHO. I watched many series of HBO, my friends as well, + the TV was advertised a lot.

And i'm from Slovenia:2thumbsup:

Back on topic.

I loved the show. It kinda sucked, that it spaned for almost 20 years, while Vorenius and his children remained the same. But hack, it was extremly fun

---

Most people I speak to think the HBO things they watch are BBC, people tend to skip introductions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seienchin

You know that many historians doubt the informations about clodia, but even more about Messalina.

Anyway my personal opinion is just that we cant know anything about that time. Sad but true :book: The facts you can know(Like buildings etc) are presented very well in rome.

---

If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion then we know about as much about the Roman Empire as we do about Minoan Greece. Sorry, written sources ARE valuable. They don't have the final say, but they do help us fill in the wide gaps left by the archaeological record. Both Cicero and Catullus argue that Clodia was promiscuous. That's good enough to say to me that 1. she had that reputation for a reason: maybe she really was the whore they say she was, maybe she'd engaged in one affair and it gave her a reputation which grew on its own, or perhaps she was just painted with the same unsavory brush as her brother Clodius. Given the amount of things Cicero and Catullus have to say about her, I'm inclined to believe there was at least some kernel of truth behind it. But who knows, I could be wrong. 2. What Cicero and Catullus (and others) have to say tells me that there was probably a subculture of promiscuity within Rome (as there is in virtually any human culture) that was tolerated by some, not so much by others. I do concede though that our sources probably exaggerate it to some extent. -M

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikosMaximilian

I wish they had a better budget to represent the battles, sometimes it feels like watching those History Channel reenactments, with a close-up on 8 romans trying to represent a battle line.

---

Are you kidding me? IIRC, HBO's Rome is one of the most expensive tv series ever. Only HBO would so this. Costing as much as a cinematic. Insane.

How the History Channel sucks... last night I turned off a "documentary" about the siege of Alesia, featuring Vercingetorix strolling around in a mediaeval cuirass with pauldrons attached (and I used to moan about EBI's inaccurate Celts...!) and an archaeologist who seems to believe all the numbers quoted by Caesar are completely accurate and that he really did slaughter 430,000 Germans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Are you kidding me? IIRC, HBO's Rome is one of the most expensive tv series ever. Only HBO would so this. Costing as much as a cinematic. Insane.

---

It might be one of the most expensive, but the battle scenes weren't THAT impressive (maybe I had my aims set too high). I'm not asking for a 300-esque comic-book graphical concept or an Alexander CGI, but something more developed than a close-up on 6 Roman soldiers fighting 10 Gauls, whistle blows, switch of lines, and then 6 Roman soldiers equipped EXACTLY the same way, fighting against those same 10 Gauls.

Apart from that, the series was great, one of the best on that particular period than I can remember.

Well the Battle of Phillipi looked pretty decent for a tv show; ahistorical, but decent

I liked Rome, but as they'd often play it here in the Great White North on Showcase out of order, I'd seen almost the whole Octavian/Antony arc before they jumped back to the eps with Caesar.

I was suprised by how... ugly he looked, I guess. I shouldn't really be surprised, I learned in school why Alexander and Caesar's statues looked the way they did, but I still kind of remember double-taking.

Also recently I read the Emperor series of books, which while good fiction sure had a messed up timeline, and certainly stirred the pot melodrama wise.

They were great at depicting the cruel battles, hacking off limbs without the extremely fake 300 blood. Not a historical battle but one of the best fights IMHO, the point where Pullo fights in the Arena (and Vorenus eventually rescues him).

~Fluvius

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

They were great at depicting the cruel battles, hacking off limbs without the extremely fake 300 blood. Not a historical battle but one of the best fights IMHO, the point where Pullo fights in the Arena (and Vorenus eventually rescues him).

~Fluvius

---

"THIRTEENTH!!!!!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

They were great at depicting the cruel battles, hacking off limbs without the extremely fake 300 blood. Not a historical battle but one of the best fights IMHO, the point where Pullo fights in the Arena (and Vorenus eventually rescues him).

~Fluvius

---

Yeah, i watched that part at least 50 times :)

Well... that fight is not very realistic either, and if you know something about fighting you can easily see the choreography. What is very realistic indeed is the way vets feel about their outfight and friends.

An interesting essay on realism of war films (modern though).

That was a fascinating article, Mac.
I think it applies to many genres, not just war films.

I was going to state an example, but it's 4 am and my brain is mush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Well... that fight is not very realistic either, and if you know something about fighting you can easily see the choreography. What is very realistic indeed is the way vets feel about their outfight and friends.

An interesting essay on realism of war films (modern though).

---

Interesting indeed. Although I get the impression that it is impossible to make a war film that is both compelling and realistic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

I would say about.... accurate.... On battles.... less.

---

Nonsense. The battles in Rome are probably the best portrayal of late republican Roman warfare.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbSa9ZvSMaQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

An interesting essay on realism of war films (modern though).

---

Mac, what are you trying to imply when you say "modern though"? Those who fought wars during the Bronze and Iron ages, as far as I know, were also of the species Homo sapiens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

Well... that fight is not very realistic either, and if you know something about fighting you can easily see the choreography. What is very realistic indeed is the way vets feel about their outfight and friends.

An interesting essay on realism of war films (modern though).

---

At least that battle scene makes sense. The first one I ever see where the legionaries know to keep their rank and raise their scutum to protect them from stroks from above and stab the enemies in abdomen and thighs.

Quote:

---

Nonsense. The battles in Rome are probably the best portrayal of late republican Roman warfare.

---

Welcome to the Forum. Consider that best portrayal just means least inaccurate, not point-on accurate. As a historian nothing inaccurate will ever satisfy me. I have described elsewhere, perhaps in the early parts of this very thread, why I consider the depiction inaccurate. I am too lazy to do so again, sorry.

Quote:

---

Mac, what are you trying to imply when you say "modern though"? Those who fought wars during the Bronze and Iron ages, as far as I know, were also of the species Homo sapiens.

---

I am not certain what you mean, but the essay is talking about modern wars and why the films depicting them are inaccurate. It sparked an interesting debate on H-War on the pros and cons of war films, but this too concerns modern wars- especially WWII.

Quote:

---

At least that battle scene makes sense. The first one I ever see where the legionaries know to keep their rank and raise their scutum to protect them from stroks from above and stab the enemies in abdomen and thighs.

---

See my reply to VonVince.

I'm glad enough the legionaires look quite good, there is no LS!

~Fluvius

Actually there is LS. :beam: In the 2nd season, some legionaires of Augustus' are wearing some kind of bronze(?) LS.

Ugh.

Not this again, look Rome was a piece of dross historically. They got some things right, but most of it was wrong. All the armor etc. was taken off Trajan's column and is therefore both anachronistic and inacurately stylised. The best bits were the little details, like when Pullo's slave-girl touches his (anachronistic) Gladius' blade and he takes it away from her before wiping it down with an oiled cloth. He does that because the acid in your skin etches steel.

Cicero's death was also good, as was the generally lower regard for human life.

Beyond that though... everyone was having too much sex, a subject the writers and producers completely failed to comprehend in a Roman context, and to which they aired every ancient scurrilous rumour about the historical persons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by machinor

Actually there is LS. :beam: In the 2nd season, some legionaires of Augustus' are wearing some kind of bronze(?) LS.

---

True, although for the most part, the Legionaires in that series tended to wear Lorica Hamata and generally pretty accurate garb. -M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLzf...eature=related

A more, historical version of Caesar's campaing i just found on youtube

~Jirisys (not enough brainpower to put anything witty but sadly, unfunny in this space)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ugh.

Not this again, look Rome was a piece of dross historically. They got some things right, but most of it was wrong. All the armor etc. was taken off Trajan's column and is therefore both anachronistic and inacurately stylised. The best bits were the little details, like when Pullo's slave-girl touches his (anachronistic) Gladius' blade and he takes it away from her before wiping it down with an oiled cloth. He does that because the acid in your skin etches steel.

Cicero's death was also good, as was the generally lower regard for human life.

Beyond that though... everyone was having too much sex, a subject the writers and producers completely failed to comprehend in a Roman context, and to which they aired every ancient scurrilous rumour about the historical persons.

---

American? I find that most people complaining about the amount of sex in Rome are Americans while most Europeans just shrug and takes it as a matter of fact, reflecting reality. I have to repeat that Rome has no more sex than my life the last 15 years; sex is a fact of life, it is wonderful and it takes up a lot of our thoughts, and we have it whenever we can. We look at women, we think of it, we fantasize about it. To deny that is to deny nature (procreation you know, it is pretty important, is why we are so obsessed about it). If a series is to reflect life, sex should take up a lot of space- much more than it did in Rome. And if Rome had passed on all rumours it would be a pretty perverse porn flick, not what HBO aired.

I also have to disagree about Cicero's death; he was given away by his brother's slave while trying to escape to Macedonia, then leaned out of his litter; bowing his head andbaring his neck in a traditional gladiatorial sign of acceptance of death. Herennius then killed him. That is not really the way things are depicted in Rome. On the other hand, AFAIK, the arms and armour seems correct. Why is the Gladius Hispanensis anachronistic in 43 BC? What armour other than Lorica Hamata did the legions wear at Caesar's time? It may be that I am unenlightened, but AFAIK, that is exactly what they wore and used. In fact even the round-edged Scutum seems correctly depicted instead of the later types which seems to have been a mix of these and square-edged ones. Further, you claim most of Rome was wrong. "Most" means that at least 51 % of all content is not corresponding to the ancient sources, written, archeological and depictions, and our understanding of them.
I would very much like to see this documented if you please so I can achieve enlightenment (edited to add) for it was my understanding that Rome is closer to 85% correct than 51% + wrong.


Edted a second time to add that looking for something else (BG II SOA but a link provided in this forum), I came across this site. It is really good and enlightened in all its humour and irony, pinning mass-media/mass-entertainment culture pretty well. If whoever posted the original link to it pipes up, I owe him a balloon.

That is true, although I liked the accurate depiction of Cicero's close friendship to his slave, who lived on after the chaos in order to write about his master, although that isn't how Cicero died.

I also have grown to really love HBO following learning about Spartacus Blood and Sand.

More than that I saw on TVTropes that HBO has signed on for producing one of my favorite fantasy book series- unfortunately I forgot which ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macilrille

More than that I saw on TVTropes that HBO has signed on for producing one of my favorite fantasy book series- unfortunately I forgot which ;-)

---

A Game of Thrones, the first part of the song of ice and fire series from George R. R. Martin. ;-)

Never actually read A song of Ice and Fire, so there must be some other one. I think it may actually be Wheel of Time, which I liked immensely for the first few years (until book 6, it is quite unfortunate, but I suspect the only thing that could have completed that series instead of it just droning on forever was Jordan's death- tragick as it otherwise is), and have faithfully sort of followed since (I still have not purchased or read Book 12).