.
How accurate is it in terms of depiction (weaponry, battles...)? The plotline is irrelevant but you may as well comment on that if you wish.
.
Printable View
.
How accurate is it in terms of depiction (weaponry, battles...)? The plotline is irrelevant but you may as well comment on that if you wish.
.
I liked the way the Romans deployed from the cohorts into a line before the final battle. And AFAIK the rebels were in fact crucified along the road (was it the Via Appia?).
I once watched a lecture by historian Natalie Zemon Davis who argued that one of the glaring inaccuracies was the lack of any religious dimension to the revolt. I would have to disagree with her there, though. She acknowledged that none of the contemporary sources mention any religious element, but was simply arguing that is MUST have been there. A bit weak, I thought.
The via Appia it was, I think. The main plot element which is glaringly incorrect is that the escaped slaves were almost certainly not against the principle of slavery, unlike the movie tries to portray.
Heck, a great many of them (like the Germans and Celts) of them were from cultures with a well-established parallel institution in the form of thralldom, or whatever the exact variant was called. They may have disagreed with being slaves or how Romans treated their slaves or something along those lines, but it is extremely unlikely they had any particular issues with the practice itself.
I seem to recall the combat gear carried by the Romans (and by extension the rebels, who after all mostly looted theirs) put me off at the time, though it's been a while since I saw the movie so the recollection's a little hazy.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
That and Spartacus most probably was killed in action. He wasn't a prophet-like leader as portrayed in the movie, he himself crucified his prisoners more than once. The ideal Spartacus is a modern day myth etc. etc.
I was really wondering about how military action, costumes et al were depicted, such as the mad professor replied to. :san_wink:
.
For the record, it's not proper to consider that a Kubrick film. It was taken out of his hands by the studio and edited by another person. When you are watching Spartacus, you are not watching Kubrick. That's why the film bears no artistic resemblance to any of his other work.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Correct. I learned about that after making the thread. Actually I was going to post "the Kirk Douglas movie" but after seeing Kubrick's name in the credits, that I hadn't been aware of before, I preferred to use it instead, out of respect. :bow:
.
Out of curiosity, how on earth did Spartacus become a gay icon?
.
~:eek:
.
never knew he was a gay icon, how did you get by that piece of information Geoffrey S ?
Just Curious,since I've never really heard of Spartakus being depicted as a gay role model - so to say.:san_undecided:
:balloon2:
The gay icon thingy comes from the bath scene with Tony Curtiss and Larry Olivier, (who btw was as bent as a nine bob note I met him in Portugal in the 80s, a nice man)
i remember the armor of the legions (even the imperials) was always leather, never saw one peice of chain mail in the entire movie. also in the movie the rebels seemed very organised even having a branch of cavalry...pretty unaccurate in those counts.
Lots of little anachronisms in the battle scenes -- watches, sneakers, etc. that didn't get removed in time -- but the basic tactics depicted weren't too far out of whack. YOu don't get to see a lot of them developed because it is easier to film close-ups of the hand-to-hand.
Gladiators were NOT fighting in the coliseum-style fashion depicted in the flick. They were mostly paid entertainment for funeral games at that point. Moreover, the goal of the Spartacus groups was to escape Italy and take over some terrain that they might defend -- Sicily being a prime choice since it was full of fellow rebellious slaves and had a history of giving Rome grief even before Spartacus.
The revolution was doomed from the outset, though, since Romans never gave up on a problem and would work for generations against an enemy if needed. Carthago was not Delenda in a day. Crassus mostly let the Sparticans starve after walling them off in the toe of the boot -- but that makes for poor film.
Oh, the rebels got quite organized along the way - how else could they have shattered several Roman field armies in straight-up fights and stomped back and forth along the entire peninsula for several years, anyway ? Spartacus himself had been a soldier before ending up in slavery; indeed, I've read he'd actually served in the Roman army as a mercenary and been imprisoned for causing trouble or something like that...
Anyway, the leather armours bugged the snot out of me now that someone brought them up. But then again, you see those horrors in altogether too many wannabe historical films anyway... I seem to recall the pila having been conspicuously absent, too.
I don't recall what the movie had to say about the objectively speaking strange choice Spartacus et co made to not try and force passage through the Alps into non-Roman territory after they'd fought their way that far, and which was probably the decision that ulitmately doomed the whole bunch, but it most likely wasn't anything to write home about either.
I've also heard that ole Kubrik was anything but happy with how the movie turned out. Can't blame him, I distinctly recall just about the entire audience bursting out in raucous and derisive laughter at some of the more cheesy melodrama back when I saw it...
It was my understanding that at one point they pretty much had an open road out of northern Italy and could have escaped to freedom, but they chose to go south again out of greed. Also, the movie exaggerates the role of the rebellion in bringing Crassus to power. He was a major player beforehand and after but he was never the 'dictator' type that the movie makes him out to be and this was not a make or break moment for him. He played his games like anyone else, but even at that time he took a backseat to Pompey. I would say he was more on par with Cato and Cicero.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Leather amour aside, you got to give the movie credit for it no-stirrups approach to Roman – era horse gear. The studio chiefs were already queasy about the scale of battles (and 1000’s of extras) Kubrik wanted – recycling the standard Rome leather amour that already existed (due to earlier Hollywood epics) might well have been a cost saving measure that was unavoidable.
I believe that for a long time scholars actually believed the Romans mainly wore leather armour due to the frieses, arches and collumns in Rome. So the movie wouldn't be too bad in that regard as it merely followed a view that was around not too long prior to its making (their consultant could easily be of that generation). Of course money might also have been an issue.:san_rolleyes:
"I once watched a lecture by historian Natalie Zemon Davis who argued that one of the glaring inaccuracies was the lack of any religious dimension to the revolt. I would have to disagree with her there, though. She acknowledged that none of the contemporary sources mention any religious element, but was simply arguing that is MUST have been there."
WHAT?????
How can you be a historian when you say that sort of stuff?
Maybe suggesting that it was possible, maybe that later sources suggested it (I don't know, did they?) but what she said....
:san_angry:
Yes, those were the two historically accurate parts of the movie I noticed most. As for disposition, dramaturgy and plot I think they never achieved any real climax feeling and some of the psychology of the characters was a little weak at points, although the message was good and insightful. But the plot was a little one-sided towards Sparatacus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules
Spartacus was really what some modern viewers would have called a terrorist, had they lived at the time. He murdered, pillaged and burnt in anger and revenge - many innocent people were harmed - while he tried to escape and find a new homeland to defend and make a free state of. This makes the roman fear, anger and hatred and the resulting counter-actions easier to understand from a biological/psychological perspective, even though they, obviously, had no just claim to a right to hold slaves for killing games. But roman policy made it ridiculous and impossible for a Spartacus to even think about expecting the romans to make a deal with him or negotiate, so he obviously had no choice against an empire that never negotiated, never changed it's policy.
Another thing is that in reality the fights to death in the gladiatorial arena were less common that popular misconception says, something the movie didn't imply. The love story put into the movie felt pointless and out of context. I preferred the darker Gladiator by Ridley Scott. A movie about Spartacus or any other gladiator needs to be dark IMO. The movie was too bright both in plotline (the end being an exception, of course) and scenography. But all in all it was a great movie, especially with the technology available at the time. The first 30 minutes were of higher quality than any minutes of Gladiator. The breakout "battle" was a very strong and well made scene IMO. The ending battle with accurate quincunx formation impressed me more than the random melee and breaking ranks of the Gladiator opening battle. But after the breakout the movie got very messy and unclear IMO, the ending battle was the only part of the latter half that was good.
True. Crassus was a very influential and somewhat shady man in Roman politics for some time before the slave revolt, which he then used as a means to attempt to move himself into a position of more influence within the more regular (not to mention legal) sides of Roman politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Yes, but that is so boring.:san_tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
One has to consider that gladiators were highly trained individuals, often the best and strongest slaves (when they were taken). Clearly to waste such expensive comodities on casual games, is just foolish. Sure the Romans were getting very rich at the time (they were getting to that point around 140 BC), but the money was concentrated in few families and the number of gladiators could never be sustained by them alone (for their funirary games and various other events). There has to have been lots of 'cheaper' games where the fighters didn't kill (unless by luck/bad luck).
I believed they went south to cross the strait between Italy and Greece, as in the movie they stated that every mountain pass out of northern Italy was protected by a Legion, and that they would have no chance to fight them. The last battle was fought in desperation apparently as I recall, as the Cilician pirates betrayed them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
.
In the movie Crassus pays the pirates out of the equation IIRC.
.
Quite possibly Krax', but then again, maybe not. Consider modern prize fighters. Champions may have a career with only a few dozen fights scattered over the course of two decades -- with most of those coming early on during their "up and coming" days. E.G. Marciano had only 49 fights and some of the great English "Mill Artists" may have fought as few as 10 fights (Though I acknowledge that others olden and modern fought in hundreds). Those funerary games may well have been it -- at least during the republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Perhaps... But if you look back at the fistfighters prior to boxing you will see that they had up to 80 matches in a career which was only a few years long. And these guys could draw massive audiences too (not compared to today or the big games of Rome of course).
The number of very wealthy Roman families in the Republican era was very limited. But they had almost all the wealth, leaving the lesser nobles or wealthy people with comparably nothing. We are talking a few thousands at most. Not enough would die to keep the numbers of gladiators going, the others, the fairly rich and prosperous, would also have games. But they couldn't afford to kill their gladiators each time a familymember died.
It was my understanding that the most successful gladiators fought hundreds of times. I swear I saw a program on excavations in London where they found a memorial to a gladiator who was recorded as having fought something over 500 matches. From what I have read and heard, gladiators only died in battles by accident, for extremely poor performances or during VERY rare matches put on by wealthy patrons.
I think many people get confused because it was common for prisoners to be put to death in the arena, which included simple execution, death by animals and very commonly death by gladiators. Much blood would have been spilled, but little of it would have been gladiator blood. When it comes down to it, it simply took too long and cost too much to train gladiators to allow 50% of them to die each time they fought.
Good point... I guess the gladiators were more of a tool to kill prisoners and entertain through showmanship... they were used to dispatch prisoners or to fight each other, and I assume first blood or knockout would have been good enough for most.
Yeah and make it more fun by giving the prisoners a 'fair' fight by giving them a few weapons. Not in a longshot would the gladiator lose but it would still be a spectacle to view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
And if the prisoner did win, I suppose you have a replacement or the hungry lions can get a feed...
Outrageous!!!:tongueg:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Don't know really... I suppose if they were popular then perhaps, and I dread this... Freedom?
I think it was - or at least eventually became, dunno about the era in question - a common practice to just force condemned criminals to kill each other in succession. You know, give one guy a weapon and he kills the other guy, take the weapon from him and give it to the next guy... Even some Romans found this to be plain crude, bloodthirsty butchery without any of the good qualities (well, in their opinion) of proper gladiator matches.
Of course, seeing as how the gladiators fought with real weapons and essnetially without armour quite a few naturally perished in the matches from their wounds, but wasn't it also a common practice to at least in the public ones to ask the audience and/or sponsors if an incapaciated fighter would be spared or killed ? You know, the Romans liked brave and good fighters, so even a gladiator who fought well but lost anyway often got away alive... :rtwyes:
And then there were free Roman citizens who volunteered to the arenas; talk about eXtreme sportz... :gring:
Do not forget that these were often poor men, often with some martial experience. Meaning, they didn't have anywhere else to turn. Too old to join the legions but very fit to join the gladiators.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Gladiators were honoured and sort of celebrities, often pampered with interesting visits. *ahem*
If you were a poor guy, however free, it would be a very inviting job.
So kind of like ex-special forces troopers becoming mercenaries...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraxis
Hm... Yeah I guess it fits, but the men would be nowhere near the quality of the SF. They would perhaps have been legionaries or down-on-their-luck bodyguards, there were plenty of matial jobs in the Roman Empire, even prior to it actually becoming an Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio