Printable View
What movie or movies most historically shows the way that Legionaires fought, looked, or behaved. Also, why was it that the Roman soldiers in The Passion of the Christ had lorica segmentata that appeared as if it were made of leather. Is there something that I'm missing?
Cheap bastards in budget and or costume design ? When people think of legions they tend to think of the LS armored legions . Not the Earlier chain covered ones or the Camilian ones .
I would love to see a movie with Camilian legions going against Phyruss of Eprius .
I can't think of any movies with extremely accurate Roman Legions. But if the movie is about the middle of the Emperial timeframe, AD0-AD200ish, LS isn't necessarily bad to have.
The opening scene of the first episode of HBO's "Rome" series shows Caesar's legions fighting against Gauls, complete with unit rotation and the Romans' good-ol' shield-bashing and quick-stabbing. The second season has a portrayal of the battle of Philippi, in which the clashing armies eventually lose their cohesion entirely. Not at all like RTW. At one point, Octavian Caesar asks Marc Antony, "Are we winning?" To which Antony replies, "Beats me. When all else fails, Attack!" So far this series is the best you can hope to see of Roman combat.
And of course there's Gladiator. I wouldn't bother.
Well Gladiator did have the battle against the furballs, which was pretty atmospheric, if not accurate.
There was a good short series with each episode being about a particular great Roman. They used sets and costumes from various larger productions, and the overall effect was great. Some of the actors were very good (Nero), and for a limited budget they got some really nice battles (Gracchus as a young man attacking Carthage and the siege of Jerusalem were particularly nice) in some cases showing tactics very well (Pharsalus) with correct pre-Imperial uniforms. It wasn't great, and at times looked very cheap, but in general I was very impressed at what they managed to achieve.
I believe the Units in the Passian that have leather are temple guards not roma military..Im not certen but the legians did not wear battle gear unless on campian or in the field..or patrol..the wiping scean is while in the fortress and there would be no need to have city milita wearing expensive armor becouse thats what thy where urban local millita leather is somewhat apporeate we really have no idea what the axillary units wore :laugh4: so anything go's
Also the best fighting men are not going to be set watching and killing Prisoners..thy would be in there barracks or out side of the citys away from the vices of the everday people:whip: So i'm certen that retired or ageing or local men at arms would have assisted the gov in dealing with small petty affers such as tending the jails and handing down roman law..the tenth legian marching and wiping jesus:whip: very laughable.
On a side note..alot of the old roma military hardware was given to the old stock and city milita so leather and old bits of armor wouldent be so much out of place:book:
No, Roman troops policied the local population, militias were not a real part of the Roman Empire beyond the town/night watches. militias are loyal to the local population, soldiers are loyal to the Emperor. Also, we know what the Auxillaries wore I'm afraid. In this period, from archaeology alone, without texts or guesswork, I can reconstruct pretty much any class of soldier with a high degree of confidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by sass
Again, no. Roman soldiers were more than just meatheads and by having them run local affairs under the procurator Rome and the Emperor maintained control. In this case the procurator was in Jerusalem and the soldiers on his staff would have likely come from the legionary garrison.Quote:
Also the best fighting men are not going to be set watching and killing Prisoners..thy would be in there barracks or out side of the citys away from the vices of the everday people:whip: So i'm certen that retired or ageing or local men at arms would have assisted the gov in dealing with small petty affers such as tending the jails and handing down roman law..the tenth legian marching and wiping jesus:whip: very laughable.
I'd like your source for this, as far as I know old gear was recycled or simply used until it dissintegrated. In any case the leather lorica seen in The Passion is complete fantasy based almost entirely on a poor artist's depiction of armour on Trajan's column.Quote:
On a side note..alot of the old roma military hardware was given to the old stock and city milita so leather and old bits of armor wouldent be so much out of place:book:
Geoffrey S, was the series you described on the history channel or the military channel. I think I watched the series that you mentioned. It was televised about six months ago was it not.
I'd like to see something along the lines of 'the life of Camillus', but I have no illusions of it happening on film.Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
There was a mini series on Hannibal which had pretty good Iberian, and Celtic gear. I only saw Scipio senior for the Romans though and his breastplate didn't look good. But then I only saw the first episode, which got Hannibal across the Alps- just.
Just spent the last 20 minutes trying to find it on the net, but can't. Lots of other Hannibal projects, including one from National Geographic. Too much to hope for?
This is it:Quote:
Originally Posted by Maeran
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0766213/
I'm no expert but the battle scenes looked very good/authentic.
That's the bunny.
One of the funniest things about that battle, beside the completely incorrect representation of the Roman military, is the fact they are fighting in a 'clear-cut'. It is clearly a modern tree plantation with a fresh clear-cut in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thaatu
I didn't see it on either of those, but on the BBC. It could have been the same program; they did a series on (definitely) Tiberius Gracchus, Nero, Caesar, Titus and Vespasian, and Constantine. I think it was called something like Rise and Fall of an Empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmehrer07
Maeran, I saw that Hannibal thing. Wasn't too keen on it. They tried to fit in far too much in about two hours, and ended up not covering anything significantly. It had some nice sets and costumes, but they were generally used in far too confusing a way, certainly when trying to cover a major battle (Cannae) briefly.
what's a clear-cut ? :inquisitive:
Perhas he means the trees were aligned on a grid of sorts...? To facilitate the cavalry scene?
The whole opening battle scene in Gladiator is in a tree plantation with a fresh clearcut. Every tree is the same species, same size, and equally spaced.
I also heard the overseer (or whomever oversaw that part of the forest there) gladly had it used for the movie. Everything was going to be cut down soon anyway and after the filming with lots of fire and that jazz was done, there sure was a lot less woodcutting to do. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcusAureliusAntoninus
Anyway, what's wrong with the army depicted in this scene from Gladiator? (I really don't know, so I'm just curious!)
The best I've seen so far is the end battle in Stanley Cubrick's "Spartacus", because the legionaries IIRC held realistic formations and the battle scene wasn't full of flaming arrows, flaming pigs, dancing elephants, man-to-man sword duels, people bending down over fallen comrades in the middle of the battle with slow motion and music, and they weren't running at top speed all the time for hours, and cliché-filled battle speeches. However, the actual battle wasn't shown in much detail, but rather: after the manouvering they switched to a picture of the dead after the battle had ended. About whether the roman legionary equipment was correct for the era etc., I can't comment, but the atmosphere was more realistic than most other examples I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by mjmehrer07
"Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire"Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0864944/
Available from play.com (UK);
http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/11262...e/Product.html
Amazon.co.uk;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-Rome...7874427&sr=8-1
Their equipment was wrong, they didn't hurl pila, they didn't advance in formation, they moved into the woods, they lacked dicipline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepid Adventurer
Just to point out the obvious.
The equipment in Sparticus was actually pretty good for the era the film was made. Unfortunately at that time there was a lot less to go on but the helmets are at least real if 150 years too early.
Very interesting PVC !
IIRC the legionaries advanced shoulders to shoulders much like a phalanx, unlike the much more spaced formation they normally used, forming a shield wall that was used against the arrow volley of the barbarians (probably to show an image of something like a "Tortoise" that everybody knows about roman legionaries)
And you are so right, the romans even let the barbarians charge them instead of throwing their pilla and then charging in.
The Roman General even had his cavalry charging through the woods :inquisitive: having a dog acompagnying him :laugh4:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimonKevNorris
That is the only movie or program that I have seen with correct armor for each time period.
Spartacus was quite cool, and is the only movie I have ever seen or heard of that actually showed the Romans deploying in the checkerboard triplex acies prior to battle. The way they marched to form up is also shown, and while purely conjecture as I see it, seems very nicely thought out from a purely aesthetic point of view. Pity, though. Spartacus was after Marius, and the cohortal formation was not checker-boarded with square checkers anymore, but long rectangular ones. Right formation, wrong era. But if I recall correctly, the Spartacus legionnaires used segmentata o.o
Sheesh, I didn't know this was going to turn into such a heated debate on armor! But hell, since we're looking, HBO's Rome series depicts Republican legionnaries uncannily similar to those in EB. If only there were a way to rotate the lines like that in the game...(watch and you'll see what I mean).
some nifty scenes from the series.
Brutus' Death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcnPpo0tV6M
Caesar's Death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41Bj...elated&search=
Caesar's Speech to the 13th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PeN1k9AAMg
Antony and Octavian vs Brutus etc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHzX...elated&search=
HBO Rome? I heard that series was smothered in sex. It's good, though?
It is an interesting show. But, yes, it has too much sex. It's HBO and they go to extremes just because they can.
Heh, the long distance shots of that major Rome battle look barely better than MTW2.
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by GracchusTheGreat
I'm sorry but that's just not true. I was talking to a friend of mine (who is an archaeologist specialising in the Roman army) and we were talking about just how bad it was. The fact that you think the series was realistic just goes to show how damaging it has been.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by abou
Oh well, when you look at the helmets you'll notice that many of them contain several attic helmet features while some are a mixture. The hellenistic influence is even stronger on Marcus column. the thing is that probably many of the artists working on the monument were eastern or only knew the attic helmets depicted on sculptures of praetorians in "parade uniform".
btw on the same page you can see Marc Aurel's column too:
here
and here the Arch of Septimius Severus:
scroll a bit down and click on the pictures
But since the understanding of history is changing continually and there are many uncertainties and disputes I think you are asking the impossible. Rome did not feature lorica segmentata or imperial shields, so it's accurate enough as far as I am concerned. I am more worried about their tabloid reconstruction of history than about not getting Roman equipment entirely right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
You completely missed my point, as I said, the equipment issues are merely the easiest to highlight from a historical point of view Rome is complete dross. Depiction of politics, religion and society is pretty badly done in a lot of cases. About the only thing they got really right was the value of human life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Oh, and LS and square shields were both evident, the Hollywood version of the latter even appears in the first series. The LS is the crud from Trajan' column.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Hello Calicvla,
I see that you don't have a very favorable opinion of HBO Rome. I was wondering if you heard the audio commentaries from here:
http://www.hbo.com/rome/behind/rome_revealed/rome.html
What are your thoughts about what they are saying, particularly in their section on the Roman army? How much is accurate and how much of it is questionable at best?
I quite agree that their representation of politics and society were very incomplete, and sometimes downright wrong. But you simply haven't got the time to explain everything in a TV series (much less a movie), and you can't afford to bewilder the viewer by just presenting reality without simplification. Even documentaries often are too incomplete to satisfy historians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Out of curiosity, is there any TV series or movie you do consider accurate enough?
I stand corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla