Authencity of "Rome" tv show?

[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!

~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 ), 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

[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

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.