Authencity of "Rome" tv show?

[Space_Ed]

From how I understand it Rome is a relatively historically accurate depiction of Rome at the time. One of the things I've never been sure of is how similar the actors playing the Romans look to ancient Romans. To me the Scot playing Lucius Vorenus and his half Indian wife Niobe strains credibility. Not too sure about old Pullo and the second actor who plays Octavian? Any comments? I personally think Atia was well cast as was Posca. I don't think Marcus Antonius was too badly cast either. What do you guys think?

Edit: I thought Cleopatra looked ok to me but I'm not sure about those weird Egyptian costumes in the show.

[moonburn]

as for all the sex complaints i must say that romans where very minded on sex war and strenght wich was the basis of their original society searching for a "vigorous" soldier type that could keep rome safe from all the dangers at it´s doors

someone explained this better by quoting tacitus and other authors on how the imperial era was actually rome´s old age (if we compare it with a normal human life lenght) so yes i don´t believe the sex part (appart from it´s comercial interest) is historically inacurate

as for cato i always found him a facinating caracther of rome cause while he was born in a roman senatorial family (remember he was brutus uncle) and he anexed cyprus to the roman sphere of influence (taking back an huge treasure and roping barrels to every single gold box so that in case of a sinking ship the gold wouldn´t be lost and he couldn´t be acussed of stealing from the roman people) (wich one may add seems very wierd when we know that bibulus cato´s best friend did tryed to steal the syrian gold when he was nominated governor of the syrian province of rome)

cato was very much against the corruption and expecially against epicurists and since he wasn´t an epicurist he hated everything that was considered a luxury like wine or even slaves he only had 2 greek philosophers as personal slaves i believe and was considered a terrible host cause his wine was the cheapest of wine available (but he did married his daughter originally to one of rome´s richest man and most proeminent "lawyer" some soucers claim as a lawyer he and cicero where at the same level)

actually one could write an entire history book on cato wich could explain the several tendencys that romans fallowed during the late republic after sulla´s dictatorship where sulla anihilated 3000 "noble" romans

[paramedicguyer]

as for all the sex complaints i must say that romans where very minded on sex war and strenght wich was the basis of their original society searching for a "vigorous" soldier type that could keep rome safe from all the dangers at it´s doors

someone explained this better by quoting tacitus and other authors on how the imperial era was actually rome´s old age (if we compare it with a normal human life lenght) so yes i don´t believe the sex part (appart from it´s comercial interest) is historically inacurate

as for cato i always found him a facinating caracther of rome cause while he was born in a roman senatorial family (remember he was brutus uncle) and he anexed cyprus to the roman sphere of influence (taking back an huge treasure and roping barrels to every single gold box so that in case of a sinking ship the gold wouldn´t be lost and he couldn´t be acussed of stealing from the roman people) (wich one may add seems very wierd when we know that bibulus cato´s best friend did tryed to steal the syrian gold when he was nominated governor of the syrian province of rome)

cato was very much against the corruption and expecially against epicurists and since he wasn´t an epicurist he hated everything that was considered a luxury like wine or even slaves he only had 2 greek philosophers as personal slaves i believe and was considered a terrible host cause his wine was the cheapest of wine available (but he did married his daughter originally to one of rome´s richest man and most proeminent "lawyer" some soucers claim as a lawyer he and cicero where at the same level)

actually one could write an entire history book on cato wich could explain the several tendencys that romans fallowed during the late republic after sulla´s dictatorship where sulla anihilated 3000 "noble" romans

I believe you are experiencing Cato the philosopher, not Cato the politician. One can argue that Cato himself was instrumental in the downfall of the republic. While Cato publicly disdained corruption that did not stop him from participating in massive bribery to get bibulus elected. Additionally, he was against prosecution of clodius (for actions during his tribunate, which really were illegal) because that would in fact anull his annexation of cyprus. Additionally, he was in fact a drunk, which make his famous quip to caesar (read about the cataline conspiracy, cato called ceasar a drunk, caesar in fact rarely drank). If you would like me to further my assertation that Cato was in fact instrumental in the establishment of the principate, send me a PM.
I am not trying to be mean, but I am quite sick of people eulogizing cato, in the same way i am sick of people condeming sulla.
As cicero himself lamented Cato lived in plato's republic not in romulus' sink.

My main goal is to simply say that while inredibly entertaining and vivid. "Rome" presents an unrealistic description of events, by grossly skimming down details to simplistic forms and in many cases completely removing major characters while inserting imaginary ones.

I would place the series in the same category as the movie "JFK", enthralling and exciting but without a solid historial basis

[moonburn]

i´m not stating that i didn´t knew about that (except perhaps for that bibulus bribings wich i might have not noticed but then again bibulus didn´t need any help to use illegal means to better himself)

cato´s anexation of cyprus was never in question since the egyptians didn´t wanted to fight the romans for it
his conduct however was (the reason why he placed barrels of air and tied them to the coffers so they could be recovered if something happened and thus not be accused of theft) but then again it was a time in rome where an honest man could be draged to court and be forever in judicial crap for the rest of his active life thus robbing a good roman of his destiny while lesser men could continue to persue their goals after removing the better man (ceasar´s reason for crossing the rubicon with a legion behinde him to protect himself while there was the 13th and 14th of pompey in rome about to sail for hispania wich could have been used to end the civil war right away)

if we compare cato´s life with for instance his nephew brutus wich abused his power and entered into the high finances extorting money from the rich lands that lucullos (?) conquered (and pompey got the credit for) we can see he might have done many wrong things but all he did was never to better himself but out of his beliefs of what was best for rome and such a man with such inner discipline is someone worth analysing cause rome had a tradition of individuals who always sacrificed themselfs for the res publica and cato believed he was one of them.

clodious was another matter since it seemed he was another crazy reformer probably the 1st true plebocratian wishing to remove the nobles power to better himself
but to the best of my knowledge clodious was murdered by milan wich was not conected to the boni (?) thus cato´s persecution of clodious was just another of his actions to protect the res public (this time from the brainless masses who would obey clodious on everything)

as for the cataline conspiracy i have very litle information about it (read an article on wiki thats how weak i am there)

as for cato being instrumental in the downfall of the republic that is true cause had pompey not given batle to cesar and he would have won but then without cesar who would stop pompey from becoming dictator for life ? (thus cato would have been instrumental again for the downfall of the res public)

the way i see it cato the politician is a matter of taste he brought down the republic while trying to protect it you are clearly not a big fan of the old man who would rip his own hair off when talking about ceasar

i do not wish to get into a childish debate i was just trying to share my opinion and a bit of my small knowledge in here but if proven wrong then i will apologyse and recognise my mistake but not on matters that are up to personal interpretation of historical actions and figures.

the grachus brothers where the 1st reformers and sulla was someone who fallowed on their footsteps in an attempt to change roman ways that where becomign decadent and authoritarian (for the best of my knowlege) i didn´t made any attack on sulla wich is actually someone i have a keen interest in but sadly i can hardly get any decent information outside the average historical romance wich are inacurate (at best). and the final reformer was ofc gaivs jvlivs (altough this can be debatable since his nephew octavian trying to prove his rightfull rights had to make ceasar the greatest roman that had ever lived to be able to challange marc anthony with his title of cesar´s son)

so i would never attack sulla i just stated that after sulla´s attempts on reforms wich ended with 3000 dead knights (the 2nd class of roman nobles) the way roman politics where made became diferent

actually one could bring this back to the grachus brothers that for the 1st time saw assassins being used as a political leverage weapon in roman politics (not that they weren´t used before but because they had never been used against such influential individuals)

[option]

All the important events of the show are correct. Dramatic license is taken with some characters, but it's not a big deal because the show is amazing. James Purefoy's portrayal of Mark Antony in particular is possibly the greatest acting performance ever.

[Aemilius Paulus]

James Purefoy's portrayal of Mark Antony in particular is possibly the greatest acting performance ever.

Agreed , his performance was brilliant, although I do believe much better and more well-known performances exist in multitudes. Caesar, or the actor who played him, was rotten however, and his looks (face of Spock) did not help either.

Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (BBC) is a series I would recommend to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, and they have absolutely the right actor for Caesar, although their Anthony is as lousy as Caesar in HBO. That series is, however, is an "action" documentary (docudrama), which follows the lives of the pivotal figures in real-time and otherwise normal fashion but with a narrator commenting very frequently. Thus, not to be compared with the HBO series.

[lenin96]

Agreed , his performance was brilliant, although I do believe much better and more well-known performances exist in multitudes. Caesar, or the actor who played him, was rotten however, and his looks (face of Spock) did not help either.

Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (BBC) is a series I would recommend to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, and they have absolutely the right actor for Caesar, although their Anthony is as lousy as Caesar in HBO. That series is, however, is an "action" documentary (docudrama), which follows the lives of the pivotal figures in real-time and otherwise normal fashion but with a narrator commenting very frequently. Thus, not to be compared with the HBO series.

I thought that was a good series, unfortunately there weren't many episodes but it was good.

[Holysahib]

Agreed , his performance was brilliant, although I do believe much better and more well-known performances exist in multitudes. Caesar, or the actor who played him, was rotten however, and his looks (face of Spock) did not help either.

Ancient Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire (BBC) is a series I would recommend to anyone interested in Ancient Rome, and they have absolutely the right actor for Caesar, although their Anthony is as lousy as Caesar in HBO. That series is, however, is an "action" documentary (docudrama), which follows the lives of the pivotal figures in real-time and otherwise normal fashion but with a narrator commenting very frequently. Thus, not to be compared with the HBO series.

I love "Rome" because it just looks great. Most rome drama is far too polished and "classicistic", "Rome" had grime, filth and roughly weaved toga's. As for historicity, they have the same problem as all hollywood style historical drama, as in that all details (clothes, lamps, graffiti) is meticulously recreated, while in the story, some dramatic liberties are taken. I don't mind it, it's not a historical document.
As for the acting, although Mark Anthony is very very entertaining, there's also a pinch of overacting going on, as with most of the cast. "I am not leaving this bed! Until I've fucked someone"

Caesar in BBC "Rise and Fall" is a femine Russell Crowe that starts beating up his soldiers when they should fight for him, it's really ridiculous. The BBC episodes on Gracchus, Nero and Vespasian are nice though. Caesar in "Rome" is way better, but is also not a complete character because he is viewed thorugh the eyes of the other characters, he is in a sense more a "phenomenon" (for example, in the episode where Erastes Fulman wants to kill Lucius Vorenus)

For the Cato question, it's already been answered (the mourning thing), but it's also nice to add that he doesn't wear a tunica under his toga, which being a Greek infuence, was not done for the true roman Cato.

[bobbin]

To me the Scot playing Lucius Vorenus and his half Indian wife Niobe strains credibility

Given that the character is said to come from the Po valley its not too much a stretch the of the imagination to have a red haired celt playing the part.

I can understand the half indian wife one though(even if the actress is part italian), not that it bothers me indian/middle eastern/european people have quite similar features anyway.