HBO Rome

[The Braindead Colonel]

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 ). 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?

[Macilrille]

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.

[Ionut Alex]

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

have one of this on me :D

[Macilrille]

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.

[Tenebrous]

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.

[seienchin]

Beside the fact that nobody actually knows how romans thought or lived I think its well done
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.

[Macilrille]

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...

[Krusader]

Romans are for the most part very well represented.

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

[antisocialmunky]

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

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

[Mulceber]

Beside the fact that nobody actually knows how romans thought or lived I think its well done
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

[Weebeast]

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?

[satalexton]

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

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

[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 :(

[Macilrille]

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.

[seienchin]

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 The facts you can know(Like buildings etc) are presented very well in rome.

[lionhard]

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

[moonburn]

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)

[Wishazu]

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.

[Dubius Cato]

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.

[ziegenpeter]

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.

[Meneldil]

Tudors was absolutely unwatchable. Worst historical TV serie ever.

[lionhard]

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

[NikosMaximilian]

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.

[Seneca]

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

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

[Macilrille]

Anyway my personal opinion is just that we cant know anything about that time. Sad but true 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.

[ziegenpeter]

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).

[NikosMaximilian]

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

[Skullheadhq]

What is HBO?

[Macilrille]

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.

[machinor]

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.