Roman army in film

[Maeran]

with regards to HBO's RomeThe 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.

[Centurion Crastinus]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Those aren't monifortino helms.



This is:


And this:


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.



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.



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.

[Spoofa]

at least they arent in Segmentata, which is a big step for society.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are in series two, and that's lifted straight from Trjan's column as well.

[Geoffrey S]

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!).

[russia almighty]

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 .

[Long lost Caesar]

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

[Charge]

About armour: I read in one article that LS was founded in Teutoburg! Can anyone confirm this?

[Ludens]

About armour: I read in one article that LS was founded in Teutoburg! 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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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

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.

As to Braveheart, what do you mean lost? Wallace lost, The Bruce won.

[Intrepid Adventurer]

They are in series two, and that's lifted straight from Trjan's column as well.

And it's not correctly displayed on Trajan's column, is it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Exactly.

[Intrepid Adventurer]

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?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Hey, Braveheart help spur the Scotish nationalism that got them their Parliament back.

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.

[Intrepid Adventurer]

Hey, Braveheart help spur the Scotish nationalism that got them their Parliament back.

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.

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. ;)

[Kahju]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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.

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.

[Imperator]

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!

[Tellos Athenaios]

Also, Trajan's columm isn't exactly "First Class" - it's the cheap and cheerful department.

[russia almighty]

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 ?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Also, Trajan's columm isn't exactly "First Class" - it's the cheap and cheerful department.

It's like abillboard really, PR.

Russia, you might want to read the topic before replying.

[Long lost Caesar]

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.

As to Braveheart, what do you mean lost? Wallace lost, The Bruce won.

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?")

[Centurion Crastinus]

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[geala]

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).

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.

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.

[L.C.Cinna]

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?

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)

[Helgi]

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.

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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

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.

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.

[abou]

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.