ROME series accuracy

[EireEmerald]

How accurate was this series. I absolutely adored this series and I was just wondering how true was it to what actually happened?

It was rushed in season 2, they were going to have 2 end on Brutus' death and series 3 and 4 on Egypt and then 5 on palestine and the messiah.

Now they are working on a film to end the series.

I suppose I should really be asking what abiiut it wasnt accurate?

[Manco]

Octavian's mother wasn't a slut.
Pullo and Vorenus are almost completely fabricated, they get a one sentence mentioning in De Bello Gallico only.
Crazy old woman and Octavianus sister didn't have a lesbian relationship, nor did she with Agrippa.
And so on and on...

It's an extreme dramatization of the real events, meaning broad lines are correct but the particulars are nowhere near real history.

[EireEmerald]

Octavian's mother wasn't a slut.
Pullo and Vorenus are almost completely fabricated, they get a one sentence mentioning in De Bello Gallico only.
Crazy old woman and Octavianus sister didn't have a lesbian relationship, nor did she with Agrippa.
And so on and on...

It's an extreme dramatization of the real events, meaning broad lines are correct but the particulars are nowhere near real history.

What about characters? do you think they did a good job at portraying some of the main guys' characters as they were?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

What about characters? do you think they did a good job at portraying some of the main guys' characters as they were?

Siggy to descend on this thread in a flaming ball of rage in 5, 4, 3, 2 ...

[D.B. Cooper]

Octavian's mother wasn't a slut.
Pullo and Vorenus are almost completely fabricated, they get a one sentence mentioning in De Bello Gallico only.
Crazy old woman and Octavianus sister didn't have a lesbian relationship, nor did she with Agrippa.
And so on and on...

It's an extreme dramatization of the real events, meaning broad lines are correct but the particulars are nowhere near real history.

Obviously the character development isn't historically accurate, it would be very boring if it was. He's asking about how accurate the broader aspects are (setting, the culture, how Caesar's campaign went down, stuff like that).

[EireEmerald]

Obviously the character development isn't historically accurate, it would be very boring if it was. He's asking about how accurate the broader aspects are (setting, the culture, how Caesar's campaign went down, stuff like that).

yeah, pretty much.

This is the info about the film.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/HBO-s...orm-11074.html

[Mangalore]

Octavian's mother wasn't a slut.
Pullo and Vorenus are almost completely fabricated, they get a one sentence mentioning in De Bello Gallico only.
Crazy old woman and Octavianus sister didn't have a lesbian relationship, nor did she with Agrippa.
And so on and on...

It's an extreme dramatization of the real events, meaning broad lines are correct but the particulars are nowhere near real history.

Of course the story and nonfamous characters are invented!

A friend of mine who has a university degree in archaelogy says the series is pretty close in portrayal how things might have looked and felt overall (city, houses, clothing), closer than anything else on TV or movie anyway.

[DAVIDE]

It's a romanced story not a documentary

[SigniferOne]

Siggy to descend on this thread in a flaming ball of rage in 5, 4, 3, 2 ...

Not really, at least not any more than when medievalists descend on a topic to defend their pet peeve.

The show was simply inaccurate on pretty much every conceivable level, and it's puzzled me why a bunch of Classicists backed it. It wasn't even unrealistic in a "300" sort of way, of being fuzzy on the particulars in order to more clearly portray its idealistic viewpoint. "Rome" on the contrary took liberties with the particulars to more clearly portray its highly depraved and cynical viewpoint. It would be impossible to guess from the show and its characters what it was that Europeans had been studying for the last 700 years with the most reverential attention possible.

And yet, in an irony of ironies, "300" was pilloried by today's Classicists, while "Rome" was praised. I guess this can only be explained if they believed that the maliciousness and cynicism underlying "Rome" were well-placed and appropriate, while the idealism underlying "300" was not.

In short it was a show of the most rotten sort, inaccurate and cynical, and the world lost nothing by its cancellation.

[EireEmerald]

Not really, at least not any more than when medievalists descend on a topic to defend their pet peeve.

The show was simply inaccurate on pretty much every conceivable level, and it's puzzled me why a bunch of Classicists backed it. It wasn't even unrealistic in a "300" sort of way, of being fuzzy on the particulars in order to more clearly portray its idealistic viewpoint. "Rome" on the contrary took liberties with the particulars to more clearly portray its highly depraved and cynical viewpoint. It would be impossible to guess from the show and its characters what it was that Europeans had been studying for the last 700 years with the most reverential attention possible.

And yet, in an irony of ironies, "300" was pilloried by today's Classicists, while "Rome" was praised. I guess this can only be explained if they believed that the maliciousness and cynicism underlying "Rome" were well-placed and appropriate, while the idealism underlying "300" was not.

In short it was a show of the most rotten sort, inaccurate and cynical, and the world lost nothing by its cancellation.

the world lost something with this post though.

[SigniferOne]

the world lost something with this post though.

If you're able to defend some of its factual "liberties", such as Romans bathing in blood or Atia being turned from a virtuous woman into a whore, by all means feel free.

Yes I'm sorry to surprise all of you but Atia, the woman with big gazungas screwing everything that moves, was a model and understated woman in real life, who epitomized modesty and probity of character.

[Akrotatos]

If you're able to defend some of its factual "liberties", such as Romans bathing in blood or Atia being turned from a virtuous woman into a whore, by all means feel free.

Yes I'm sorry to surprise all of you but Atia, the woman with big gazungas screwing everything that moves, was a model and understated woman in real life, who epitomized modesty and probity of character.

And we know this from the same historians that were paid by Augustus to flatter him? I am not saying she wasn't what you say but you are speaking as if you met the woman

[OneArmedScissor]

If you're able to defend some of its factual "liberties", such as Romans bathing in blood or Atia being turned from a virtuous woman into a whore, by all means feel free.

Yes I'm sorry to surprise all of you but Atia, the woman with big gazungas screwing everything that moves, was a model and understated woman in real life, who epitomized modesty and probity of character.

I don't think you 'get' TV.

[EireEmerald]

I don't think you 'get' TV.

Thats an understatement.

[God-Emperor of Mankind]

Yes I'm sorry to surprise all of you but Atia, the woman with big gazungas screwing everything that moves

We have had this conversation you and I before and it saddens to see that you ignored our conversation.
Atia has sex with 2 people in the entire show, 2 people.
Timon the horse merchant and Marc Anthony.
By the gods what a whore!
2 whole people and 1 of them(Marc Anthony) she had sex with exclusivily through out season 2 and most of season 1.

Your view on the characters are also quite wrong if you think that they are all in a negative light.
Only two characters went on a spiral downwards and that was Caesar and Octavian.
Caesar is portrayed as a brilliant general but turns power-hungry.
Octavian a brilliant young boy turning into a dishonest schemer who's power has made him impotent.
The rest of the characters has their negative sides being balanced out by their good sides.

Even your view on Vorenus is quite shallow.
Vorenus is indeed a man of principals. However he is also a army man and while in the army his principals are never tested and life is overall simple for him.
Once in civilian life however life is not simple and his principals are tested to the limit.
As he realise that his ways simply doesn't work in civilian life, he runs back to what he does know, the military and in the process breaks one of his principals in order to feed his family.
And that's where he is at for the first season.
He realise that his principals aren't helping his family, infact they are doing the exact opposite.
For all his faults he loves his wife and he loves his children and would do anything for them.
So he sells out little by little to make his family happy while at the same time to try to maintain his principals.

Of course in season 2 after the events at the start causing him to simply don't give a damn anymore since he has lost everything.
Of course this doesn't work either so he runs back to the military until they find them again.
And you can see after that he is start to recover his senses again and tries to become a good and principal fast man again.
Again this comes crashing down again and he runs off to the military again.
And in the end he gets his family's forgivesness for what he has done.
Overall a pretty deep character that many people can understand and relate too.
But I suppose you wanted him to stand fast on his principals and let his entire family starve to death.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

And yet, in an irony of ironies, "300" was pilloried by today's Classicists, while "Rome" was praised. I guess this can only be explained if they believed that the maliciousness and cynicism underlying "Rome" were well-placed and appropriate, while the idealism underlying "300" was not.

I must have missed the mutant war rhinos in Rome. Perhaps I was distracted by Atia's "big gazungas".

[ivan_the_terrible]

Hard to say. The portrait of him given by Suetonius certainly paints him as a rather more attractive character to the scheming robot he turns into in the second series. I rather liked the younger Octavian of the first series ("Little Owl" as Caesar calls him), but the older version was a bit of a creep.

I agree entirely. The younger Octavian was much better. Even physically, he seems like a more appropriately weedy and sickly person. The older one just looks normal (build-wise). And yes, very creepy.

The show was simply inaccurate on pretty much every conceivable level, and it's puzzled me why a bunch of Classicists backed it. It wasn't even unrealistic in a "300" sort of way, of being fuzzy on the particulars in order to more clearly portray its idealistic viewpoint. "Rome" on the contrary took liberties with the particulars to more clearly portray its highly depraved and cynical viewpoint. It would be impossible to guess from the show and its characters what it was that Europeans had been studying for the last 700 years with the most reverential attention possible.

Let me just say first of all, that I'm not a classicist, so I don't know this for sure. But from what I do know, I quite liked the depiction of Brutus in the series. He seemed genuinely torn up inside, between living up to his illustrious, tyrant-slaying ancestors, and his personal friendship and loyalty to Caesar.

I suppose this was wrong on some level too, was it? (No sarcasm - genuinely curious).

And yet, in an irony of ironies, "300" was pilloried by today's Classicists, while "Rome" was praised. I guess this can only be explained if they believed that the maliciousness and cynicism underlying "Rome" were well-placed and appropriate, while the idealism underlying "300" was not.

As long as you mention '300', I thought it was absolutely brilliant. It was obvioulsy not a realistic depiction of historical events, but it was a realistic depiction of the ancient Greek psyche, imo.

It took the main skeleton and themes of an actual event, and exagerated and glorified and ballooned them to epicly ridiculous proportions. It mythologised them, in a word. And that is a very ancient Greek thing to do.

[SigniferOne]

I agree entirely. The younger Octavian was much better. Even physically, he seems like a more appropriately weedy and sickly person. The older one just looks normal (build-wise). And yes, very creepy.

Can you manage to come up with a handful of characters in the show that aren't evil or creepy? Even the 'heart' of the show Vorenus, the only man you admire as holding at least somewhat noble and elevated principles, what does he do? He changes sides, selling out his principles.

Let me just say first of all, that I'm not a classicist, so I don't know this for sure. But from what I do know, I quite liked the depiction of Brutus in the series. He seemed genuinely torn up inside, between living up to his illustrious, tyrant-slaying ancestors, and his personal friendship and loyalty to Caesar.

I suppose this was wrong on some level too, was it? (No sarcasm - genuinely curious).

While Cato was portrayed in a far more gratuitously unfair manner, Brutus was really far from accuracy himself. If his tyrant-slaying ancestors were illustrious, then he certainly was not. There's a large amount of sniveling positioning that pervades his whole persona in the show. There is no strength of character. The hooked nose and the tightly-pursed mouth constaintly paint him as a lackey, and he is indecisive and pretty much contemptible throughout the show's duration. There is little of that force of will, little of that 'illustrious idealism' which made him look up to his own ancestors, so that when moment of killing Caesar comes, you as the viewer are extremely dubious that this sniveling personage was worthy to contend with the likes of Caesar in matters of life and death.

As long as you mention '300', I thought it was absolutely brilliant. It was obvioulsy not a realistic depiction of historical events, but it was a realistic depiction of the ancient Greek psyche, imo.

It took the main skeleton and themes of an actual event, and exagerated and glorified and ballooned them to epicly ridiculous proportions. It mythologised them, in a word.

Completely right.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Can you manage to come up with a handful of characters in the show that aren't evil or creepy? Even the 'heart' of the show Vorenus, the only man you admire as holding at least somewhat noble and elevated principles, what does he do? He changes sides, selling out his principles.

All I meant was that the original actor was far better suited for the role then his replacement, imo. Or at least where the physical appearance is concerned.

While Cato was portrayed in a far more gratuitously unfair manner, Brutus was really far from accuracy himself. If his tyrant-slaying ancestors were illustrious, then he certainly was not. There's a large amount of sniveling positioning that pervades his whole persona in the show. There is no strength of character. The hooked nose and the tightly-pursed mouth constaintly paint him as a lackey, and he is indecisive and pretty much contemptible throughout the show's duration. There is little of that force of will, little of that 'illustrious idealism' which made him look up to his own ancestors, so that when moment of killing Caesar comes, you as the viewer are extremely dubious that this sniveling personage was worthy to contend with the likes of Caesar in matters of life and death.

Hmm, I disagree somewhat.

I got the impression from the show that Brutus had considerable strength of character. I don't think it would have been his "force of will" that made him look up to his ancestors, but rather his upbringing, his mother, and his position in society. Now obviously the show couldn't have explored his upbringing in great depth, but imo it more than compensated through the portrayal of his relationship with his mother, which I thought was surprisingly genuine, and with his peers.

Anyway, we can't ever know how the man was really feeling inside, and what really drove him to behave the way he did, in terms of emotion, so the show's interpretation is as good as any.

Completely right.

Thanks. I'm surprised more classicists don't see '300' that way. Surely they must realise that this is probably how the ancient Greeks themselves would have told the story.

[SigniferOne]

Anyway, we can't ever know how the man was really feeling inside

Why not? There is a biography of him from the 1st century AD, as well as dozens of letters to and from his own hand, on various important topics of his own life. There are crucial eyewitness biographical sketches of him by Cicero. The portrait of the man is quite clear, and the sniveling youth can hardly stand up to the more actual character of of the real person, evident in the lines of this ancient portrait:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I don't think it would have been his "force of will" that made him look up to his ancestors, but rather his upbringing, his mother, and his position in society. Now obviously the show couldn't have explored his upbringing in great depth, but imo it more than compensated through the portrayal of his relationship with his mother, which I thought was surprisingly genuine, and with his peers.

What makes you say any of it? The 'relationship with his mother', no matter how interesting or relevant from a story perspective, has no actual correlation with real life. What drove him to challenge Caesar was not 'his mother', or 'his position in society', but the blinding idealism and intellectualism, none of which are represented in the show even through a hint.