This pic looks like it was actually taken 2000 years ago

[Helm]

Normally you can tell it's only mock up/play acting but that looks authentic.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

its taken from the show Rome isit



1:26 in to this Video.

[Stalins_Elite]

Yes it is from the T.V. series Rome directed and produced by Bruno Hella. They put alot of research into the series and even went as far as initially building the colloseum for a particular scene and then after doing some research, they found that the colloseum in fact wasn't built until approximately 100 years after the time frame the series is set in. So they demolished that entire part of the set and rebuilt it to resemble an arena more appropriate with sources from the time. So as far as historical accuracy goes, Rome to my knowledge is about as close as you'll get for a big budget production. SE.

[Helm]

Well they did a pretty good job making it actually look how it looked. One thing to note is despite the fact that they not wearing combat fatigues or carrying rifles you know you're looking at modern soldiers, well nnot literally modern but you know what I mean.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

Well they would.The BBC payed alot of money for it befor moving on to the Tudors



there moving on to a show set in Italy in around 1400-1600, somewere around there.

[Azog 150]

^^See. Now the BBC just needs to do something in World War 2 (Or World War 1).


I never really got round to watching Rome as I missed a few of the episodes and didn't really get what was going on. However, from what I have seen its very impressive.

[PhilipO'Hayda]

^^See. Now the BBC just needs to do something in World War 2 (Or World War 1).


I never really got round to watching Rome as I missed a few of the episodes and didn't really get what was going on. However, from what I have seen its very impressive.

They have done a good few already on World War 1 and in time there going to make alot more.
can't think of any for World War 2, but maybe they have.

[Jaketh]

^^See. Now the BBC just needs to do something in World War 2 (Or World War 1).

watch Band of Brothers, most badass series ever

[Azog 150]

watch Band of Brothers, most badass series ever

I have watched it (Many times) and its probably my favorite series going.

Thats why I want a similar series following British troops. Considering HBO and the BBC have done joint-ventures in the past, and considering half the BOB actors were British, I would say its a possibility.

[Londinium]

^^See. Now the BBC just needs to do something in World War 2 (Or World War 1).

As has been mentioned theres Band of Brothers which was a HBO/BBC joint production like Rome. I wish those two companies would team up more often, when they do it inevitably produces great stuff. Although there are rumours that HBO/BBC will join up again for an adaption of Nine Inch Nails 'Year Zero' universe.

As for Rome, I just they hadn't cut it short so soon. Season 1 was an excellent depiction of the Caesar vs Pompey civil war for all it's faults. If season 2 had the same amount of time to develop and hadn't been shoved into less episodes it would have been much better aswell. The original plan was season 2 would be Antony/Octavian vs the conspirators, season 3 and 4 would be Antony vs Octavian and season 5 was going to deal with Jesus. Instead we got one great season and one rushed season which compressed a proposed three seasons of storyline into less episodes that season 1 had. A real shame.

I've never seen a better portrayal of Mark Antony than in Rome either, I much prefer him to Octavian.

[jo the greek]

I was wondering in that video is From BBC there is a tactic of legionaires changing ranks


during the fight is this right ?? Can be this possible ?

[Azog 150]

I was wondering in that video is From BBC there is a tactic of legionaires changing ranks


during the fight is this right ?? Can be this possible ?

Yeah, I think this was a pretty common tactic at the time. I am not sure if they did it quite so often though.

[Lysimachus]

I'm pretty sure Ancient history buffs will now proceed to pinpoint all of the little inaccuracies in Rome.

[Arch-hereticK]

Yay HBO Rome. I met Ciaran Hinds last week at a gallery opening (I misx in very high society, lol), He's super down to earth, but he's got a bit of a bogger accent in casual conversation, it's funny cause he's so posh on tv.

@Helm
You mean that whistle at the battle of Alesia? That was deffinately not metal, it looks like very dark wood, it might have had some leather on it though, so it could have been bone.

[SigniferOne]

I'm pretty sure Ancient history buffs will now proceed to pinpoint all of the little inaccuracies in Rome.

The inaccuracies weren't little. Atia, the resident-prositute in the show, was a remarkably demure and virtuous woman in real life, and she didn't shower in blood like they do in the show. The show attempted to put on a veil of credibility by implementing a few accurate details in order to be let alone on a host of monstrous misrepresentations it then proceeded to make.

[Helm]

There was one I battle scene I remember where they were blowing into very modern looking military/police metal whistles. But I'm fairly sure they would have used a bit of carved bone like this. Not that they couldn't have made a steel ones it just seems a bit elbaorate.

[Helm]

I think pagans did go in for some blood rituals.

http://www.waningmoon.com/darkpagan/lib/lib0003.shtml

But I don't think there's necessarily anything dark about it, it's not like it was human blood or anything. And you should really avod any kind of ritual that has anything to do with human blood in the 21st century for obvious reasons.

[conon394]

The inaccuracies weren't little. Atia, the resident-prositute in the show, was a remarkably demure and virtuous woman in real life, and she didn't shower in blood like they do in the show. The show attempted to put on a veil of credibility by implementing a few accurate details in order to be let alone on a host of monstrous misrepresentations it then proceeded to make.

Be fair Sig - its not documentary but a drama. It not as if the real Rome of the collapsing late Republic and/Empire did not actuality have is share of corrupt individuals. After all its not like modern TV made up the Satyricon... Atia might have got the short end of the stick but its not like she does not have company (a lot) through out history of historical figures in drama.

Really now can you think of a more accurate Roman movie/series: Gladiator, Spartacus, what?

[SigniferOne]

It not as if the real Rome of the collapsing late Republic and/Empire did not actuality have is share of corrupt individuals.

Of course it did, but they focused on that corruption to the exclusion of everything else, and made corrupt even people who never were so, who even were the opposite of it. Atia is a noble example, but there are others. The two shining lights of the Late Republic, Cicero and Cato, are made to be a sniveling politician and a shriveled mouse-like hermit, utterly unlikable, whereas Antony is almost glorified in his vices, is shown to be handsome, successful, and his vices very much desirable. The opposite of a Plutarchean portrait which made Antony a corrupt and pathetic caricature of a man, and Cicero with Cato the two men in whom the old Republic shone the greatest.

After all its not modern TV made up the Satyricon... Atia might have got the short end of the stick but its not like she does not have company (a lot) through out history of historical figures in drama.

Yes, except the Roman period, just like the Greek, is not 'just another period', which can endure bastardization just like plenty of other periods can. It's not 'just another period' because alongside its plenty of corrupt and evil men, it had men outstandingly good and models in character for thousands of years. I'm not talking about to people like Sig1, but also to the entire Founding Generation, to the whole Renaissance period, to the Late Rome when Augustine chided Imperial Romans for being unfit descendants of 'old Republican virtue', and even in the Imperial period immediately following the Republic, where senators like Curiatus Maternus wrote a moral tragedy with Cato as the hero, and historians like Cornutus called him "the last of the Romans".

What sensible person could draw this portrait from the despicable bastardization of Cato in the show? It's a drama alright, but I don't think that Hellenophiles like you or Victor Hanson appreciate just the degree to which it butchers nobility in Roman history. Imagine Conon buggering boys and saving Greece more through sheer luck than through any dedication or vaunted principles of his own, and there you have a Greek analogue to how modern 'drama' can butcher ancient history. Stone's Alexander is probably the best extant example of this phenomenon for Greek history.

Really now can you think of a more accurate Roman movie/series: Gladiator, Spartacus, what?

Why yes, Gladiator is a much better contender for accuracy. We can go from costumes to personalities, and find tremendous appreciation for the spirit of each person being portrayed. Above all, nobility and vice are not mischaracterized, but represented in their proper lights. Marcus Aurelius has self-conscious doubts about his own legacy, not knowing that he would be immortalized by the future; Commodus is portrayed with great precision in his gratuity, his immaturity. Lest you think that the one great stroke of the movie, the re-establishment of the Republic, was a large fanciful fabrication, M. Aurelius' historical general Avidius Cassius was known for his old-fashioned Republican severity, and led a temporary rebellion to re-establish the Republic in 175 AD. So yes, noble and vicious characters, contrasted and displayed against a sun-lit canvas -- that's what makes Gladiator head and shoulders above anything Rome aspired to be.

[Tiberius Tosi]

Why yes, Gladiator is a much better contender for accuracy. We can go from costumes to personalities, and find tremendous appreciation for the spirit of each person being portrayed. Above all, nobility and vice are not mischaracterized, but represented in their proper lights. Marcus Aurelius has self-conscious doubts about his own legacy, not knowing that he would be immortalized by the future; Commodus is portrayed with great precision in his gratuity, his immaturity. Lest you think that the one great stroke of the movie, the re-establishment of the Republic, was a large fanciful fabrication, M. Aurelius' historical general Avidius Cassius was known for his old-fashioned Republican severity, and led a temporary rebellion to re-establish the Republic in 175 AD. So yes, noble and vicious characters, contrasted and displayed against a sun-lit canvas -- that's what makes Gladiator head and shoulders above anything Rome aspired to be.

So because you believe Gladiator had more interesting and colorful characters, that makes it more accurate?

Let's not forget the fact that hardly any of the events in the movie ever even took place. The entire first battle in Gladiator was just off (militarily), there can be numerous inaccuracies pointed out (hell even the dog wasn't accurate, German Shepherds did not exist then).