01-19-2011, 01:56 AM
I just want to apologize up front for bringing up a topic that seems to bring a virtual cringe to most members' faces whenever mentioned...but I couldn't resist. I did try to pull up as much as I could via search, but couldn't really find too much info.
So here it goes. Long-time history lover, long-time lover of all things from ancient Rome (particularly the legions), yet I clearly do not possess the depth of knowledge that the members of the RAT boards do. I envy you.
I will come clean and admit that I 'rediscovered' my love of ancient Roman history about 2 years ago when I found HBO's Rome, which I devoured. Since that time I've been consistently feeding my new-found obsession with a steady stream of ever more detailed histories and so on (most recently Bishop & Coulston).
However, I find that many of the books that I've read are rather 'lightweight' in regards to the nitty-gritty details we all enjoy so much (I'm not refering to B & C).
I love the period of Pompey, Caesar, Antony etc.. I loved HBO's Rome for the characters, the atmosphere, and the acting, but I know, despite their supposed attempt to make everything "as accurate as feasibly possible" that there are major historical issues with the series.
For one, the historical timeline is very disjointed. As well, there are glaring inaccuracies, such as Octavian's childhood spent in Rome...or the existence of, and certain nocturnal activities of his mother Atia, for that matter. I know that the legionary's helmets were wrong, as were the swords, and that it is doubtful at best that Caesar and Pompey would have adorned brown leather Lorica Musculata and attic style helmets before battle...but in reading what little I have found on RAT that has been discussed about HBO's Rome, I found the consensus to be that "Everything on HBO's Rome is wrong!!"
My very broad question for anyone willing to answer is - what else is wrong with HBO's Rome? Of course, I am more interested in inaccuracies in the way that soldiers and military matters were presented, but any new information about this time period would be more than welcome!
Alexander
So here it goes. Long-time history lover, long-time lover of all things from ancient Rome (particularly the legions), yet I clearly do not possess the depth of knowledge that the members of the RAT boards do. I envy you.
I will come clean and admit that I 'rediscovered' my love of ancient Roman history about 2 years ago when I found HBO's Rome, which I devoured. Since that time I've been consistently feeding my new-found obsession with a steady stream of ever more detailed histories and so on (most recently Bishop & Coulston).
However, I find that many of the books that I've read are rather 'lightweight' in regards to the nitty-gritty details we all enjoy so much (I'm not refering to B & C).
I love the period of Pompey, Caesar, Antony etc.. I loved HBO's Rome for the characters, the atmosphere, and the acting, but I know, despite their supposed attempt to make everything "as accurate as feasibly possible" that there are major historical issues with the series.
For one, the historical timeline is very disjointed. As well, there are glaring inaccuracies, such as Octavian's childhood spent in Rome...or the existence of, and certain nocturnal activities of his mother Atia, for that matter. I know that the legionary's helmets were wrong, as were the swords, and that it is doubtful at best that Caesar and Pompey would have adorned brown leather Lorica Musculata and attic style helmets before battle...but in reading what little I have found on RAT that has been discussed about HBO's Rome, I found the consensus to be that "Everything on HBO's Rome is wrong!!"
My very broad question for anyone willing to answer is - what else is wrong with HBO's Rome? Of course, I am more interested in inaccuracies in the way that soldiers and military matters were presented, but any new information about this time period would be more than welcome!
Alexander
Alexander
