MovieChat Forums > Rome (2005) Discussion > Does it stick fairly close to history?

Does it stick fairly close to history?


I am interested in watching this, but I don't want to if it deliberately plays fast and lose with history. I don't mind a bit of poetic license, but it really irritates me when history is completely rewritten, for example, a book I recently read had the child Octavian as a street urchin - almost like a character in Dickens.

Additionally, does it avoid the Cecil B DeMille route of demonstrating how the Republic is declining by showing lots and lots of debauchery?

Thanks.

reply

There were actually a lot of liberties with history but still far, far better than most else that is out there, whether it is Vikings or book series like Conn Iggulden's Rome series (which was outright ludicrous.)

1. The Series uses the same narrative format as Bernard Cornell's books where fictional central characters are inserted into a historical setting with historical people to bind the story together. Out of necessity therefor, these characters must be given large roles in major events to make them relevant (which obviously they didn't have being fictional and all). Examples include making the entire arc of Caesarion 100% fiction, as was Pompey's son involvement in a subplot about stolen gold.

2. Dramatization means that the conflicts are driven almost exclusively by spite and personal vendettas with "ideals" only being given lip service by the various players as self serving camouflage to pursue personal grievances. A consequence of this is that major real flashpoints of the time - military might vs political legitimacy, Plebs vs Patricians etc. - is given rather short shrift in favor of having events being driven by the largely fictitious scheming of two feuding women.

That said, Rome is still a terrific series and eminently watchable even for historical sticklers. (I'm one myself and liked the series a lot).

reply

A consequence of this is that major real flashpoints of the time - military might vs political legitimacy, Plebs vs Patricians etc. - is given rather short shrift in favor of having events being driven by the largely fictitious scheming of two feuding women.


"Plebs vs patricians" wasn't really a thing by this point in Roman history. In the early days of Rome they were distinct classes, with the patricians being the elite ruling class and the plebeians being the oppressed and exploited class, but the distinctions had eroded over generations of conflict and compromise. By the time of the late republic, being a plebeian vs being a patrician wasn't really a class thing anymore. Patricians had lost their monopoly on power, plebeians had acquired more socioeconomic mobility than they previously had, and there were rich plebeians and poor patricians. Being a patrician, by the late republic, essentially just meant that your family could be traced back to the original aristocracy of Rome. That was certainly a matter of prestige, but really nothing more than that.

reply

Compared to pretty much every other film and TV show out there that takes place in Ancient Rome, this series has Gibbons-level accuracy (keep in mind, though, there's not many realistic films and shows available about that time period at all). For now, it's about the best you're going to get in terms of an accurate story. But especially in terms of an accurate portrayal of the time period.

If you're familiar with the likes of Deadwood or Boardwalk Empire, it goes along the same lines as them. That's to say, there's fiction in there aplenty, but generally the big stuff is mentioned. Plus there's a ton of well-researched little details included, and the setting is presented so well that you almost feel like you're watching actual footage from the period play out in front of you.

Of course, there's the fictional protagonists who are seen Forrest Gumping their way through actual events in history, but that doesn't hinder the enjoyment of the series at all — in fact it only helps the story; and it assists, in my opinion, in helping the average viewer understand things of that time. And they're great characters through whose eyes we have an excuse to see Ancient Roman life in several different ways. They're soldiers, so we get to see life of a Roman soldier; when not soldiering, they're average, simple men, which allows us to view the day-to-day life of the normal Roman citizens (along with how they interact, how they deal with family and religion, etc.); and they are lucky enough in war ("blessed by the gods themselves") to conveniently find themselves coming in contact with most of the key players in Romes elite, giving us an excuse to view the lives of those important historical figures as well. Also, they have a habit of becoming intertwined in a ton of landmark moments in history (but always in a background sorta way that, while undeniably made-up, is usually unimportant enough for us to say, "well, we can't PROVE that guy wasn't in Egypt with Mark Antony").

I'd actually go as far as to say that this would be a good starting point for those who know little-to-nothing about this time period. It would be immensely entertaining even if it weren't accurate at all, so it will definitely grab most who start watching it (most who enjoy the likes of Game of Thrones, at least). The fact that so many of the characters and scenarios are based on actual historical figures and events, though, really allows you to put faces, personalities, and periods of time into context in your mind, which only serves to spark more interest in the subject. And the broad strokes covering important moments in history gives us a fair-enough general idea of what's going on. If anyone doesn't know about history, by the time they walk away from this series they're going to have inadvertently learned a lot about it, whether they intended to or not. And, hopefully, will have a newly found fire of interest ignited in them to continue learning more.

S.C.W.
www.twitter.com/TheGutterMonkey
www.TheGutterMonkey.com

reply