Rome

[ulmont]

But since you bleet about it, I'll explain how I missed the point to you - again.

FYPFY

Really, you claim to fix his post, and don't correct "bleet" to "bleat?"

[DisturbedPervert]

Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story.  Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.

There is a hell of a lot more plausibility within the story in Rome than there was in BSG.   

[vinraith]

Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story.  Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.

There is a hell of a lot more plausibility within the story in Rome than there was in BSG.   

A-fucking-men. At least the writers of Rome knew what the hell they were doing. Then again, I've taken to comparing everything to the ending of BSG simply because it makes everything look better by comparison.

[Norgy]

If people want to really rag on someone for producing crap out of Caesar/Rome/Brutus/Octavian and being more than a little light-handed with historicity, they should hunt down and kill Conn Iggudden.

Brutus is presented as an adopted Julii, Servilia as Brutus whorehouse-owning mother, Octavian is a foundling, Gaius Marius is the finest person evah, Sulla is Darth Sulla, Suetonius is Caesar's boyhood rival and neighbour. It is really quite messy and mostly good for kindling. 

[grumbler]

Really, you claim to fix his post, and don't correct "bleet" to "bleat?"

I don't speak French. 

[grumbler]

Besides, it is a TV drama, not a history, and all that is required IMO is plausibility within the story.  Asking for Rome to be perfectly historically accurate is like asking The Lord of the Rings to be so; it's not in the cards.

There is a hell of a lot more plausibility within the story in Rome than there was in BSG.   

Don't even try to get Grallon started on BSG!  We'll be here forever hearing about how great it was and how those who pick at it are morons!

[Habsburg]

What did everyone else think, or object to?

No Sian Phillips. 

This can not be bourne.

[grumbler]

If people want to really rag on someone for producing crap out of Caesar/Rome/Brutus/Octavian and being more than a little light-handed with historicity, they should hunt down and kill Conn Iggudden.

Brutus is presented as an adopted Julii, Servilia as Brutus whorehouse-owning mother, Octavian is a foundling, Gaius Marius is the finest person evah, Sulla is Darth Sulla, Suetonius is Caesar's boyhood rival and neighbour. It is really quite messy and mostly good for kindling. 

But these books are presented as pure fiction, kinda like King Arthur books or Lest Darkness Fall, no?

I prefer the McCullugh books and the stuff by Graves, myself.

[Norgy]

Well, Igulden or Igudden at least has the decency to sum up what he made up and what is based on historical evidence.

The Emperor series, I suspect, were also written for a young audience, and resembles fantasy literature more than "historical novels".
I think most would know it is fiction and not fact.

[Josephus]

As an aside, The Tudors will end after the current Season 4.  At least they're not going to give Henry some more wives just to keep the series going. 

[Norgy]

I had hoped Elizabeth I would be covered.

Then again, I can always watch some Blackadder 2. It's at least more entertaining than the last movie about Elizabeth.

[The Minsky Moment]

I find grallon's outrage over the portrayal of Cleopatra amusing - as most of our knowledge of her comes from histories written long after her death (and the contemporary source material is mostly propagandistic in nature) - the truth is that we basically have no idea about Cleopatra's personality or sexual habits, or indeed much of anything else beyond a few bare facts concerning events and some archaelogical material.

[Malthus]

I find grallon's outrage over the portrayal of Cleopatra amusing - as most of our knowledge of her comes from histories written long after her death (and the contemporary source material is mostly propagandistic in nature) - the truth is that we basically have no idea about Cleopatra's personality or sexual habits, or indeed much of anything else beyond a few bare facts concerning events and some archaelogical material.

Well, according to some, she was Black ... neat trick for an inbred Macedonian.

[The Minsky Moment]

That may be true but with Suetonius and Tacitus I think it's impossible to judge the degree they used sources.  The other sources generally haven't survived and the Classical practise was to use the words of another if you agreed with them and only cite a source if you wish to take issue with what they've said.  This makes attributing sources very difficult.

I imagine the preference for Tacitus within the academic community comes from the observation that he treats Tiberius and the year of the four emperors in a way that's more more congruent with what else we know about those figures and that period.  There are other periods too that they overlap and, generally, I think Tacitus's version better gels with other sources we have and what we've learned from other techniques.

I don't think either is particularly reliable - it is safe to say that historiographic method at the time had little in common with our present understanding. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, according to some, she was Black ... neat trick for an inbred Macedonian.

You are assuming that the reported geneologies are an accurate reflection of what really happened.  A highly questionable assumption

(That isn't to say I am supporting the "Black Cleopatra" hypothesis).