![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Is it really necessary to have separate articles for each episode? Most are messy and incomplete, and could be summarised in a couple of sentences in the main article with links to the HBO site/fansites, where quotes, trivia, screenshots, etc. belong. Njál 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me? I noticed it in ep 1 when Atia took Octavia to Pompey ... and now I'm watching ep 4 with all the feasts, and it's true for Servilia, Atia, Phyllis the honor guest's wife ... It looks like whenever women "dress up", for formal or festive occasions, they dress and make up to look like trollops, and not from a particularly fancy brothel either... Is that historical fact, or just the series makers' conceptions? -- Svartalf 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need the screenshots in the table here?
I appeciate the effort put into it - but the table links to the individial episode articles, and they contain screen shots already.
Beowulf314159 02:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Another inaccuracy which could have easily been avoided : Where in Tartarus is Octavius' bulla (or those of Octavia and the two Vorenas for that matter)? Children of Roman citizens used to wear those large lockets until they came of age... but the series includes several characters who are both of good family and not yet adult, and none of them wear them... It's doubly weird in a series where Roman superstitions and religious practices make regular cameo appearances. -- Svartalf 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is how my browser looks like when you keep it with the new format. [ [1]]
It stretches the screen and seriously messes up the format.
That is why I say it looks 'screwed up'.-- CyberGhostface 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that all the character pages be merged with their historical counterparts. I haven't seen enough interesting info on any of the character pages to warrant an encyclopaedia entry but I grant that there is potential for discussion of a few eg Marcus Junius Brutus. (Also, many of the side bars seem to be incorrect wrt class. eg Pompey, Cato and Brutus are down as Patrician when they were Plebian. I don't remember this being mentioned on the show at all.)
Any useful information comparing these dramatical characters with the historically accepted versions should be placed in a separate page, Depiction of Historical Characters in Rome (TV series). The current titles with "(character of Rome)" can be redirected to the appropriate section of that page.
If we don't do this we're asking for an infinite list of stubs with titles like like Gaius Julius Caesar (William Shakespeare character), Gaius Julius Caesar (Colleen McCullough character) and Augustus (Robert Graves character)!
Or, if there is too much info for a single page contrasting all the real characters, a section titled "Fictional Portrayals" could be added to each of the historical pages cf Cato. This would allow for all the other portrayals without a multitude of half-finished pages. Nick 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, the Rome characters are all dissimilar enough to their historical counterparts as to deserve completely separate entries. Merging would cause confusion. Best solution is to include a link to the historical counterpart so interested persons can compare truth with fiction. -- Svartalf 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all I think this should be "deviations from history"
-It is quite unnecessairy to note that the show is in English, it is common knowledge that Romans spoke Latin, therefore this point should be removed -Miles refrence could stay, although quite a minor thing to have on the article -Modern cursing: this is similar to the first point, although many Latin curse words had similar meaning to our modern curse words, so the show therefore captures more of a sense of the way Romans used insults. -As for Modern thinking being transparent in characters: this point should just flat out be removed, as it is not explained in the section, and shouldn't be concidered a devation from history.
This section needs quite alot of change
KurtFF8
19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to tell everybody that this very fine show wouldn't be as we know it whitout the efforts of their italian partner RAI. Check www.rome.rai.it.
just check www.rome.rai.it (get an italian dictionary). Or ask any italian people who has actually viewed the show, aired this spring on Rai Due. Or, much better check this. http://www.ufficiostampa.rai.it/UFFICIO_STAMPA_MAIN_DETTAGLIO_NEWS.aspx?IDSCHEDAARCHIVIONEWS=37586 (Remember to use babelfish...;-))
-- 213.156.52.106 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 151.24.25.17 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - but as I can't find anything put out by HBO or the BBC confirming this, I think this should be taken back out, unless someone can provide other evidence. - Vedexent ( talk • contribs • blog) 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 151.24.25.17 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out in the Trivia section of the article:
"Battle scenes in Rome depict authentic Roman infantry fighting techniques including the tightly-packed "Roman Wall" of shields, gladius thrusting techniques above and below the "shield wall", and the rotation of troops on the front lines every 30–45 seconds. "
The rotation part makes perfect sense. Having a soldier in the first line fight until he dies and his fellows do almost nothing until it is their turn in the first line seems at best to be a waste of human life. Yet, this is how ancient fighting is generally perceived. Taking turn makes much more sense. Close combat will exhaust you quickly and no matter how skilled you are, when you are exhausted you rapidly become much slower. If you are not rotated away by when, you are pretty much dead meat. I read a piece of historical fiction where the legion was described as fighting in this way, but when the author, Vibeke Olsson, kindly referred me to the original source, Livius, it seemed to talk more about the entire centurias rotating from hastati, to princeps, to triarii. Is there anyone who can find us an ancient source that claims indivídual roman soldiers actually took turns being in the front row the way it is depicted in the TV-series Rome? Is there someone who knows of a scholars' debate on the subject? Some SCA try-outs to see if it actually works? Please write and tell me at dag@mensa.se so I can present this source/debate/whatever in wikipedia (or you could write it yourself in the article about Rome the TV series, the article on Roman infantry tactics or the article on Roman Legion).
Sensemaker
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)
Is it really necessary to have separate articles for each episode? Most are messy and incomplete, and could be summarised in a couple of sentences in the main article with links to the HBO site/fansites, where quotes, trivia, screenshots, etc. belong. Njál 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Is it just me? I noticed it in ep 1 when Atia took Octavia to Pompey ... and now I'm watching ep 4 with all the feasts, and it's true for Servilia, Atia, Phyllis the honor guest's wife ... It looks like whenever women "dress up", for formal or festive occasions, they dress and make up to look like trollops, and not from a particularly fancy brothel either... Is that historical fact, or just the series makers' conceptions? -- Svartalf 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really need the screenshots in the table here?
I appeciate the effort put into it - but the table links to the individial episode articles, and they contain screen shots already.
Beowulf314159 02:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Another inaccuracy which could have easily been avoided : Where in Tartarus is Octavius' bulla (or those of Octavia and the two Vorenas for that matter)? Children of Roman citizens used to wear those large lockets until they came of age... but the series includes several characters who are both of good family and not yet adult, and none of them wear them... It's doubly weird in a series where Roman superstitions and religious practices make regular cameo appearances. -- Svartalf 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
This is how my browser looks like when you keep it with the new format. [ [1]]
It stretches the screen and seriously messes up the format.
That is why I say it looks 'screwed up'.-- CyberGhostface 23:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to propose that all the character pages be merged with their historical counterparts. I haven't seen enough interesting info on any of the character pages to warrant an encyclopaedia entry but I grant that there is potential for discussion of a few eg Marcus Junius Brutus. (Also, many of the side bars seem to be incorrect wrt class. eg Pompey, Cato and Brutus are down as Patrician when they were Plebian. I don't remember this being mentioned on the show at all.)
Any useful information comparing these dramatical characters with the historically accepted versions should be placed in a separate page, Depiction of Historical Characters in Rome (TV series). The current titles with "(character of Rome)" can be redirected to the appropriate section of that page.
If we don't do this we're asking for an infinite list of stubs with titles like like Gaius Julius Caesar (William Shakespeare character), Gaius Julius Caesar (Colleen McCullough character) and Augustus (Robert Graves character)!
Or, if there is too much info for a single page contrasting all the real characters, a section titled "Fictional Portrayals" could be added to each of the historical pages cf Cato. This would allow for all the other portrayals without a multitude of half-finished pages. Nick 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, the Rome characters are all dissimilar enough to their historical counterparts as to deserve completely separate entries. Merging would cause confusion. Best solution is to include a link to the historical counterpart so interested persons can compare truth with fiction. -- Svartalf 20:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
First of all I think this should be "deviations from history"
-It is quite unnecessairy to note that the show is in English, it is common knowledge that Romans spoke Latin, therefore this point should be removed -Miles refrence could stay, although quite a minor thing to have on the article -Modern cursing: this is similar to the first point, although many Latin curse words had similar meaning to our modern curse words, so the show therefore captures more of a sense of the way Romans used insults. -As for Modern thinking being transparent in characters: this point should just flat out be removed, as it is not explained in the section, and shouldn't be concidered a devation from history.
This section needs quite alot of change
KurtFF8
19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Just a note to tell everybody that this very fine show wouldn't be as we know it whitout the efforts of their italian partner RAI. Check www.rome.rai.it.
just check www.rome.rai.it (get an italian dictionary). Or ask any italian people who has actually viewed the show, aired this spring on Rai Due. Or, much better check this. http://www.ufficiostampa.rai.it/UFFICIO_STAMPA_MAIN_DETTAGLIO_NEWS.aspx?IDSCHEDAARCHIVIONEWS=37586 (Remember to use babelfish...;-))
-- 213.156.52.106 19:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 151.24.25.17 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - but as I can't find anything put out by HBO or the BBC confirming this, I think this should be taken back out, unless someone can provide other evidence. - Vedexent ( talk • contribs • blog) 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
-- 151.24.25.17 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As has already been pointed out in the Trivia section of the article:
"Battle scenes in Rome depict authentic Roman infantry fighting techniques including the tightly-packed "Roman Wall" of shields, gladius thrusting techniques above and below the "shield wall", and the rotation of troops on the front lines every 30–45 seconds. "
The rotation part makes perfect sense. Having a soldier in the first line fight until he dies and his fellows do almost nothing until it is their turn in the first line seems at best to be a waste of human life. Yet, this is how ancient fighting is generally perceived. Taking turn makes much more sense. Close combat will exhaust you quickly and no matter how skilled you are, when you are exhausted you rapidly become much slower. If you are not rotated away by when, you are pretty much dead meat. I read a piece of historical fiction where the legion was described as fighting in this way, but when the author, Vibeke Olsson, kindly referred me to the original source, Livius, it seemed to talk more about the entire centurias rotating from hastati, to princeps, to triarii. Is there anyone who can find us an ancient source that claims indivídual roman soldiers actually took turns being in the front row the way it is depicted in the TV-series Rome? Is there someone who knows of a scholars' debate on the subject? Some SCA try-outs to see if it actually works? Please write and tell me at dag@mensa.se so I can present this source/debate/whatever in wikipedia (or you could write it yourself in the article about Rome the TV series, the article on Roman infantry tactics or the article on Roman Legion).
Sensemaker