![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I noticed this article does not once mention Crassus. Will he make an appearance in season two, and who will play him? - Mdriver1981 ( talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Netflix is also airing the series. The episodes are released as streaming content within a short time after airing live in the United States.
It says citation needed. I am a netflix subscriber and have watched the show on netflix. I know this is original research, how do I cite the netflix site, when you have to log in to view it? Vettrock ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
All sources SHOULD (edit that did say must...but that's not true) be written and published to be useful to the reader and any reference to an episode or the show itself can (that did say cannot, but that's not true. Weused to have a strike out line but i don't see it now) use video presentations designed as entertainment as a reference, but should be so only when the specific reference is needed to illustrate the what the episode is. It SHOULD NEVER be used to varify a claim, even if you are only claiming a quote. As stated above you should reference a written text, the script(it is a puplished document) a transcript or mention of the line. New editors, please take a moment to review the MOS guidlines here Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Another good way to better understand how to contribute to this article may be by reading the articles on similar subjects, such as Rome (TV series).-- Amadscientist ( talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Try not to use the episode IF it can be avoided as this is not a fan page and the reliablility of such sourcing may be tinted by OR, or POV.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this going to continue to get additions throughout the season while the short summaries on individual episodes are also updated? Because it's getting pretty unwieldy and I'm wondering if there isn't a better way. I'm pretty good at pairing down wordy text and would be happy to do it but I'm not entirely certain what needs to be there so I thought I'd ask before I went poking around in there. Millahnna (mouse) talk 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel it best to start over entirely. This section should be a few paragraphs at the most. It's incredibly ridiculous in its present state.
Grsz
11
11:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of deleting all of that text? I found it useful, and now there is no good way to find out what's been happening. The episode summaries are much too short to be of use. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Markpimentel (
talk •
contribs)
12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) If I can give my two cents, AFAIK the main points thus far: Spartacus is enslaved and wants wife back, is convinced to fight to get her back, she is killed so he becomes loyal, he later discovers the cause of wifes death. That's the main plot. We've also got sub-plots (Bat wants more power, later revenge; Crixus wants to be famous again; Ilythia wants revenge on Spartacus). Grsz 11 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up; I (finally) got some job interviews, oddly, in part due to my wiki efforts (long story). Nifty. In any event it means I'm working on this in fits and starts throughout the week. So I'm obviously delayed from my original timeline. I will have some sort of changes in place for the episode table and synopsis section before the new episode airs in my time zone on Friday (I'm west coast U.S.). They probably won't be as polished as I'd like but at this point even just copy and pasting the material to where it should be would be an improvement. At least then the copy and tone editors could go to town. So yeah, I'm still on it I just have limited time this week for big wiki projects for the next few days. Millahnna (mouse) talk 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow sometime. Just saw the edits on the page were related and figured y'all could use an update. Not sure I'll have tonight's episode in there; depends on if I get to watch it tomorrow. Millahnna (mouse) talk 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should make a synopsis page for EACH episode. That way, users have detailed information about the storyline while the main page remains uncluttered. Historical inaccuracies (and there are many) should be addressed on the episode synopsis page. Please see Rome's plot overview for a proper example of what I'm talking about. -- Origen01 ( talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.33.255 ( talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So I know you can't tell but I actually did this last weekend. Thing is that I closed the tab before the page saved the updated episode table (I hadn't done much with the synopsis). Then, because I'm super smart, I deleted the docs from my hard drive I was using to work. I just now figured it out since I hadn't looked at the page in a few days. So I have to start all over (it will go faster now that I've done it once). I'm going to wait for the finale and then do it. I will probably be able to talk myself into it sometime this coming week. Gah, I'm such a moron. Millahnna (mouse) talk 15:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I ditched my above plans to move the synopsis stuff into the episode tables when the episodes got split off into their own article. Didn't really seem as pressing. And of course now the synopsis bloat is back and none of us caught it before more edits hit. I started to try and trim it last night, but because of numerous good edits between that and the current version, couldn't easily "revert and restore." The other problem I ran into was that the current text only covers about half-way through the season. So I got done trimming the episode plot points that didn't need to be there only to discover that the thing was simultaneously incomplete AND overly wordy (neat trick that). Which brings me to here. I was hoping to get some consensus on what he major points are that need to be covered in the synopsis, other than the obvious (i.e. Spartacus's captured-rebel-champion-rebel again arc). Batty and Lucretia's social climbing (including their friendship with Illythia) likewise seems obvious to me. Personally, I don't feel that the subplot with Varro's wife or the Crixus romantic relationship are all that critical for a season synopsis (obviously they should get noted over in the episode article) but I wanted to make sure others felt the same. I do feel that Batty's various schemes deserve some mention (nothing too detailed, but the murders and Glaber's patronage seem deserving of short sentences) as that ties to the social climbing aspect. Is there anything I've not mentioned that you guys feel definitely should or should not be included in the season synopsis? I'm currently thinking about three paragraphs approximately like so (but not necessarily in this order):
1. Intro, setting and Spart's capture and initial training at the ludus. Current first paragraph is mostly OK, if I recall correctly.
2. Batty and Lucretia's schemes; brief explanations of the Illythia friendship (does her cousins' murder need to be mentioned here?) and Batty's various murders. Again, nothing too detailed.
3. Spartacus's arc at the ludus; initial rebellion (and contentious relationship with Crixus?), then Champion, wife's death and discovery of Batty's hand in it, plans for escape (leading to finale).
Thoughts, suggestions? Millahnna (mouse) talk 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Anybody know where this is produced? I'm guessing from the amount of Aussie and Kiwi accents it is either Australia or New Zealand. 114.137.25.93 ( talk) 10:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
How about a user box for fans of the show? :) — Eekerz ( t) 11:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's listed here that her name is Caecilia. I just finished watching the 10 available episodes on Netflix and I'm pretty sure her name is Aurelia (or some variation of that spelling). Also, I'm not so sure I like the idea of all the spoilers in the cast list. Isn't that what the plot summary is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.21.219 ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed the section that stated: * Batiatus is depicted having an ambition to become a magistrate or a senator. Historically this would have been impossible, as lanistae (and ex-lanistae), being infames, were not permitted to serve either as magistrates or as senators. The lanistae were regarded as both a butcher (lanius) and a pimp (leno) as I'm unsure how the definitions cited provide proof that someone could ever have an ambition outside their station. I think it's well known that historically many people have sought to leave their station. Had the show ended with Batiatus as Senator, I might perhaps agree. The show does, indeed, stress that Batiatus does not have the proper blood or breeding to join in politics (episode 10). Kaylus ( talk) 03:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That Roscius Gallus was made an eques by Sulla has no bearing on this, as merely being an eques did not mean that you automatically had a political career. You could be an eques and be completely divorced from political life. In fact many Roman equites specifically avoided entering politics because to do so would have meant that they would have been prohibited from certain trades.
Gaius Cornelius Gallus was an eques with a politcal career. But he wasn't a magistrate or a senator (senators were prohibited from holding the prefecture of Egypt, it was a job for equestrians only directly appointed by the emperor, not the popular vote).
Nor indeed was there any prohibition on "humble" people becoming magistrates or senators (e.g. scribes, centurions, even freedmen (ex-slaves) at times: Cn. Flavius, C. Cicereius, Sex. Cloelius, and Fufidius being examples - and Lucius Vorenus in "Rome"(!)). Just those whose professions were considered disreputable.
Glaber and Solonius only tell Batiatus that he can be in politics because of his social status, not because of his profession. In this, the producers are wrong: they should have had Glaber respond to Batiastus' blackmail attempt by saying "Sorry, but no matter how much you threaten us, there's absolutely nothing we can do. For you to try to enter politics is illegal". But then such a simple scuppering of Batiatus' scheme wouldn't have provided the drama.
I suggest you read Lintott (1999) The Constitution of the Roman Republic pp.71-72 (or something similar) for an overview of the prohibitions against certain professions. Catiline63 ( talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly a consensus that there are issues with this section, and so the tags should remain until these issues are resolved. Grsz 11 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Should plot elements, specifically spoilers be included in the cast lists?! One looks at a cast list to see just that, the cast and identifiers, not what they have done or not in the course of the show. Perhaps these were included as a sense of completeness but these elements should be relegated to episode synopses and not cast character lists 64.231.68.194 ( talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)technoccult
Another source talking about the prequel, in case one is needed at some point. I didn't see anything in there we don't already have in the article (maybe some plot specifics) but other eyeballs might notice something I didn't. Millahnna (mouse) talk 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to locate anywhere in the available episodes a quote by any of the characters that make the claim that woman were required to remarry after their husbands die. The closest I could find was (S01E01) Iliythia asking her husband, "What's a respectful period of morning before I could remarry?" Is this the quote that caused the author of the Historical Inaccuracies section to claim: Women are depicted as required to remarry as soon as their husbands die. There was no such law at any point in Ancient Rome, even the marriage legislation of Augustus fell short of that absolute. ??? If so that very quote made by Iliythia actually confirms the fact that historical inaccuracy claim is trying to make. Obviously if women WERE required to remarry as soon as their husbands die there would be no point in her asking how long he would want her to mourn him for. What if he had answered ten years? If she had to remarry immediately the question would be completely redundant.
Also, about the Historical Inaccuracy claim: Women are depicted as not allowed in military camps. Historically, while some generals banned camp followers from their camps, at times they would not have been uncommon. All that (S01E01)Glaber says about women being allowed in the camp is, "Women are forbidden within the encampment." Nowhere in the show does anyone go on to make the claim that women are not allowed in all military camps. All that can be assumed from what is said is that women were not allowed in that particular encampment. It's possible there could have been a good reason for that particular camp to forbid women but the matter is not elaborated on any further so even that cannot be surmised.
Unless these points can be disputed, I believe, those two claims in the Historical Inaccuracies section should be deleted. Please correct me if I am wrong. - Jsday187 ( talk) 03:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To quote from
WP:SYNTH "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article".
Using this definition the Inaccuracies section does not employ synthesis, it just points out discrepancies between reliable source A (the show) and reliable source B (historical fact, cited correctly). Nowhere is the creation of a new paradigm (C, synthesis) offered.
For example, take Batiatus' first name. The show gives it as Quintus. Histically it was Cnaeus. Synthesis (adding A to B to get C) would be to call the character "Quintus Cnaeus" or "Cnaeus Quintus". The page, however, merely points out the discrepancy without adding anything new. Thus by definition it is not synthesis. Catiline63 ( talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And now another issue. It's one thing to listen to the dialouge and hear things and use that as a source. But it's completely different to state that the show uses lorica segmentata with no source. It requires the assumption that every reader knows what the hell lorica segmentata are and would be able to say so when watching the show. Grsz 11 12:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There are still a bunch of issues with the section. For starters, the section should be renamed to "Historical accuracy" as it's more neutral than saying of the bat that the show is inaccurate. A television show is a piece of fiction, although based on reality, it is entitled to a level of creative freedom. While the show starts with a declaimer saying the intensity of the content is done to accurately portray that period, that might just be just about the violence and language and not about the rest of the show. Almost all movies and television shows that are not considered a documentary don't have such section or see them removed.
The last two, I don't remember happening in the show, would be nice if it was pointed out with {{ Cite episode}} when that happened or at least the episode in particular. The last one, I'm not sure how the fact that no such law existed ended up in a dictionary about antiquities. And most of the people in this show don't really follow the law, I'm sure killing a senator wasn't allowed either. Almost all is irrelevant to the show. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, the women force to remarry thing was implied in an early episode by Lucy Lawless's character (sorry no specific episode, my memory isn't that good). She said something in passing to Batiatus about it in connection to, I believe, his plot to kill the first guy we saw him kill (it definitely happened before Barca's death). That said, it was in passing and the WHY of it was not specified; it could be law, it could be HER perception of what she'd have to do. Which just goes back to your point. I can see leaving in the things we can confirm (Barca's age IS trivia but the timeline discrepancy might be of interest to some). But most of what's in that section makes me think, "lolwhut." If you'll pardon the vernacular. Millahnna (mouse) talk 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In defense of the historically innacurate section.
1. Carthage fell in 146 BC, a 0 year old baby would be in his 70s during the show, and Barca was depicted being forced to fight a gigantic and strong chieftan when Carthage fell. That is a blatant innacuracy, and because Starz not only claims it is an accurate portrayal but indicates it is more accurate then other series with it's opening it shouldn't get to hide behind a useless term like "Trivia". Especially considering no historian considers the Third Punic War unimportant, and neither did the Romans (men involved in taking Carthage like Aemelianus went on to very successful careers).
2. Getting a name wrong isn't so important, but claiming to be an authentic representation indicates you will get them right.
3. What type of armor is used is actually relevant, if it isn't why not dress them all up as knights, or better yet put some United States Marines Uniforms on them? Because it isn't accurate of course. Lorica Hamata was the type of armor available during the Roman Republic, and Lorica Segmentata has been proven not to have immediatly replaced it during the empire.
4. The allowance isn't contradictory. It was originally two different points for a reason, and it isn't trivia when related to a show claiming to accurately represent Roman Society. A woman (or man) was subject to Patria Potestas his or her father's lifetime, which meant they could own or possess nothing, and could only use property with his consent, according to our sources even if he was Consul. The Law also prevented any exchange of property between husband and wife. I could remove the extra note that anything a woman possessed would belong to her Pater Familias, but the fact does stand, Ilythia clearly has a living father, so clearly her property exchanges are a legal impossibility. The amount of money required for a slave was not pocket change, a slave was actually Res Mancipii, one of the most valuable types of goods in Roman times.
5. Ilythia and her friends mention Glaber's right to kill her more then once, I don't have the episodes memorized, but very few husbands had any rights at all over their wives at this point in Roman history, and the few who did lacked power of life and death.
6. Lucretia says "you know the law", the fact that there was no such law at any point in Roman history therefore is relevant.
7. Camp Followers were very common, better generals banned them, but they would usually be a part of a Legion's encampment, although I could have misheard what Glaber said about women not being allowed if he was stating they aren't allowed in any encampment it's an innacuracy, prostitution was part of the Roman Soldiers(and most other ancient armies) diversions. There is very little that could be confirmed or denied in Blood and Sand because so little of it is outside of the Arena, we don't know the conditions in Gladiator Schools, we don't know the exact death rate, and our sources like Cicero say nothing at all about Spartacus' relations to other Gladiators and information on Batiatus is almost non existant but the most blatant innacuracies like Barca the Carthaginian, Ilythia having the type of money to buy a slave with a living father, the law requiring remmariage instantly, rights of a husband to kill his wife, Lorica Segmentata and the few other things mentioned need the section. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything I mentioned is supported, and the innacuracy list has very good sources. Note that I did not put in any points that historians disagree on, like the thumbs up meaning life, or rate of death in the Arena, the only things there are things that clearly aren't acurate, and the sources used are all highly reliable. No show could be accurate all the time, what makes Spartacus Blood and Sand need the innacuracy section is the fact that every episode has a note at the start claiming it's accurate. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Your reading doesn't seem to chime with the WP:OR page's definition, which says that's it's only OR when a synthesis (a statement not made by any quoted source) is produced. While last week there was such an example of synthesis on the page ("Barca must be 100"), there isn't now. Nor, according to WP:OR, do we need a third-party to comment before we can note such discordancies. We could, by all means, change the name of the section if it offends. 'Historical Discrepancies' instead? Catiline63 ( talk) 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The section was already renamed from "Historical Inaccuracies" to "Historical accuracy" as advised by WP:FILMHIST, since WP:MOSTV has nothing about it (unles I missed it. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If Starz didn't want it's lack of research and innacuracies revealed it shouldn't have claimed the show is accurate. No other show or movie has ever claimed accuracy, Rome, Kirk Douglas' Spartacus, Troy etc, you name it and they are a lot more modest. However there is a historical innacuracy section treating those shows the same, and honestly wikipedia is being very generous by not having a lot more of the Blood and Sand innacuracies on display. Legionaries in Capua stationed for the sole purpose of imprisoning Ilythia? Is there really a more laughable idea? Perhaps you would have a point if the director had not decided to try and pass of his show as history, but as it stands now Blood and Sand needs at least it's most blatant innacurate portrayals revealed. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to address each "inaccuracy" that appears in the 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) version, to see if we can trim it down some. We can argue about original research in circles, but we would probably be more productive addressing specific issues. When a point is addressing the show, it needs to use {{ cite episode}}. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Barca: currently has no source. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quintus vs. Gnaeus: seems okay. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Roman uniforms: the issue with this is, it takes an expert (or one with atleast substantial knowledge) in the subject to notice what type of uniform they are wearing, and compared to what they should be. This is different than simply watching the show and hearing they call Batiatus Quintus and not Gnaeue. Therefore, I'm of the mind that this fact needs citation needed. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ilithyia's slave: This requires the assumption that the characters are law-abiding citizens, which clearly, is not true. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This just shows bias, there is a very reliable source up about ownership in Ancient Rome, especially in light of slaves. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Husbands killing wives: I don't recall when this is mentioned. If somebody can point it out, that would help. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Batiatus as a politician: In the final episode, Glaber is said (I believe) to be petitioning for his appointment, so this one seems alright to me. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Slave prices: Only one issue I have - that the "average" is given as 960-4000. Can we narrow this down a little bit? Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Cotta: Seems so trivial, and has no source. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Kitchen objects: Is alright, because this clearly wasn't the case in "Kill Them All". Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Glaber: Glaber is away at the time of the revolt, therefore we cannot know if he has been appointed praetor or not. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) As stated, adhering to the last piece of information provided by the programme producers is not OR. Glaber is considering running until we are informed otherwise by the producers. If you think this is an OR issue, then put it up for third-party assessment. By all means he'll probably return in season 2 as praetor, but until he does the current presentation is inaccurate. Catiline63 ( talk) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) No, why? The plot doesn't even mention Glaber as praetor. And now the point can be thrown out because we don't know. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thracians: Can anybody point out where he calls himself this "with obvious nationalistic pride"? It probably happened, I just don't remember. Even still, could tone down the tone a bit. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I will reword the point to specify in that case. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Gatae: They are shown as enemies of Spartacus' tribe or village, but that doesn't mean they are a completely separate people. Additionally, we use an ancient source written by Herodotus, which was written atleast 350 years before Spartacus. Can we get a better source? And also, perhaps the situation changed between that time? Grsz 11' 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) Thank you for explaining the Getae so I wouldn't have to Catiline 63, I will only add that many modern historians have stopped using that term entirely and now just reffer to them as Thracians. Catiline did as well as I could in defending that point.-- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
actually you may both be wrong. and the herodotus source material is wrong the gatae were not a thracian tribe in fact they were a dacian tribe. the dacians were a collection of tribes just north of thrace. unless you can come up with a way of proving that the gatae were ethnically thracians that had migrated north to live in the dacian region before the time of spartacus. 76.211.5.120 ( talk) 13:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
acording this this map titled herodotus world map , gatae were not thracian but could be considered proto-dacian which means that even if you are claiming that herodotus said that gatae were once thracians in a time before this map then i would say that to call gatae a thracian tribe at the time of spartacus in 75 BC is a null and void arguement as we all know an individual tribe loses its individual ethnic identity after several hundred years unless it comes from a very large population base as to continue its pure blooded hertage of the said tribe in question so that means if the gatae were around in 450 BC and they were still on the map as a separate people in 75 bc that means that there must have been thousands of gatae people in the time of herodutus so they could have enough genetic integrity to maintain this nation of people. as you can see in the map of the known world at the time of herodotus gatae were not living in thrace but the dacian region . so finding proof is now going to be very hard that gatae were thracians even by herodotus own map were located not in thrace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_world_map-en.svg 69.208.10.149 ( talk) 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually recall the show saying the Getae were enemies of Thrace. Weren't they just portrayed as enemies of the Maedi (Spartacus's tribe)? In any event, this strikes me as hair-splitting. 134.173.15.58 ( talk) 10:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oenomaus was a gaul, not an african, wasnt he? Has political correctness gone so mad in Western society, that nobody even notices "black vikings" now?-- 109.86.57.225 ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That's half of the points. I'm feeling that this entire section is turning into a history-buff fan-fest. Also when addressing specific sentences, timestamp them and add them with {{ Cite episode}}, a bunch of these would be no issue if done so correctly. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) To be honest you did persuade me on the wife killing point, but not through sarcasm. You also seem to care a lot. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There is none of that, historical information is accurate (which you just agreed), and they are there to show things in the show. The fact is it claims to be an accurate portrayal of Roman Society in a tag on every episode, so having what point that exists now would you say is libel? The point about Thracians? Getae? Glaber? -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A lot more thank you -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 17:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
i'm too lazy to search for sources at the moment:
-at the time statues were painted in bright colors, not left 'au naturel'.
-putting you thumb up meant 'kill him of' (with no specific sign for sparing someones life instead) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.95.218.241 (
talk)
15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I cannot really see the point of a historical inaccuracies section, since this is a work of fiction, and a very poor representation of Roman society. It is too full of errors to even start, in my opinion. 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I noticed this article does not once mention Crassus. Will he make an appearance in season two, and who will play him? - Mdriver1981 ( talk) 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Netflix is also airing the series. The episodes are released as streaming content within a short time after airing live in the United States.
It says citation needed. I am a netflix subscriber and have watched the show on netflix. I know this is original research, how do I cite the netflix site, when you have to log in to view it? Vettrock ( talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
All sources SHOULD (edit that did say must...but that's not true) be written and published to be useful to the reader and any reference to an episode or the show itself can (that did say cannot, but that's not true. Weused to have a strike out line but i don't see it now) use video presentations designed as entertainment as a reference, but should be so only when the specific reference is needed to illustrate the what the episode is. It SHOULD NEVER be used to varify a claim, even if you are only claiming a quote. As stated above you should reference a written text, the script(it is a puplished document) a transcript or mention of the line. New editors, please take a moment to review the MOS guidlines here Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
Another good way to better understand how to contribute to this article may be by reading the articles on similar subjects, such as Rome (TV series).-- Amadscientist ( talk) 19:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Try not to use the episode IF it can be avoided as this is not a fan page and the reliablility of such sourcing may be tinted by OR, or POV.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this going to continue to get additions throughout the season while the short summaries on individual episodes are also updated? Because it's getting pretty unwieldy and I'm wondering if there isn't a better way. I'm pretty good at pairing down wordy text and would be happy to do it but I'm not entirely certain what needs to be there so I thought I'd ask before I went poking around in there. Millahnna (mouse) talk 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I feel it best to start over entirely. This section should be a few paragraphs at the most. It's incredibly ridiculous in its present state.
Grsz
11
11:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of deleting all of that text? I found it useful, and now there is no good way to find out what's been happening. The episode summaries are much too short to be of use. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Markpimentel (
talk •
contribs)
12:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) If I can give my two cents, AFAIK the main points thus far: Spartacus is enslaved and wants wife back, is convinced to fight to get her back, she is killed so he becomes loyal, he later discovers the cause of wifes death. That's the main plot. We've also got sub-plots (Bat wants more power, later revenge; Crixus wants to be famous again; Ilythia wants revenge on Spartacus). Grsz 11 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Just a heads up; I (finally) got some job interviews, oddly, in part due to my wiki efforts (long story). Nifty. In any event it means I'm working on this in fits and starts throughout the week. So I'm obviously delayed from my original timeline. I will have some sort of changes in place for the episode table and synopsis section before the new episode airs in my time zone on Friday (I'm west coast U.S.). They probably won't be as polished as I'd like but at this point even just copy and pasting the material to where it should be would be an improvement. At least then the copy and tone editors could go to town. So yeah, I'm still on it I just have limited time this week for big wiki projects for the next few days. Millahnna (mouse) talk 18:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Tomorrow sometime. Just saw the edits on the page were related and figured y'all could use an update. Not sure I'll have tonight's episode in there; depends on if I get to watch it tomorrow. Millahnna (mouse) talk 11:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone should make a synopsis page for EACH episode. That way, users have detailed information about the storyline while the main page remains uncluttered. Historical inaccuracies (and there are many) should be addressed on the episode synopsis page. Please see Rome's plot overview for a proper example of what I'm talking about. -- Origen01 ( talk) 12:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.140.33.255 ( talk) 12:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
So I know you can't tell but I actually did this last weekend. Thing is that I closed the tab before the page saved the updated episode table (I hadn't done much with the synopsis). Then, because I'm super smart, I deleted the docs from my hard drive I was using to work. I just now figured it out since I hadn't looked at the page in a few days. So I have to start all over (it will go faster now that I've done it once). I'm going to wait for the finale and then do it. I will probably be able to talk myself into it sometime this coming week. Gah, I'm such a moron. Millahnna (mouse) talk 15:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I ditched my above plans to move the synopsis stuff into the episode tables when the episodes got split off into their own article. Didn't really seem as pressing. And of course now the synopsis bloat is back and none of us caught it before more edits hit. I started to try and trim it last night, but because of numerous good edits between that and the current version, couldn't easily "revert and restore." The other problem I ran into was that the current text only covers about half-way through the season. So I got done trimming the episode plot points that didn't need to be there only to discover that the thing was simultaneously incomplete AND overly wordy (neat trick that). Which brings me to here. I was hoping to get some consensus on what he major points are that need to be covered in the synopsis, other than the obvious (i.e. Spartacus's captured-rebel-champion-rebel again arc). Batty and Lucretia's social climbing (including their friendship with Illythia) likewise seems obvious to me. Personally, I don't feel that the subplot with Varro's wife or the Crixus romantic relationship are all that critical for a season synopsis (obviously they should get noted over in the episode article) but I wanted to make sure others felt the same. I do feel that Batty's various schemes deserve some mention (nothing too detailed, but the murders and Glaber's patronage seem deserving of short sentences) as that ties to the social climbing aspect. Is there anything I've not mentioned that you guys feel definitely should or should not be included in the season synopsis? I'm currently thinking about three paragraphs approximately like so (but not necessarily in this order):
1. Intro, setting and Spart's capture and initial training at the ludus. Current first paragraph is mostly OK, if I recall correctly.
2. Batty and Lucretia's schemes; brief explanations of the Illythia friendship (does her cousins' murder need to be mentioned here?) and Batty's various murders. Again, nothing too detailed.
3. Spartacus's arc at the ludus; initial rebellion (and contentious relationship with Crixus?), then Champion, wife's death and discovery of Batty's hand in it, plans for escape (leading to finale).
Thoughts, suggestions? Millahnna (mouse) talk 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Anybody know where this is produced? I'm guessing from the amount of Aussie and Kiwi accents it is either Australia or New Zealand. 114.137.25.93 ( talk) 10:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
How about a user box for fans of the show? :) — Eekerz ( t) 11:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
It's listed here that her name is Caecilia. I just finished watching the 10 available episodes on Netflix and I'm pretty sure her name is Aurelia (or some variation of that spelling). Also, I'm not so sure I like the idea of all the spoilers in the cast list. Isn't that what the plot summary is for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.21.219 ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Removed the section that stated: * Batiatus is depicted having an ambition to become a magistrate or a senator. Historically this would have been impossible, as lanistae (and ex-lanistae), being infames, were not permitted to serve either as magistrates or as senators. The lanistae were regarded as both a butcher (lanius) and a pimp (leno) as I'm unsure how the definitions cited provide proof that someone could ever have an ambition outside their station. I think it's well known that historically many people have sought to leave their station. Had the show ended with Batiatus as Senator, I might perhaps agree. The show does, indeed, stress that Batiatus does not have the proper blood or breeding to join in politics (episode 10). Kaylus ( talk) 03:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
That Roscius Gallus was made an eques by Sulla has no bearing on this, as merely being an eques did not mean that you automatically had a political career. You could be an eques and be completely divorced from political life. In fact many Roman equites specifically avoided entering politics because to do so would have meant that they would have been prohibited from certain trades.
Gaius Cornelius Gallus was an eques with a politcal career. But he wasn't a magistrate or a senator (senators were prohibited from holding the prefecture of Egypt, it was a job for equestrians only directly appointed by the emperor, not the popular vote).
Nor indeed was there any prohibition on "humble" people becoming magistrates or senators (e.g. scribes, centurions, even freedmen (ex-slaves) at times: Cn. Flavius, C. Cicereius, Sex. Cloelius, and Fufidius being examples - and Lucius Vorenus in "Rome"(!)). Just those whose professions were considered disreputable.
Glaber and Solonius only tell Batiatus that he can be in politics because of his social status, not because of his profession. In this, the producers are wrong: they should have had Glaber respond to Batiastus' blackmail attempt by saying "Sorry, but no matter how much you threaten us, there's absolutely nothing we can do. For you to try to enter politics is illegal". But then such a simple scuppering of Batiatus' scheme wouldn't have provided the drama.
I suggest you read Lintott (1999) The Constitution of the Roman Republic pp.71-72 (or something similar) for an overview of the prohibitions against certain professions. Catiline63 ( talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There is clearly a consensus that there are issues with this section, and so the tags should remain until these issues are resolved. Grsz 11 13:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Should plot elements, specifically spoilers be included in the cast lists?! One looks at a cast list to see just that, the cast and identifiers, not what they have done or not in the course of the show. Perhaps these were included as a sense of completeness but these elements should be relegated to episode synopses and not cast character lists 64.231.68.194 ( talk) 20:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)technoccult
Another source talking about the prequel, in case one is needed at some point. I didn't see anything in there we don't already have in the article (maybe some plot specifics) but other eyeballs might notice something I didn't. Millahnna (mouse) talk 18:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. All external links must conform to certain formatting restrictions. Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 22:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to locate anywhere in the available episodes a quote by any of the characters that make the claim that woman were required to remarry after their husbands die. The closest I could find was (S01E01) Iliythia asking her husband, "What's a respectful period of morning before I could remarry?" Is this the quote that caused the author of the Historical Inaccuracies section to claim: Women are depicted as required to remarry as soon as their husbands die. There was no such law at any point in Ancient Rome, even the marriage legislation of Augustus fell short of that absolute. ??? If so that very quote made by Iliythia actually confirms the fact that historical inaccuracy claim is trying to make. Obviously if women WERE required to remarry as soon as their husbands die there would be no point in her asking how long he would want her to mourn him for. What if he had answered ten years? If she had to remarry immediately the question would be completely redundant.
Also, about the Historical Inaccuracy claim: Women are depicted as not allowed in military camps. Historically, while some generals banned camp followers from their camps, at times they would not have been uncommon. All that (S01E01)Glaber says about women being allowed in the camp is, "Women are forbidden within the encampment." Nowhere in the show does anyone go on to make the claim that women are not allowed in all military camps. All that can be assumed from what is said is that women were not allowed in that particular encampment. It's possible there could have been a good reason for that particular camp to forbid women but the matter is not elaborated on any further so even that cannot be surmised.
Unless these points can be disputed, I believe, those two claims in the Historical Inaccuracies section should be deleted. Please correct me if I am wrong. - Jsday187 ( talk) 03:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
To quote from
WP:SYNTH "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article".
Using this definition the Inaccuracies section does not employ synthesis, it just points out discrepancies between reliable source A (the show) and reliable source B (historical fact, cited correctly). Nowhere is the creation of a new paradigm (C, synthesis) offered.
For example, take Batiatus' first name. The show gives it as Quintus. Histically it was Cnaeus. Synthesis (adding A to B to get C) would be to call the character "Quintus Cnaeus" or "Cnaeus Quintus". The page, however, merely points out the discrepancy without adding anything new. Thus by definition it is not synthesis. Catiline63 ( talk) 00:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
And now another issue. It's one thing to listen to the dialouge and hear things and use that as a source. But it's completely different to state that the show uses lorica segmentata with no source. It requires the assumption that every reader knows what the hell lorica segmentata are and would be able to say so when watching the show. Grsz 11 12:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There are still a bunch of issues with the section. For starters, the section should be renamed to "Historical accuracy" as it's more neutral than saying of the bat that the show is inaccurate. A television show is a piece of fiction, although based on reality, it is entitled to a level of creative freedom. While the show starts with a declaimer saying the intensity of the content is done to accurately portray that period, that might just be just about the violence and language and not about the rest of the show. Almost all movies and television shows that are not considered a documentary don't have such section or see them removed.
The last two, I don't remember happening in the show, would be nice if it was pointed out with {{ Cite episode}} when that happened or at least the episode in particular. The last one, I'm not sure how the fact that no such law existed ended up in a dictionary about antiquities. And most of the people in this show don't really follow the law, I'm sure killing a senator wasn't allowed either. Almost all is irrelevant to the show. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, the women force to remarry thing was implied in an early episode by Lucy Lawless's character (sorry no specific episode, my memory isn't that good). She said something in passing to Batiatus about it in connection to, I believe, his plot to kill the first guy we saw him kill (it definitely happened before Barca's death). That said, it was in passing and the WHY of it was not specified; it could be law, it could be HER perception of what she'd have to do. Which just goes back to your point. I can see leaving in the things we can confirm (Barca's age IS trivia but the timeline discrepancy might be of interest to some). But most of what's in that section makes me think, "lolwhut." If you'll pardon the vernacular. Millahnna (mouse) talk 16:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
In defense of the historically innacurate section.
1. Carthage fell in 146 BC, a 0 year old baby would be in his 70s during the show, and Barca was depicted being forced to fight a gigantic and strong chieftan when Carthage fell. That is a blatant innacuracy, and because Starz not only claims it is an accurate portrayal but indicates it is more accurate then other series with it's opening it shouldn't get to hide behind a useless term like "Trivia". Especially considering no historian considers the Third Punic War unimportant, and neither did the Romans (men involved in taking Carthage like Aemelianus went on to very successful careers).
2. Getting a name wrong isn't so important, but claiming to be an authentic representation indicates you will get them right.
3. What type of armor is used is actually relevant, if it isn't why not dress them all up as knights, or better yet put some United States Marines Uniforms on them? Because it isn't accurate of course. Lorica Hamata was the type of armor available during the Roman Republic, and Lorica Segmentata has been proven not to have immediatly replaced it during the empire.
4. The allowance isn't contradictory. It was originally two different points for a reason, and it isn't trivia when related to a show claiming to accurately represent Roman Society. A woman (or man) was subject to Patria Potestas his or her father's lifetime, which meant they could own or possess nothing, and could only use property with his consent, according to our sources even if he was Consul. The Law also prevented any exchange of property between husband and wife. I could remove the extra note that anything a woman possessed would belong to her Pater Familias, but the fact does stand, Ilythia clearly has a living father, so clearly her property exchanges are a legal impossibility. The amount of money required for a slave was not pocket change, a slave was actually Res Mancipii, one of the most valuable types of goods in Roman times.
5. Ilythia and her friends mention Glaber's right to kill her more then once, I don't have the episodes memorized, but very few husbands had any rights at all over their wives at this point in Roman history, and the few who did lacked power of life and death.
6. Lucretia says "you know the law", the fact that there was no such law at any point in Roman history therefore is relevant.
7. Camp Followers were very common, better generals banned them, but they would usually be a part of a Legion's encampment, although I could have misheard what Glaber said about women not being allowed if he was stating they aren't allowed in any encampment it's an innacuracy, prostitution was part of the Roman Soldiers(and most other ancient armies) diversions. There is very little that could be confirmed or denied in Blood and Sand because so little of it is outside of the Arena, we don't know the conditions in Gladiator Schools, we don't know the exact death rate, and our sources like Cicero say nothing at all about Spartacus' relations to other Gladiators and information on Batiatus is almost non existant but the most blatant innacuracies like Barca the Carthaginian, Ilythia having the type of money to buy a slave with a living father, the law requiring remmariage instantly, rights of a husband to kill his wife, Lorica Segmentata and the few other things mentioned need the section. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Everything I mentioned is supported, and the innacuracy list has very good sources. Note that I did not put in any points that historians disagree on, like the thumbs up meaning life, or rate of death in the Arena, the only things there are things that clearly aren't acurate, and the sources used are all highly reliable. No show could be accurate all the time, what makes Spartacus Blood and Sand need the innacuracy section is the fact that every episode has a note at the start claiming it's accurate. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Your reading doesn't seem to chime with the WP:OR page's definition, which says that's it's only OR when a synthesis (a statement not made by any quoted source) is produced. While last week there was such an example of synthesis on the page ("Barca must be 100"), there isn't now. Nor, according to WP:OR, do we need a third-party to comment before we can note such discordancies. We could, by all means, change the name of the section if it offends. 'Historical Discrepancies' instead? Catiline63 ( talk) 08:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The section was already renamed from "Historical Inaccuracies" to "Historical accuracy" as advised by WP:FILMHIST, since WP:MOSTV has nothing about it (unles I missed it. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If Starz didn't want it's lack of research and innacuracies revealed it shouldn't have claimed the show is accurate. No other show or movie has ever claimed accuracy, Rome, Kirk Douglas' Spartacus, Troy etc, you name it and they are a lot more modest. However there is a historical innacuracy section treating those shows the same, and honestly wikipedia is being very generous by not having a lot more of the Blood and Sand innacuracies on display. Legionaries in Capua stationed for the sole purpose of imprisoning Ilythia? Is there really a more laughable idea? Perhaps you would have a point if the director had not decided to try and pass of his show as history, but as it stands now Blood and Sand needs at least it's most blatant innacurate portrayals revealed. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wanted to address each "inaccuracy" that appears in the 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC) version, to see if we can trim it down some. We can argue about original research in circles, but we would probably be more productive addressing specific issues. When a point is addressing the show, it needs to use {{ cite episode}}. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Barca: currently has no source. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Quintus vs. Gnaeus: seems okay. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Roman uniforms: the issue with this is, it takes an expert (or one with atleast substantial knowledge) in the subject to notice what type of uniform they are wearing, and compared to what they should be. This is different than simply watching the show and hearing they call Batiatus Quintus and not Gnaeue. Therefore, I'm of the mind that this fact needs citation needed. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Ilithyia's slave: This requires the assumption that the characters are law-abiding citizens, which clearly, is not true. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This just shows bias, there is a very reliable source up about ownership in Ancient Rome, especially in light of slaves. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Husbands killing wives: I don't recall when this is mentioned. If somebody can point it out, that would help. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Batiatus as a politician: In the final episode, Glaber is said (I believe) to be petitioning for his appointment, so this one seems alright to me. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Slave prices: Only one issue I have - that the "average" is given as 960-4000. Can we narrow this down a little bit? Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Cotta: Seems so trivial, and has no source. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Resolved |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Kitchen objects: Is alright, because this clearly wasn't the case in "Kill Them All". Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
|
Glaber: Glaber is away at the time of the revolt, therefore we cannot know if he has been appointed praetor or not. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) As stated, adhering to the last piece of information provided by the programme producers is not OR. Glaber is considering running until we are informed otherwise by the producers. If you think this is an OR issue, then put it up for third-party assessment. By all means he'll probably return in season 2 as praetor, but until he does the current presentation is inaccurate. Catiline63 ( talk) 13:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) No, why? The plot doesn't even mention Glaber as praetor. And now the point can be thrown out because we don't know. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thracians: Can anybody point out where he calls himself this "with obvious nationalistic pride"? It probably happened, I just don't remember. Even still, could tone down the tone a bit. Grsz 11 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I will reword the point to specify in that case. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Gatae: They are shown as enemies of Spartacus' tribe or village, but that doesn't mean they are a completely separate people. Additionally, we use an ancient source written by Herodotus, which was written atleast 350 years before Spartacus. Can we get a better source? And also, perhaps the situation changed between that time? Grsz 11' 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) Thank you for explaining the Getae so I wouldn't have to Catiline 63, I will only add that many modern historians have stopped using that term entirely and now just reffer to them as Thracians. Catiline did as well as I could in defending that point.-- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
actually you may both be wrong. and the herodotus source material is wrong the gatae were not a thracian tribe in fact they were a dacian tribe. the dacians were a collection of tribes just north of thrace. unless you can come up with a way of proving that the gatae were ethnically thracians that had migrated north to live in the dacian region before the time of spartacus. 76.211.5.120 ( talk) 13:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
acording this this map titled herodotus world map , gatae were not thracian but could be considered proto-dacian which means that even if you are claiming that herodotus said that gatae were once thracians in a time before this map then i would say that to call gatae a thracian tribe at the time of spartacus in 75 BC is a null and void arguement as we all know an individual tribe loses its individual ethnic identity after several hundred years unless it comes from a very large population base as to continue its pure blooded hertage of the said tribe in question so that means if the gatae were around in 450 BC and they were still on the map as a separate people in 75 bc that means that there must have been thousands of gatae people in the time of herodutus so they could have enough genetic integrity to maintain this nation of people. as you can see in the map of the known world at the time of herodotus gatae were not living in thrace but the dacian region . so finding proof is now going to be very hard that gatae were thracians even by herodotus own map were located not in thrace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Herodotus_world_map-en.svg 69.208.10.149 ( talk) 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually recall the show saying the Getae were enemies of Thrace. Weren't they just portrayed as enemies of the Maedi (Spartacus's tribe)? In any event, this strikes me as hair-splitting. 134.173.15.58 ( talk) 10:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oenomaus was a gaul, not an african, wasnt he? Has political correctness gone so mad in Western society, that nobody even notices "black vikings" now?-- 109.86.57.225 ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
That's half of the points. I'm feeling that this entire section is turning into a history-buff fan-fest. Also when addressing specific sentences, timestamp them and add them with {{ Cite episode}}, a bunch of these would be no issue if done so correctly. Xeworlebi ( t• c) 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
( ←) To be honest you did persuade me on the wife killing point, but not through sarcasm. You also seem to care a lot. -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 15:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
There is none of that, historical information is accurate (which you just agreed), and they are there to show things in the show. The fact is it claims to be an accurate portrayal of Roman Society in a tag on every episode, so having what point that exists now would you say is libel? The point about Thracians? Getae? Glaber? -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A lot more thank you -- ScriptusSecundus ( talk) 17:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
i'm too lazy to search for sources at the moment:
-at the time statues were painted in bright colors, not left 'au naturel'.
-putting you thumb up meant 'kill him of' (with no specific sign for sparing someones life instead) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.95.218.241 (
talk)
15:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I cannot really see the point of a historical inaccuracies section, since this is a work of fiction, and a very poor representation of Roman society. It is too full of errors to even start, in my opinion. 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 05:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)