Andariel Halo
I had thought I had grown out of the childish nitpickery of historical accuracy in depictions of ancient Greece/Rome movies, TV shows, documentaries, whatever. But when a series gets it so painfully, horribly wrong as this, I just can't get over it and start anemically yelling at the TV again.
The first season was about Commodus. I know very little about the Roman Empire at this point so I couldn't vouch for many of the historical accuracy, except to say that the series is fixated on the old style myth that all gladiatorial bouts were fights to the death.Gladiatorial bouts were very rarely fights to the death, although I would give some leeway to this period in time, in particular because Commodus is the one fighting the gladiators in the arena and needs to seem invincible.A whole lot of other minor details are gotten wrong, few of them would be enough to deter from the information or entertainment value, but when it's a constant stream of little things that are either partly or completely wrong or anachronistic, it starts to become pitiful considering this is not an actual TV show, but a highly stylized documentary. There are fictional re-enactments and depictions, but it's still a documentary, and it's somehow worse than an average TV show.
The second season is where it reaches into a time period I know and can whine about properly.From the very start, the selection of the actors to portray the triumvirs, Caesar, Pompeius, and Crassus, look absolutely nothing like the people they're supposed to depict. That's hardly a big deal in terms of fictional depictions, but it goes beyond that, to a point where Pompey is bald and has a beard, and Crassus has a mop of curly hair. Every single depiction of Pompey has him with a diamond shaped head and hair, and almost no high ranking Roman in this period had facial hair at all. Crassus as well was old and balding, yet is depicted as being basically the same age as Caesar and Pompey.
From there on, it starts off with a "history" of Caesar which is not even remotely close to being accurate. It depicts him as being a "lowly soldier" at age 16, of which is not only not true (he had been forcibly appointed Flamen Dialis by Gaius Marius, a position which forbade him from even touching a knife, much less be a soldier), but the fact that he was from a rich, land-owning patrician family meant he absolutely would NOT have been a "lowly soldier", no matter if he was poor or not.
Next, it begins to show him engaged in a completely non-existent decade-long military career, culminating in him inexplicably taking part in the war against Spartacus, not only a small part, but apparently a LEADING ROLE in commanding at least a legion.
In reality Caesar by this time had only just gotten out of his position as Flamen Dialis and had a brief stint fighting in Asia Minor, which is where he negotiated with King Nicomedes to secure a fleet, sparking rumors that he seduced Nicomedes and allowed the king to have sex with him, something his political opponents would exploit the hell out of later on. By the time Spartacus's revolt even happened, Caesar was in Rome acting as a legal advocate and making his name in the law courts.
INEXPLICABLY given how much this series wants to focus on blood and guts and glory, they leave out a TRUE (or at least historically recorded) story that says more about Caesar than any of the fake, boring stuff they put forth before it.Caesar was captured by pirates, and taken to their pirate base. There, he used his wit and charisma to befriend the pirates, and they took a liking to him. All the while, he told them that once he was ransomed, he would come back and crucify them all. The pirates all laughed, thinking him joking. Then Caesar was ransomed, and he came back with a small fleet and had all the pirates crucified.
For absolutely no reason at all, this story is not mentioned at all, looking to a very fake depiction of Spartacus's last battle and diving straight into a triumvirate with Curly Crassus and Bearded Pompey. Worse, they fall into the stupid-trap of apparently thinking that there was only one Consul at a time. Every year two Consuls were elected, and this series portrays Caesar as being the only Consul elected for his year.
On top of that, they do a typical spin so bad as to be a lie in the form of the gangs; they depict Caesar as directly utilizing street gangs in Rome to directly assault and intimidate Senators. Not only would that have been insanely illegal and gotten Caesar killed on sight by the Senate (they had previously done exactly this against several other figures, such as the Gracchi or Marcus Drusus), but it implies a serious anachronism towards the Senate.
Probably due to its strong fixation on the ineptitude of the Senate in season 1 covering Commodus, it extends the same false belief into this season with Caesar. The Senate, by Caesar's time, was not an inept and mewling bunch that could do nothing. It was a collection of tyrants in its own right, and Caesar's rise was not something inevitable due to the weakness of the Senate. Caesar's rise was one of masterful diplomacy and cunning, specifically because at any given moment had he slipped up, the Senate would have literally had him killed. His popularity with the people and his strong political connections were his only shield against the malevolent threat of the ultraconservative Senate.
Here, he's basically just a thug, bullying his way into power while the Senate meekly mewls and stands by.
As well, they constantly use footage from the BBC movie "Hannibal: Rome's Worst Nightmare", where they actually used historically accurate style armor, shields, and helmets, so you will occasionally see these realistic looking legionaries, fighting in formation, spliced in with legionaries in the plate-mail and square shields of the mid-Empire fighting one man army without formation.They also stupidly mispronounce Vercingetorix as "Versinjetorix"
jeffhemley-08696
After I researched the actual history I was agitated to be so mislead by this terrible "history" lesson.
I understand movies and TV shows changing things for dramatic effect but this is presented with narration from historians, as if it is depicting something close to the actual events.
To give one example of glaring inaccuracies, this series has Commodus killing gladiators in the arena. He never did any such thing. He did kill some of his practice slaves in training but he never killed a gladiator in the arena. His arena matches were mere exhibitions with predetermined outcomes. The real gladiators would lose on purpose and then ask for mercy and Commodus always granted it.
Also, this series presents him as a grown man in at least his mid twenties when we went to to war with his father but he actually just a young boy. He was only 15 years old when named emperor along with his father and when his father died three years later he became sole emperor.
There is almost nothing in this series at all that is fully accurate.
So, if you like fiction portrayed in documentary style you may like this. If not, trust me, don't waste your time.
I do give it two stars because the actors did work hard and deserve some credit. The acting was fairly good.
davidorcutt31
For something passing itself off as a documentary, there is not much historical accuracy in this wanna-be docu-drama. When Crassus defeated Spartacus, Pompey was in Spain fighting Sertorius and Caesar was in the East under the general Lucullus - hence the rumor by his enemies that he prostituted himself to the King of Nicomedes for a fleet of ships. Caesar's daughter Julia, at this point in history was approximately 5 years old, not the almost full-grown woman presented here. Why these alleged documentaries insist on fabricating stories when the actual, real history is so much more intriguing, I'll never understand.
