Are facts mentioned which are wrong?


I've seen the whole thing and liked it very much. But after the whole documentation I wasn't sure if they changed facts which maybe wouldn't come good in the scenes because of the "entertainment factor".

So does anyone know if they changed something?

/edit: now I read a short book about the Medici and can't remember any errors in the documentation ... but the medici history seems to be controversial anyway

reply

Having studied the Italian Renaissance this year in school (though admittedly, not as in-depth as I probably should have), I couldn't find anything terribly inaccurate in terms of facts either. However, I would say that the historical figures and their role in Florence during the Renaissance, like Cosimo and Lorenzo, has been simplified enormously and does really give much additional information to those who have done some detailed study into the time period.

It's not really the type of documentary you would take extensive notes on, more of a production that helps to give a good introduction to those interested in studying the topic area. It was designed for the average individual who has little knowledge of the Renaissance, and in that respect, it caters to its audience perfectly.

reply

They mention a pirate who becomes pope john the 23rd... that cant be right cuz pope john the 23rd was pope in the 20th century. Otehr than that idk

reply

I thought I should amend this, there was a John the 23rd, who was a pirate but he was an antipope and removed.

reply

Yes, this is why it was a big deal when Roncalli took the name John in the 20th century. So many popes were afraid to take that name because of the controversy over that pope and whether he deserved that number or not, but he was brave enough to do so and became the new XXIII. He was a brave pope, as Vatican II proved.

reply

Yes, this is why it was a big deal when Roncalli took the name John in the 20th century. So many popes were afraid to take that name because of the controversy over that pope and whether he deserved that number or not, but he was brave enough to do so and became the new XXIII. He was a brave pope, as Vatican II proved.

reply

I thought the main thing was that it didn't have time to go deep enough. For example, they keep telling us that there were a lot of people who were against the Medici, but they never explain for what reasons, or what the Medici might have done to cause such resentment. Or even show the early Medici doing anything questionable or controversial. But they must have done something to earn all that antagonism.

reply