1.) Too many factual errors. The producers should go back to school and study Western Civilization. The Roman Empire was created after the deaths of Marc Antony and Cleopatra. Not during the last days of Julius Caesar.
2.) Except for the actors who portrayed Caesar and the Vestal Virgin, all the actors were mediocre, including Tyrranus.
3.) The series was boring. It's like watching the story of Hercules and his adventures.
I Agree except one thing. The roman empire was created after the roman victories in zama in 202 B.C. against carthage and after the battle in greece in 197 B.C (Flaminius against the greeks). After those two battles rome took control of the west and of the east and became an empire which expanded with the course of time.
After the death of anthony and cleopatra, Octavian became the first roman emperor in 27 B.C but the empire was established in the early 2nd century B.C.
Up-until augustus we had the republic years of the empire (202-27 B.C). After 27 B.C we had the principate (27 B.C.-285 A.D) until diocletian reformed the state which was completely changed in to a "Dominus" state in the days of the great Constantine (306-337) until it's final downfall in the 13th century (1204 A.D.)
(After the recapture of new rome in 1261 by plalaiologus the empire survived in name only until 1453 when the ottomans captured it but the real empire fell in 1204 to the franks).
[deleted]
Yup, TECHNICALLY, it was still a republic which happened to own quite a bit of territory that used to belong to other people. But it didn't TECHNICALLY become an empire until Augustus became the first emperor.
Cheeries,
Tom516
you guys are just arguing semantics at this point. YOu ALL have you facts straight, just you disagree on which words to use to describe the state of rome...at this point you are all one step above this show, which does not have its facts straight
shareThere is good tosh, there is bad tosh and there is bloody awful tosh and this series falls in to the latter category. How could anyone think they could tell this story without mentioning Cleopatra! Its like making a sandwich and leaving out the filling - leaving just bread and butter which may fill you up but won`t leave you feeling satisfied.
Then there are the loopholes in the plot, one moment Caesar is in Rome talking to Tyrannus and the next moment they are out in the countryside with not only no indication of how they got there but no sign of any horses - are we expected to assume that they walked! We are also suppose to believe that after being biten by a snake unlike all its other victims Octavius doesn`t die instantly but manages to survive for days before receiving treatment. And on the eve of his great battle with Mark Antony, Octavius decides to leave his men to go see his favourite vestal virgin who though being held prison by Antony (in some unnamed location) doesn`t appear to be guarded by anyone. Octavius` men don`t worry about his disapperance, indeed they don`t seem to notice that he`s missing till the morning. And please can someone tell the writers & producers that roman armies were not led by former gladiators - high ranking officers came from the nobility - and no soldier would dream of taking orders from someone who wasn`t a bone fide army officer. The idea that Mark Antony or members of the senate would entrust the leadership of soldiers to a former gladiator with no military training is ludicrous.
On the empire/not an empire thing (you don't have to read this if you consider the matter closed!). From what I remember, 'Imperator' ( basis of 'emperor') was a pre-existing Roman military commendation/term which Octavius appropriated when he became sole leader. It was linked to the concept of 'imperium'. Now prior to Octavius' accession, Romans would consider conquered lands as being under their 'imperium' - power and, loosely, empire. So for Romans the concept of Empire preceeded the concept of Emperor as we know it. Romans could have Empire without Emperor.
Basically from that I'd say the empire began before Augustus, but I could be wrong.
We'll Shanghai Wendy!
1.) They didn't even introduce the importance of the 3rd legion in the show until Octavian and Agrippa ran into them.
2.) It was hard to figure out who the real villian was-- Antony or Brutus and Cassius.
3.) Some of the characters weren't interesting like their original selves.
I bought it without seeing it. Watched the whole thing and was terribly disappointed. Why would Ceasar entrust the duty of showing Octavius/Octavian how to rule to a frikkin' gladiator? Also like a previous poster stated: No one would take orders from a gladiator even if he held rank. This was just a poorly written series that is total crap compared to HBO's Rome and BBC's Rise and Fall of an Empire.
share[deleted]
First most of you people don't get entertainment. Second technically you are all wrong. Third you read books and research to attempt to discover fact. Not watch movies and plays. That is not their aim or function. Even based on and inspired by true stories or actual events are rarely more than half accurate. If they were any more then they wouldn't be entertaining, even the most thought provokative entertainment. Even documentaries.
Primus inter pares was the actual position. Or first among equals. Not Emperor. Hence by definition there was never a Roman Empire. Contradiction in terms. However the Empiric nature of Rome long preceded Augustus.
If you look at the Punic wars, struggles with Carthage, and battles with Pyrrhus of Epirus. Rome turns Imperial by nature over issues with Sicily. Most Scholars agree that this is the period of change.... the point of no return if you will. Not much later than 270 bc did the Roman policies become Imperial.
Very similar to the American Imperialism. Again a contradiction in terms but the movement sparked by The White Man's Burden, and the Spanish American War became a policy shift that was the US governments point of no return.
Yes you can argue that March 15th Octavian was nowhere near Rome nor was he the no account playboy that he was portrayed in the series. You can debate that he was actually being groomed to be whom he would become. You can argue the unrealistic travel and the time frame of the civil wars.
However the best argument is story telling and whom the story is being told to. You have to like Marc Anthony and dislike Octivius from the start for this story to grow where it does. It does an ok job of it. The story is weak in the respect that the characters are so prototypical and Tyrannus is written as a paper thin plot vehicle to explain things that the viewing public wouldn't be able to understand without it. The actors do as well as they can to flesh out the characters in the limiting role of the scripting.
It is not as well character driven as a contemporary like Gladiator but the far more ambitious and factually accurate than Gladiator even tried to be. IMO it did well for what it seemed to be attempting to be.
http://cinepad.com/awards/awards_1-50.htm