Zad wrote:
Started Rome last night. Not bad first episode, but I was expecting more...
Is this historically accurate, Brahms? Funny how Conn Iggulden presented Brutus as an Arnie-clone fighting machine and here he's a spoilt toff.
Ahh, sorry, never saw this. Yes, Rome is generally historically accurate. There are some minor details they get wrong. For example, in the first episode both Pompey and Caesar are consuls, when Caesar's desire for a second consulship after the war in Gaul (his first had been ten years before), and his opponents attempts to stop him and bring him to trial, was actually one of the causes of the civil war- similarly, Pompey exercises a non-existent consular veto. Probably the worst historical inaccuracy is in the show's depiction of the Ptolemaic court in egypt as a purely Egyptian court, when it was a mixture of predominant Macedonian culture and some Egyptian mixed in. But yep, generally, its accurate- especially compared to anything else about Rome out there on TV or in the movies. Anyway, Brutus was much more likely a stuffy aristocrat than a Conan like figure- he was a pretty bad general, anyway.
Oh, and remember: NEVER BELIEVE ANYTHING CONN IGGULDEN SAYS. Ever. He couldn't figure out Roman naming conventions (ie: Nobody would have called Caesar "Julius".... ever) and he pretty much butchers the late Republican period in just about every way. If he says that something is true, your instinctive reaction should be to believe the exact opposite.
Anyway, have you gotten past episode 1? I hope you're enjoying it. I know some people who needed a few episodes before they completely got into it- then there are Roman nerds like me who fell in love when they saw the first episode.