Lanista

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/03/b..._alexandri.html

My feelings are precisely captured in this statement. To me it smacks of intellectual snobbery to come onto a Roman forum for Roman historians who know a lot about Roman history and point out all the flaws in a Roman film from the wrong sandals to the bad outfits to the fact that gladiators didn't do this that or the other. Most people who subscribe to these forums know all this already. So, for me, sitting with a pen and paper gleefully noting down the fact that it's the same old Tunisian extras on the telly again is pretty pointless. But that's just me. The fact is that films and TV productions are first and foremost entertainment. The argument that "people will learn incorrect facts from watching the movies" is flawed. Anyone that is inspired to "check out" Roman history will soon discover the facts. And if they don't care to, then they don't care to. In addition, accuracy in some cases is pushed aside due to scheduling, budgets, locations, pressure from the production company and a zillion other reasons: whilst critics on Roman forums are teaching Roman historians to suck eggs, I suppose I should do my own and say "Making a film isn't a cheap or easy task." If there are any directors and producers on here, I 'd ask them to support that statement. It's also true to say that fact is often omitted or changed because of pacing and expedience in the script. I'm sure that there are many scriptwriting experts on here who will support that statement too. So things like the Heroes and Villains series that are castigated by forumites aren't really as bad as they're made out to be. No, they're not 100% accurate, and I'm sure that members of forums like these don't expect them to be(indeed, one of the reviews here started with something like "I knew I was going to hate this programme" or something like that - hardly giving the show a fair crack of the whip). These shows are made with the advice of contemporary historians: I'm sure that Prof Mary Beard wouldn't allow the BBC to put her name on a production if she wasn't happy with the result. Before we say "Oh, she was paid", well maybe she was, but she's an eminent academic - would she really support something that she knew was 100% balderdash. Or, to put it another way- do you really, honestly believe that the production company went to the expense of hiring historical experts and researchers just to deliberately ignore them with the express point of annoying people on internet forums. I'm not convinced that's the case. You have to realise that these shows/films aren't made for historians - they're made as mass-entertainment and they're damn expensive projects. Now, either you know that - in which case you should stop complaining about the fact that they re-use cheap leather instead of on-the-money lorica, each aspect of Caesar's life isn't examined in Bergmanesque detail and that certain facts are changed or omitted due to various production reasons. Or if you don't know that, then you're not as smart as you're making yourself out to be, and you should hang out ons some film and tv forums to better understand what you're criticising. It's a really great time for historical epics in the cinema and new documentary/drama-documentary on the TV - this is something that should be celebrated and not castigated. If these programmes and films inspire a new legion of historians then that's great. I'd hazard that most people on here were not inspired to study Rome by reading the Gallic Wars when they were eight. Most of us,as Neil rightly points out saw Ben Hur, Spartacus, 300 Spartans or whatever on the TV and were inspired us to learn "the truth." Ultimately, the only people I see complaining about these films are people who should be really pleased that the productions are being made in the first place. We'd all be bitching at Hollywood and the BBC if nothing "historical" was being made - if not, why are threads like "What historical epic would you like to see?" perpetually popular on this forum as they are on others. I really fail to see why forumites savage every single production that comes out: Is it a possession issue - Roman history is "our" thing, it's not for everyone...is it a snobbery issue - look how clever I am and how thick these stupid Hollywood folk are...I really don't know, but I'll ask the question again - why are you coming on to Roman forums listing the inaccuracies in a show when a simple "not all the facts were correct" will suffice? No one is trying to say that every film/programme/documentary is going to be a fantastic effort...for every "Spatacus" there's "Last Legion", every "I, Claudius" a "Caesars" - as with all such endeavours there are varying degrees of quality. But, as I've said, I'm happy that films are being made, television is producing documentary and drama and more books are being written. The last thing I have to ask or contribute to this topic is Are you not entertained?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0467470/

I did write out a massive long post in response to this, but then just deleted it because there's absolutely no point.

This is great information - thanks so much. (I'm literally just about to write this part of the story!) Cheers Russ

Hi guys: really, thanks for all this information, it's really going to help. The last part about speculation is great - it means I can make things up without getting my fingers too badly burned. Which is a result! Again, thanks for all your help. I'll be sure to add the UNRV url in the acknowledgements section if the book sees print! Cheers Russ

Hi - I'm hoping someone can help. I've got it in mind to write a scene at the first Battle of Tapae, but I'm really struggling to find any sort of explanation as to the lay of land at "Transylvania's Iron Gates." Wikipedia is brief: I know that they crossed the Danube on a pontoon bridge, and had some initial success. Currently, I have my Romans in their marching camp, the following day they will march out and face their nadir at Tapae. But...I really don't know what Tapae looked like, what the forces were on the Dacian side, how the trap was sprung and so forth. It would appear to me that "Transylvania's Iron Gates" are a mountain pass just by the name. Can anyone advise? As I type, maybe there would be more on Trajan's battle there? I don't know - anyhow, if anyone can help, I'd be really grateful. Cheers Russ

Thanks, Nepele. I've been looking through these posts - it's a great wishlist! I'm not sure that all of the ideas would be taken up though, but I really like the SPQR one, but I think again that this sort of thing would make a good series - a la "Rome." I'm surprised not to have seen Pyrrhus of Epirus in the lists. He's great fodder for a mini-series, I reckon - his story has it all - he even gets killed in battle (albeit rather unheroically, but thems the breaks). Russ

Hmm - I could be persuaded.

heh heh heh - "Gladiatrix" of course. There's even a trailer... <shameless self-promotion> </shameless self-promotion> You know, there was a film in production very recently called "Amazon" - a Scarlet Johannsson (sp?) vehicle which was set around (I believe) the Boudican revolt. The story was familliar - Romans come and destroy peaceful tribes way of life, warrior girl plucked from obscurity to fight for the Roman mob. She probably ends up bringing down the empire/killing the emperor and so forth. Johannsson left the project to do the Black Dhalia, and I've not heard much since. That said, there have been a few Gladiatrix films, The Arena with Pam Grier is probably the best known and the best in quality (though that's not saying much). It's a Roger Corman effort, and it's a shame really because with a few more dollars thrown at it, it could have really punched above its weight. To be fair, it's dated quite well. Timur (Nightwatch/Daywatch) Bekmabetov remade it in 2001, and again, it wasn't an awful film. What really let it down was Bekmabetov's rubbish direction. The fight scenes were just awful. The Arena (2001) had the odd distinction of having two playboy girls star in it - and they do really well in the acting department. Indeed, they were quite vocal in their protestations when talking about the fighting. They really worked hard to make the scene as good as they could be, but Bekmabetov's style has just ruined any sort of spectacle at all. Another low-budget one was "Amazons and Gladiators" that came out around the same time. It really sufferers from having Patric Bergin gurn his way through the movie. It's not greatly scripted at the best of times, but all the actors do the best they can with the material they've got, excpet Bergin who's acting like its all beneath him. OK, it is, but he really ruins the movie. All shameless self-promotion aside, I really think that a well-handled Gladiatrix movie would be great. It would need careful handling, I reckon. As I type, I think that it might work better as a TV mini-series like the much-maligned Empire. Russ

Couldn't agree more. I'm pretty sure that Pausanius had some really awful omens at the battle of Platea, but insisted that the priests say the omens were good...largey because he saw that it was the right time to attack! Cheers Russ

I don't think it was his intent to butcher history. I tend to think of "Emperor" more as an "alternate reality" piece. I thought the books were really entertaining reads, full of stirring adventure, derring do: real page turners with characters that we (sort of!) know. No, of course not...it was just the only example I could think of off the top of my head! The point is that decision was taken with audience in mind. Heh - I use both, and I'm guilty of arming my thracians with them - becaues I think they look cooler than sicas - even though I know the bendy bit of the sica was to get over the big shield of their heavy armed opponents *lol* But I think what I'm trying to say here is that I think that most historical fiction digresses from fact to a greater or lesser extent. As students of Roman history, I think we need to learn to disengage from what is right and what the writer thinks makes a good story. And that's the key thing - we may well think that a story doesn't need changing or embellishing or having certain bits omitted. But the writer has chosen to do "make it so" for reasons best known to him or her like I say above, I chose straight swords because I like them and thought that the scenes played better in my mind. But this sort of thing can make people gnash their teeth with fury, saying "Why can't he just use the sica, everyone knows that's what they used!" The great thing about this is that it's all very subjective - the inaccuracies don't bother me at all, I know what really happened with Caesar, so Iggulden's take is fun an interesting to me at least. I know it's not accuarte, and as I say, I don't think it's supposed to be really - it's a good old page turner. Cheers Russ PS - my excuse is now going to be "Gladiatrix takes place in the provinces where the rules for gladiatorial combat were not as formal as they were in the Capitol." Sh*t...that actually sounds like I know what I'm on about....

Thanks so much for the recommend, Augusta. I'm just in the middle of the "The Legionary" at the moment and will move on to Atilla when I'm finished. Again, thanks for passing on the information, much appreciated. Cheers Russ

I'm not convinced that the Emperor series are historical fiction, they're more historical fantasy. Iggulden does, in his notes, say what really happened and why he changed things. Accuracy is always up for debate when you're writing historical fiction - I'm guilty of changing things in "Gladiatrix" myself, and I was aware of what I was doing, but decided to do it anyway. Sometimes, authors make decisions for the benefit of not only their story, but also the audience. The vast majority of people who read a novel are not going to be students of Roman history - a case in point, Donna Gillespie's "The Light Bearer" is regarded as one of the finest pieces of Roman fiction ever written (go check amazon, and see how many folk say "it changed my life") - yet Donna refers to the Flavian as the Colosseum. Now she, as well as we, knew well that it was called the Flavian at the time of Domitian, but as a writer, you make a decision that you believe will help the book and help the audience. In my own book, I changed the pairings of gladiatrices that fought each other, and I have them in less armour. I did this for dramatic purposes - that's my excuse, and when I was writing it it worked for me. But of course, to Romanophiles it's an unforgiveable sin. (if you want to read a review, there's one at RAT which exposes my guilty secrets!) The truth is that - as indefensible as it might be to purists - a novel isn't a work of fact, it's a work of fiction: especially in Iggulden's case where his work is plainly (well to me at least) more fantasy based in reality. Cheers Russ

Thanks all for the good wishes, I'll be sure to take some pics and link to them! Cheers Russ (AKA Hister the Lanista)

Hi - As some of you guys know, I've written a book called "Gladiatrix" which is coming out on 18th March. You can read some blurb about it here http://www.myrmidonbooks.com/new_titles_gladiatrix.html to see if it's your cup of tea or not. There are amazon links too, but there are no reviews on there at the moment, just the blurb. If it is your cup of tea, and you're based in London, I'd like to invite you to the launch event which will be held on 20th March (Saturday) at Waterstones in Putney at 1400 hrs. There will be a talk and hopefully some weapons on display, with a few gladiatrices to demonstrate - I'm just waiting for the re-enactment society to let me know if they can make it. There will also be nibbles and wine - after the talk, we'll all be heading off to the pub (naturally). Anyway, if you fancy coming along, you are more than welcome. There will be a signing sesh, so if you want a book signed, please, please let me know you came via this forum! Cheers Russ

By Day - I write content for a major corporate website By Night - I'm a novelist, first book due out on 18th March! Russ

I would say that Donna Gillespie has that title. I think that Scott writes great, but Gillespie is a great writer - for me, she's the natural successor to Mary Renault. Of course, it's all about opinion, but the Light Bearer and Lady of the Light are modern classics - for me, that term is bandied about too often, but with Gillespie its deserved. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of Manda Scott but Gillespie's writing transcends anything I've ever read. I feel that her work will be more appreciated as time goes on. Her biggest "fault" is that her output is slow, but I guess genius takes time! Put it this way, if you read her user comments on amazon, you'll find more than one person saying that the works changed their lives. I've not put that comment on there, but it is true for me too. I can't recommend her work highly enough. Cheers Russ

Please do - I've got the first one - I've had it for ages and because of one thing and another, I've not opened it (shame on me!). Cheers Russ

People of the Horse by Mary Mackie. I believe that it's out of print now, but it's the story of Boudicca told through her eyes, and interestingly, the eyes of her daughter. I picked it up in a second hand book shop in South Africa of all places. It's definately worth tracking down. Also, I'm reading Tyrant by Christian Cameron, which absolutely brilliant. Russ

Hah, yes, I'd forgotten about that name - *lol* Classic... Cheers Hister the Lanista

What a fun quiz....*lol* You are Pan. You're an extremely creative and fun-loving individual. You have a predisposition to acting and performing, and you enjoy it. You're very outgoing, and you are genuinely interested in other people. You probably have a pet parakeet, play an instrument, write poetry, tell jokes, love parties, have lots of friends, remember people, names and faces, paint, and have a righteous social conscious. You're very good natured, but can be naive and exploited by less good natured people. You're mischevious, but in a usually harmless way. You don't have much use for structure and routine, and your appetite for sensation and immediate gratification can cloud your judgement regarding the future consequences of your actions. You like to improvise more than you like to plan. You look on the bright side of life. Even though you're highly optimistic, you can be predisposed to bouts of angst when presented with negative possibilities or outcomes. In combating dire circumstances, you can become dismissive and resort to over-simplifications of the situation. Although most people love to be around you, the more analytical types (Atlas, The Oracle, Prometheus, and Hermes) will take issue with what they perceive to be your lack of foresight. The main drawback to this is that they will become rigid and stubborn in conflict, and you will take this personally, becoming stubborn and inflexible yourself. Regardless, you have a capacity for connection with other people that is unheard of in the other personality types. Your main strenghts are your flexibility and artistic and sympathetic abilities. Famous people like you: Franz Joseph Haydn, Dr. Suess, Bill Cosby, Sandra Bullock, Oscar Wilde Similar Personality Types: Orpheus, Aphrodite, Dionysus Stay clear of: Atlas, Hermes, Prometheus, The Oracle My test tracked 4 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender: You scored higher than 71% on Extroversion You scored higher than 16% on Intuition You scored higher than 61% on Emotiveness You scored higher than 27% on Perceptiveness

Hi PP - thanks for your email, btw - I'm awaiting some advance copies at the moment, so I can't send any out *lol* I think "for the masses" is the key thing here. As we know these films aren't made with students of the history in mind - and the masses either don't know "the facts" or don't care. But I do think that we should go and see these films and judge for ourselves - I often find that the "buzz" is not representative of my tastes. And, really - if we don't go and see these movies...even the bad ones....then the studios will stop making them. Heh, we'll be harkening back to the good old days of "Last Legion" and "Empire!" Just on that - was Empire a failure? We didn't get it in the UK, but I ordered if off Amazon and quite enjoyed it - the guy that played Mark Anthony was just how I imagined Mark Anthony would have been - albeit a bit more sober, if the commentaries are anything to go by. Gladiator I think thumbs its nose at we students....after the most historically innaccuate gladiator ruck of all time, Maximus struts around shouting "Are you not entertained?" Cheers Hister the Lanista

Why is historical accuracy such an issue? Things like "Empire" are entertainment first and foremost, though with that particular period of history, I can't really understand why there's a need to dramatise or alter the facts, it was pretty torrid time after all! Films are rarely accurate - Braveheart, Patriot, Gladiator, 300 - the list goes on, and it's always been the same. I can't see it changing, either. I'm just pleased that the past few years have seen a renaissence of the sword and sandals movie - whilst we can slight films for not being accurate, wouldn't we be slighting hollywood if they weren't making these types of movies. I'd rather have them with their inaccuracies than not have them at all. Cheers Hister the Lanista