Lanista

That may well be true, Maty, but the name fits for the character we're writing: it has some resonance at least. I guess a bit like calling the character in Gladiator "Maximus." They could have called him "Lucius", "Quintus", "Marcus" etc - they didn't cos Maximus is big. And great...I think this is the same sort of idea. I'm just glad it's not Maud or Ethel or something like that... I mean, nothing against those names, but they don't shout "warrioress" to me at least.

Cheers for the linkage, Vig

Is the first one pronounced "Nok-u-lay" and the second "Out-auf-then-ar"

Technically, it might not be a fallacy. What are the odds on two correct guesses by Teen:INK

I went for Andraste for the main one. The other one I'll probably use Lannosea for the younger one now, though. You guys at UNRV are legends, by the way. Cheers Russ

As long as I don't have the wrong names in my script, I'm happy *lol*

Nice one, GoC - that's what I kind of figured. I'll check out Tacitus though, just to make sure. Thanks man. Cheers Russ

So wiki says that Boudicca's daughters were called Heanua and Lannosea. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_the_names_of_Queen_Boudica's_daughters But a google on the names doesn't dig up any classical references...what do we reckon. The answer above must have come from somewhere - I'm wondering what the source is. Can any Romano-British experts help? Cheers Russ

http://www.matyszakbooks.com/book10.php All you'll ever need...

Who can forget "The Cleopatras"

Longevity. It was a hugely successful empire. Sure, we can focus on the decline and fall and the civil wars, but for all that it lasted past the "Roman" period and into the Byzantine...a pretty good innings.

Cheers, Maty - loving your "Legionary - Roman Soldier's Manual" - great stuff. Russ

Cheers, PP :-)

Hi gang - I keep finding different names for this guy. This is the fellow that ordered the rape of Boudicca's daughters and caused all that trouble. So - is it Catus Decianus or vice versa. I can't find much internet information on him at all :-( Cheers Russ

Can't wait either - DVD for me too.

Domitian wasn't that bad. Well until the end, but at least he got stuff done. Army liked him too.

Nice one, really enjoyed reading it. Cheers Russ

It was a big shock hearing about Spartacus - I mean, he walked through the qualifiers with ease, I really didn't think he'd go out in the knockout stages.

It was all a bit "meh" for me. I saw it in the cinema in 3D - well, sort of greyish dark 2D actually, so I got it on DVD and its just...well, a bit of nothing. I enjoyed it - the music especially was fantastic, but its not a memorable film by any stretch of the imagination. But, they're making two sequels, but already they can't agree what they'll be about. http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00031745.html I didn't know Percival was in Greek myth, so you learn something new every day. At a guess, maybe they'd do something about Theseus (for instance) with Perseus having some sort of cameo and maybe then get Theseus and Perseus involved in the search for the Golden Fleece. Sort of like what Marvel did with the Avengers...only with Sandals. Yeah, so like at the end of each movie, this shadowy Jason figure turns up telling the hero of the piece about a special job he's organising... Cheers Russ

*lol* @ rubber brick! Brilliant :-)

Now that's a candidate for thread of the year right there. Excellent idea, love it, great work and great comebacks on the topic too.

Well quite - as we have photographic evidence of those people. I'm not saying that Hannibal looked anything like the bloke in ancient battles or whatever it was called, but at the end of the day, the designers of that programme decided to give it the "300" styling, hence the look of the actor. That's not completely distorting history. Saying that Hannibal lost at Cannae would be, though. On a slightly different angle - should we deride the Spartacus movie because we're not sure that Spartacus was a dead ringer for Kirk Douglas. Or have a pop at "I Claudius" because the sets don't look that great? All of these programmes show dramatised versions of history - they have to entertain as well as inform: and the entertainment comes first, because if its not entertaining, the vast majority of people won't watch it, if people don't watch it the advertisers won't want to use the commercial slots, if the advertisers don't use the commercial slots, programmes don't get made and the company loses money and then decides that making said documentaries is a bad idea and then you're on UNRV crying into your beer because there aren't any documentaries (or movies for that matter) set in ancient times. These programmes are not directed at Roman historians who are expected to know this stuff anyway. As I say above, no kid who's inspired into learning about Hannibal off the back of the programme is going to send outraged emails to historians arguing the case for "Hannibal looks nothing like the bloke on Ancient Warriors - you guys have it all wrong." That's just silly. My own interest in Ancient History was inspired by watching "The 300 Spartans" on ITV when I was very young - about five or six. I've not written to 20th Century Fox to complain that the phalanx in the initial battle was only one rank deep and that there were actually six to seven thousand Greeks at the battle, not just the Spartans and the Thespians. Here's why: that movie made me fall in love with Ancient Greek History, so I went off and learned as much as I could about it. So now I know a good deal about the Battle of Thermopylae. But I still love the movie. Cheers Russ

I like my role as "defender of quality tat."

Well, no, because the information therein was more or less OK. But look - I just don't go through life disappointed - I love programmes like this and the fact that they have an idealised actor playing the role doesn't bother me in the slightest. See - I know what Hannibal supposedly looked like, I know what he was probably kitted out with - as I would guess most people on this website do. So - why the angst? As Mel says above, discussions like this also make me want to bang my head against a wall, but for different reasons - I've never really "got" going onto UNRV or RAT raging about the inaccuracies of a film/programme to a bunch of people that have probably seen it and already know that its inaccurate in one form or another. (well, unless its Braveheart, of course - but that's different!) And its been said a zillion times - if it inspires kids to go and find out more, then its all to to the good as far as I'm concerned. Cheers Russ

All the statues of Octavian make him look great, but some commentators say that he was a scrawny bloke with crap hair and bad teeth - you know, the Imperator equivalent of Shane McGowan and he didn't look anything like this: http://www.ancient-bulgaria.com/images/emperor_octavian_augustus_statue.jpg Be like Ursus - if you don't like what the History Channel puts on, don't watch it. Does it really matter that the bloke they have playing Hannibal doesn't look like 2000 year old artists representation? Clearly, this series was done in the style of "300" replete with all its flashy visuals, uberblood and naked man-flesh. The show is supposed to entertain and inform, right - I can't imagine anyone who had an interest sparked in Ancient History by this writing to archaeologists saying "Those coins and statues of Hannibal you've got are fake, man. Check this out..." http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/news_impact/2009/03/large_hannibal%20history.jpg Sheesh.