Spartacus: Blood and Sand

[Hus]

Taste is subjective, and as we watch the various forms of entertainment, we have to decide if we are going to sit bitterly sneering at the screen, or hang-up our hang-ups in willing suspension of disbelief and ignore errors, criticisms and dislikes, and enjoy what is being shown? Of course Spartacus is not perfect, but so what?

 

I also thought it a blend/copy of other shows, but few American films/series (or any other media) don't ape others to any degree (Magnificent Seven, etc)? Most productions bend facts and made errors! I still stand by what I said above.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Hus

[caldrail]

I was wondering about one or two things, though;

Did 'The Pits' really exist, like modern cage fighting?

There's no evidence of pit fighting in the Roman Empire. The audience liked to see what was going on. A pit was too restrictive.

 

Wasn't there a real life Gladiatorial legend called Crixus, or something similar?

Crixus was a fellow trainee along with Spartacus and one of the three chosen leaders of the breakout, who later argued with Spartacus, went his own way, and was killed in action against the Romans shortly after. Martial recounts the inaugral event at the colosseum and I believe a gaul called priscus was one of the champions celebrated. Further info here...

 

http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/Martial-Colosseum.html

 

Would the childless widow of a Dominus really 'be forced to re-marry'?

That would depend on whether there was any inheritance or political issues that commended a further union. It isn't beyond belief that something like happened (I can't think of an instance) because women were the property of fathers, guardians, or husbands. A woman on her own? Unthinkable. Yet we do know that some women in the empire were functionally independent, such as a woman in Pompeii who ran a business after her husband died, though in fairness we know she was courted with a view toward marriage.

Edited May 26, 2011 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

 

I was wondering about one or two things, though;

Would the childless widow of a Dominus really 'be forced to re-marry'?

 

To expand on what Caldrail has already said. This is actually a complex question and the answer depends on the period you are asking about.

 

In early Roman law there were several different forms of marriage depending partly on class and whether the wife passed fom her fathers control into that of her husband or stayed under her fathers tutelage. I would point you to Women and the law in the Roman Empire: a sourcebook on marriage, divorce and Widowhood By Judith Evans Grubbs for further reading on this although also partially available on Google Books.

 

Put simply; whichever form of marriage was undertaken, even if her husband died, the widow would remain under the control of the appropriate senior male family member to be remarried or not as they decided. The only exemption from this was if she had three living children in which case again depending on the form of marriage undertaken AND the period we are talking about, she could gain control of her own inheritance and set up home for herself if she wished.

[Hus]

Thanks for your answers, guys!

 

I was thinking of Priscus, yes, whom (if memory serves) was one of few legendary gladiatorial bouts to be documented in detail. Their story was told in this doc Colosseum: A Gladiator's Story

Link to the above

[Alascanus]

Taste is subjective, and as we watch the various forms of entertainment, we have to decide if we are going to sit bitterly sneering at the screen, or hang-up our hang-ups in willing suspension of disbelief and ignore errors, criticisms and dislikes, and enjoy what is being shown? Of course Spartacus is not perfect, but so what?

 

I also thought it a blend/copy of other shows, but few American films/series (or any other media) don't ape others to any degree (Magnificent Seven, etc)? Most productions bend facts and made errors! I still stand by what I said above.

 

Taste is definitely subjective - I explain in my 'defense' page that even if someone were in total agreement, say with my comparison of Rome and Spartacus, that their experience invariably differs. I just felt like leaning into Spartacus because it tries to be so many things, and comes short. Spartacus tries to be 300, mostly, and I certainly don't feel the screenwriter there did us a disservice by not rendering Plutarch's aphorisms into Greek-esque grammar, and stuck to the strength of the narrative by making it a panegyric comic book movie. To each their own, of course.