longshotgene Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 I didn't like the movie because I can't stand Kingsley. He made a horrible Merlin. Otherwise I thought the movie was somewhat entertaining. At least the boy found the sword at Capri, the death place of Tiberius. There are some very historically accurate parts to the movie, but then there is a lot of fiction. As historians we have to decide if we want to tell the raw facts, or if we want to add the fluff we don't know about. That is the difference between a good historian and someone like McCollough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 I didn't like the movie because I can't stand Kingsley. He made a horrible Merlin. Otherwise I thought the movie was somewhat entertaining. At least the boy found the sword at Capri, the death place of Tiberius. There are some very historically accurate parts to the movie, but then there is a lot of fiction. As historians we have to decide if we want to tell the raw facts, or if we want to add the fluff we don't know about. That is the difference between a good historian and someone like McCollough. I thought he died at Misenum. Judging by the bits I've seen, there's nothing at all in the way of historical accuracy in this movie. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but since it didn't seem to offer anything else in return, I couldn't be bothered to watch more of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longshotgene Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Well, the last emperor was Romulus Augustulus. That was historically accurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 28, 2008 Report Share Posted February 28, 2008 Well, the last emperor was Romulus Augustulus. That was historically accurate. And Julius Nepos technically outlasted him as Emperor in Dalmatia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maladict Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted February 29, 2008 Report Share Posted February 29, 2008 The testudo is a protective formation most often employed in sieges to approach relatively safe from missile fire. Popular opinion has the romans attacking slowly and relentlessly in testudo as if the formation was a 'tank', but this simply isn't so. The unit cannot effectively fight until it has de-testudo'd itself. There is suggestion that they used the testudo as an impromptu siege ramp - the formation parks itself against a wall, the rear ranks lower themselves, and allow masses of romans to clamber up over an obstacle. You might wonder how secure the foothold was but consideration for health & safety weren't foremost in a roman commanders mind! They did not, however, break ranks and come screaming down the hillsides waving their swords around like Hollywood actors lacking real battle training. From the civil wars onward, yes they did. During the earlier phalanx style warfare this was a no-no, but later, when more flexible tactics were employed, the romans found that charging headlong was sometimes enough to frighten an enemy. There are mentions of such charges in the civil wars although I would agree that such tactics weren't the first choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.