Originally Posted by indesertum
was it really? i read wikipedia as i watched the series. i thought most of it was accurate except for certain parts that were made up, but still followed holes in history. eg like who the father of caesarion was. i learned a great deal about roman history just from following along in wikipedia if you could provide a thorough critique of the series or link to one i'd be very happy
Rome follows the tried-and-true formula of choosing a historical period and some historical personages and interspersing them throughout a largely fictional story in order to lend it gravitas and verisimilitude. In that sense it's no different from series like Sharpe's, Horatio Hornblower, or even Shakespeare's histories. It followed the basic chronology and even got some of the details right (like painted buildings), but it's not a vehicle for learning about history. As you pointed out, though, it can be a good way to get people interested in history and compel them to seek out other sources of information. Anyway, that it not why I think it's a bad series (it was just poorly written, in my opinion), but since Jon. wanted to argue that its basis in fact was the reason why it was so wonderful, I thought I'd burst that little bubble. Conne's was probably the better reply.