Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Big Daddy 1204 on 2008-03-22, 20:17

Good work Alexios! However I would point out that your post contains some minor historical innaccuracies.

Therefore, I post a brief list of the historical objections to what you have written:

1). In 1500 BCE, a tribe of Latins moved into Italy along the Tiber River, and eventually founded the city of Rome. Rome had a city-state government and, in 753 BC, was invaded by the Etruscans. The Etruscans built buildings, roads, and city walls; and thus transformed Rome into one of the most powerful cities in the Mediterranean. In general, Roman gladiators were condemned criminals, prisoners of war, or slaves bought for the purpose of gladiatorial combat. Professional gladiators were free men who volunteered to participate in the games. The movie “Gladiator,” directed by Ridley Scott in the year 2000, is a movie about classical Rome that is riddled with historical inaccuracies. The plot of this movie portrays a Roman general, having been sentenced to die for not supporting the new emperor, escaping and then seeking out revenge upon the corrupt ruler. Characters that did not exist, battles that never occurred, and frequent misapprehensions about the Roman government and gladiators are found throughout the movie “Gladiator,” a movie that, although entertaining, is overflowing with historical inaccuracies.

2). The main source of friction between the emperors and a number of senators was the question of how that office should be filled. There was a great daylong battle late in the campaigning season of A. The scriptwriters of the movie probably needed to foreshorten the chronology to save time in a long movie, and that’s understandable, but they warped some other aspects of the battle, as well. Despite the violence characteristic of classical Rome, the Roman society as a whole contributed much to the world today, including the five major languages developed from Latin, Roman law, architecture, literature, and the Greco-Roman tradition.

3). Right from the opening scene, the inaccuracies in “Gladiator” are apparent. And, unfortunately, life in the ancient world in general was much more violent and gruesomely bloody than life in modern democracies. Such weapons were too cumbersome for use on the open battlefield and were confined to more fixed siege warfare; they were just used, once again, to make the movie more exciting. For example, Commodus always fought as a secutor, Maximus should have faced him as a retiarius, a man who fought with a circular net, a trident, and a short sword and whose only protection was on his sword arm. The depiction of gladiatorial armor, weapons, and combat in “Gladiator” is riddled with mistakes, as well. The office of emperor was a recognized necessity. , gladiators had been divided into strict categories according to their arms, armor, and style of fighting.

4). Furthermore, Braveheart's plot includes an affair between William Wallace and the Princess Isabelle, based upon Isabella of France. The film implies she is pregnant at the time of Wallace's execution, carrying the future Edward III of England. Historically, the real Isabella was a child of nine still living in France at this time, meaning she never met Wallace, and furthermore, was never a Princess of Wales, as she married Edward II after he became king. Many English people found this point particularly offensive. (In Blind Harry's poem, Edward's stepmother Marguerite of France, second wife of Edward I, attempts to seduce Wallace. This event is fictional but is probably the basis for the affair in the film.)

5). Edward III of England was born in 1312, seven years after Wallace's death; thus it is impossible for Edward III to have been Wallace's son. (Note: this idea may have been derived from the play The Wallace by Sydney Goodsir Smith.)

6). Gibson was criticised for his portrayal of Isabella's future husband, Edward II of England. Although most historians agree that Edward was homosexual, many complained that the film presented demeaning stereotypes towards Edward.
The Battle of Stirling Bridge, the first skirmish in the film, was filmed without a bridge. The actual conflict was more of an ambush of the English as they attempted to cross the river Forth. (It is rumoured that Gibson told a Scottish local the bridge was removed as it got in the way, and the local replied "that's what the English found" [1].) The film also makes no mention of Andrew de Moray, Wallace's companion-in-arms and a major contributor at this battle. Curiously, the fight shown in the film is more like the Battle of Bannockburn 17 years later, with English cavalry charging Scottish schiltrons and being repulsed.

7). Edward I's second wife, Margaret, whom he married in 1299, is absent from the film, although the span of history covered in the production includes this year. This implies his first wife Eleanor of Castile was his only spouse.
The film shows Irish conscripts switching sides and joining Wallace's forces at the Battle of Falkirk. The Irish forces were hired mercenaries who, from all accounts, fought well for Edward I. The Celtic soldiers who did display some rebellious tendencies were the Welsh, who had been conquered about a decade earlier. Edward I intended to use them as the first wave of attack and essentially as schiltron fodder. They did not take kindly to such intentions, even if they did not actually switch sides.

8 ). The film implies that Wallace's rebellion took place against a background of a fairly lengthy English occupation of Scotland. Actually, they had only invaded Scotland the year before (1296) and the mass hanging of Scottish nobles which Wallace witnessed as a boy could not have occurred at that time. Although Scottish bard Blind Harry described Edward I killing Scottish nobles at the Barns of Ayr, it has been speculated that he invented this. The opening juxtaposition of the line "The King of Scotland had died without a son" and the caption "Scotland, 1280" is inaccurate: Alexander III did not die until 1286, and the country was not immediately taken over.
The sword carried by Gibson is a 16th century Scottish claymore. While a sword which is claimed to have belonged to Wallace (although this is disputed) exists in Scotland, it is significantly simpler.

9).
There is some controversy about whether the jus prima noctis (also known as the droit de seigneur), the supposed right of a Lord to deflower virgins in his territory, actually existed, but it certainly never existed in either England or Scotland.
It is unclear whether Wallace had a wife or what her name was, but according to later Scottish tradition her name was Marion Braidfute, apparently her name was changed to Murron in the film so audiences would not confuse her with Maid Marian from the Robin Hood stories.
Wallace's long-standing hatred for the English may not have been because of his wife's death. According to one legend, it arose from the fact that two English soldiers challenged Wallace over some fish he had caught. The argument escalated into a fight, resulting in Wallace killing the soldiers.

10). The then-future King Robert the Bruce is described as "Earl of Bruce", but he was actually the youngest son of the Earl of Carrick; Carrick was a Gaelic-speaking province in south-west Scotland, and Bruce (more accurately "de Brus") was Robert I's family name, of Norman origin.
Braveheart suggests Wallace supported the Bruce claim to the Scottish throne; however, Wallace supported the Balliol claim while Bruce was convinced of his father's rightful succession.

11). The reality of William Wallace's capture and execution was far worse than shown in the film. According to James MacKay's 1996 book, William Wallace: Brave Heart Wallace was first hanged, in order to induce an erection, before his penis was severed. Wallace's hanging is depicted in the film, but not his emasculation.

12). The movie depicts Robert the Bruce's father (who was also named Robert) as a leper. There is no historical record of this, though Bruce himself contracted a skin disease before his death that has been alleged to be leprosy.
Bruce did not betray Wallace at Falkirk. He did eventually switch sides but this was a few years later and as a result of a dispute with the Comyns (not depicted in the film) who supported the Balliol claim to the throne (as had Wallace himself). The Scottish war effort collapsed a few years later because of the defeat of their French allies by the Flemish at Courtrai in 1302. Wallace was hunted down when the Scots were forced to surrender in 1305.

13). In his speech before the battle of Stirling Bridge, Mel Gibson's Wallace alludes to a hundred years of tyranny. In fact, the 13th century was one of the few centuries when Anglo-Scottish relations were largely peaceful. Indeed, a century before the battle takes place the Kings of Scotland and England, William III and Richard I were good friends. The peace, however, changed after the accidental death of Alexander III in 1286 and of his heiress, the Maid of Norway shortly after, when Edward I was invited by the Scottish magnates to resolve the dispute over the Scottish crown (to which there were thirteen claimants), and used this opportunity to revive English claims of overlordship. However, he chose John Balliol as the King of Scotland, although Balliol was later to oppose him with disastrous consequences. It was also the biggest battle for William Wallace unlike the movie.

14). The film depicts Edward I dying at the same time as Wallace was executed. In fact, Wallace's execution took place in 1305, in Westminster, and King Edward died in 1307, two years later, en route to put down a fresh rebellion of the Scots, led by Robert the Bruce.
The film depicts Edward I defenestrating a friend and (implied) lover of the Prince of Wales. There is no record of Edward ever killing or harming his son's favorites.

15). The Scots are depicted as living in squalid, almost subterranean, houses of primitive character. In fact, by the late 13th century, Scotland was a small but reasonably prosperous medieval kingdom, with numerous small towns and many abbeys and cathedrals, much as in the rest of western Europe.

16). The use of Great Highland Bagpipes (and, on the soundtrack, Irish Uillean pipes) is anachronistic. While basic varieties of bagpipe were a popular recreational instrument throughout medieval Europe, the pipes which appear in this film would not exist in Scotland until the 16th century.

17). There is no record of any disarmament of the Scottish people by Edward I.
The Scots certainly wouldn't have worn the philamore seen in the film - this isn't seen in historical sources until the 16th century.
In the large battle scene, the arrow tip is shown when an arrow goes through one of Wallace's men's shields. This arrow has a Broadhead which the archers used for hunting but they used a Bodkin point for war, which can penetrate armor further.
In the beginning of the film, the narrator describes the marriage between King Edward II and the Princess by saying, "It was widely whispered that for the princess to conceive, Longshanks would have to do the honors himself." Although the marriage between Edward II and wife was not a good one, it produced four children.

18 ). At the end of the film it shows what is implied to be the beginning of the Battle of Bannockburn, although the events portrayed in the film do not accurately represent the backdrop to the actual battle.

19). The Scots are shown wearing blue warpaint, presumably woad, in battle. It has been speculated that the filmmakers were thinking not only of ancient Celtic practice (long obsolete by the thirteenth century) but of the modern habit of soccer fans of painting their faces with their team's colours (allegedly pioneered by a Scotland fan in 1990): however, there is an episode in Blind Harry's Wallace in which Wallace dreams that the Virgin Mary paints a saltire on his face. In one of the DVD featurettes Gibson claims that he ran the idea past the Chief of Clan Wallace and that he was told by him that it was not certain that men in battle in thirteenth century Scotland did not wear warpaint or woad.

heheh, just joking Very Happy

Good work!
avatar
Big Daddy 1204
Who cares about titles? Let's go talk about 5th c. AD Roman ceramics!
Who cares about titles? Let's go talk about 5th c. AD Roman ceramics!

Number of posts : 1301
Age : 30
Location : London
Registration date : 2008-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Raja Sagan the Caker on 2008-03-22, 20:49

@bigdaddy - you totally didn't write that, if you did i'd be obliged to shoot you Smile

_________________
IN THE NAME OF ST SEL, PATRON SAINT OF THE DEF!!!!

"I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze."
"I feel like a pig shat in my head."
avatar
Raja Sagan the Caker
Minister of Icing - Beard-at-arms - Demigod - Admin
Minister of Icing - Beard-at-arms - Demigod - Admin

Number of posts : 4869
Age : 28
Location : The Land of Ice and Snow
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-23, 06:20

Thank you, but:

BigDaddy, what does that have to do with my post, set in Byzantium?
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Volksie on 2008-03-23, 07:09

Is this the sort of thing we can join in on, Alexius?
avatar
Volksie
Admin - Beardlord
Admin  -  Beardlord

Number of posts : 2526
Age : 26
Registration date : 2008-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Raja Sagan the Caker on 2008-03-23, 07:12

apparently all he wants are comments and contructive criticism...

_________________
IN THE NAME OF ST SEL, PATRON SAINT OF THE DEF!!!!

"I must have some booze. I demand to have some booze."
"I feel like a pig shat in my head."
avatar
Raja Sagan the Caker
Minister of Icing - Beard-at-arms - Demigod - Admin
Minister of Icing - Beard-at-arms - Demigod - Admin

Number of posts : 4869
Age : 28
Location : The Land of Ice and Snow
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-23, 09:20

I don't see why not Volksie. My idea was to re-create the intrigue and conspiracy of Byzantium with this story. I want to keep my current characters (Nicephoros and the Emperor), but I can create a discussion thread for this and make it into a group story.
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-23, 09:32

Done. We have a seperate thread.

Anybody who wants to join must know a good deal about Byzantium, (at least the basic offices and decorum and customs). All characters must be Byzantine (at least at the start, we might take a Bulgar King or a Saracen Caliph once we get going good for a while, but this is less about military and war than about a drama taking place in Constantinople.)
Normal rules like no godmodding and stuff still apply. I expect us to work in concert more than other threads, using both this forum and PM.

Although it may seem unfair that I have claimed both the Emperor and Megas Domestikos, I doubt the Emperor will be in his position long, seeing as he is old, without an heir, and ineffectual.

We could use:
A Patriarch (sp?)
Stratigoi
various eunuchs and attendants (chamberlain, etc.)
faction leaders (Not in the RTW sense) Dukas, Komnenos, etc. (Nicephoros is a Komnenoi, so they're taken, Ducas is a Ducas, obviously, but other ones exist. We will definately need these.
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-24, 05:25

I left this up for a day, and there has been no interest. I'll leave it up for one more, and then I'll just continue on with my story as planned.
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Volksie on 2008-03-24, 06:11

I'm VERY busy. If i wasn't i'd be writing right now.
avatar
Volksie
Admin - Beardlord
Admin  -  Beardlord

Number of posts : 2526
Age : 26
Registration date : 2008-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-24, 08:51

Are you interested though?
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Volksie on 2008-03-24, 14:26

Yeh. Give me three weeks and i may be able to write. Neutral
avatar
Volksie
Admin - Beardlord
Admin  -  Beardlord

Number of posts : 2526
Age : 26
Registration date : 2008-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-24, 14:27

Is anybody else interested???
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Seleukos of Olympia on 2008-03-24, 17:40

I could be your patriarch. I think it's only fitting after the latest developments. Wink However I don't have enough time to properly get into it yet. If I'm inspired I might be able to write something tomorrow, otherwise I don't know. I still haven't written my next EU post, and I have had a rough idea of what to write for almost a week.

_________________
'Tis better to admin in the Defenestrated than serve in the .commie
- John Milton, before being defenestrated
avatar
Seleukos of Olympia
Admin _- Beard-at-arms
Admin _-  Beard-at-arms

Number of posts : 2964
Age : 37
Location : Edmonton, AB, Canada
Registration date : 2008-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-24, 17:42

Cool.
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Kasey on 2008-03-30, 11:21

erm what does BigD's post have to do with the rest of the thread?
avatar
Kasey
Knight of Kydonia - Beard-at-arms
Knight of Kydonia - Beard-at-arms

Number of posts : 2614
Age : 25
Location : West Country, England
Registration date : 2008-02-13

View user profile http://hs.facebook.com/profile.php?id=711615734

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-30, 11:41

Nothing whatsoever.
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Alexios Komnenos on 2008-03-30, 11:41

I split the two topics. That's why it's the first post.
avatar
Alexios Komnenos
God-Emperor of the Fora

Number of posts : 4986
Age : 67
Location : Deleting the Chatbox
Registration date : 2008-02-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Discussion thread for Roman Empire Story

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum