The Earthian Hivemind

Rome (BBC Series, Netflix). A review

Steph P. Bianchini

/

It  seems ancient history takes the fancy, nowadays – at least, this is the impression you get by browsing Netflix’s offer. I can’t complain – I love history and *good* historical fiction, so I’m more than happy to watch (and review) anything I can find. Rome (BCC Series, 2005-2007) is the latest one.

In its two seasons, the series features some crucial events of Roman history, from Julius Caesar’s war first in Gaul and then in Rome against the Roman Senate (the Optimates) to his rise and fall as Rome’s dictator, and the mayhem that ensues.  Interestingly, the show’s two MCs, Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo, soldiers of the XIII Legion, are based on Caesar’s real records from De Bello Gallico. Names apart, all the rest is fictional but historically plausible, and this is one of the series’ merit.

The other is the cast – and you’ll recognise many actors. Just to name a few – Pullo is Ray Stevenson (a lot of good roles, one of Dexter’s villains among others), Caesar is Ciaran Hinds (There will be Blood), Octavian as a young boy is Max Pirkis (Master and Commanders) and Niobe (Vorenus’s fictional wife) is GoT’s Ellaria Sand (and she’s amazing all the same).

Said that, there are a lot of things that don’t stand, at least historically – and it’s a pity, because Roman history is so rich and outrageous in its own right that fiction has nothing to add, just the opposite.

I’m aware that Rome was a success for HBO and the BBC, and the series has received a lot of media coverage and awards. Well deserved, no doubts. To me, while I have certainly enjoyed watching it and I was keen on a sequel, it looks like a lost opportunity.

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

6 responses to “Rome (BBC Series, Netflix). A review”

  1. sjhigbee Avatar
    sjhigbee

    Yes, I find this need to garnish what doesn’t need to be garnished with a scattering of inaccuracies REALLY annoying. As you say – the fact are eye-popping enough, WHY would you then want to mess around and add some completely random extras? Oh well… Many thanks for sharing this, I now know enough to avoid it for the sake of my blood pressure:).

    Reply
    1. Steph P. Bianchini Avatar
      Steph P. Bianchini

      You’re so right – and it’s a pity, because for the rest the series is well done, and the actors are great. I was left with mixed feeling – but I’d still recommend it if you like historical fiction. All considered, it’s much better than the average out there. 🙂

      Reply
      1. sjhigbee Avatar
        sjhigbee

        Sadly, I’m a historian by training and I’m liable to sit there and grizzle ALLLL the way through at the inaccurate details – I’m also married to a historian, who feels the same way. While I’ll happily watch an adaptation of a book, I tend to avoid other historical/costume dramas…

        Reply
        1. Steph P. Bianchini Avatar
          Steph P. Bianchini

          Now I understand 🙂 Btw, while I have taken a completely different road afterwards (with quants, stats and so on) my first degree was in Modern History – thus rigour and accuracy are things I look for. As you correctly said, novels generally fare better.

          Reply
  2. maddalena@spaceandsorcery Avatar
    maddalena@spaceandsorcery

    Interesting: the characters of Vorenus and Pullo are also mentioned in Michael Livingstone’s The Shards of Heaven, so I’m quite intrigued by this series and would not mind taking a peek. Unfortunately, the need to add details and characters that veer off historical truth seems to be a show-business requirement: as long as they are kept to a minimum, they can indeed be overlooked.
    Thanks for sharing!

    Reply
    1. Steph P. Bianchini Avatar
      Steph P. Bianchini

      I haven’t read that book, is it worth the effort? And yes, you’re so right. I have to said, this series is better than others of the same kind, also due to the fact that the actors are all quite good, and this helps. Worth watching then, even though I’d have welcomed a bit more of historic rigour.

      Reply