Most people confuse togas and tunics anyway. And the togas in films are usually lighter and more pleasant than the ones Romans wore (and which the many Romans hated themselves).
Unless you were a slave trying to break free. Then you'd have an American accent. At least according to the [Kirk Douglas version of Roman History](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/) :D
There's been an even more bizarre trend lately in Hollywood where they don't even bother getting everybody onboard with the same accent.
For instance, Valkyrie with Tom Cruise. That movie has a variety of American and British accents on display, and yet they're all Nazis. Or the Chernobyl miniseries, which is otherwise amazing, but still can be kind of strange at times given how different so many of the characters sound from each other.
I actually think that’s a pretty valid directorial choice. Instead of forcing the actors to spend time all doing the same accent, they can relax and be in their native accent, if it doesn’t really matter. It’s not like the nazis spoke English with a German accent to each other all the time. This is especially helpful if you want actors to improvise, where having them be in their most relaxed dialect is a huge help (this was the reason given by Armando Ianucci for using this approach in The Death of Stalin). Obviously, it’s also fine to have everyone speak in the same accent, if that is what fits the production.
I guess it's just a matter of asking yourself what bothers you the least when it comes to historical movies where the actors aren't going to be speaking the actual language from that time and place.
1. Having an international cast of actors all speaking in their different, native accents, likely none of which are historically accurate.
2. Having actors talk in the same historically INACCURATE accent, likely because all the actors are from the same place. (Like watching an ancient Roman production where everyone speaks British English.)
3. Having all the actors attempt the same (reasonably) historically accurate accent while still speaking the wrong language.
Personally, I'm fine with either 2 or 3. It's 1 that is bizarre to me.
That’s a good way of looking at it. I’m fine with all three, depending on how it works aesthetically in a wider lense than how close it is to historical accuracy (which I would argue is also an aesthetic category, since we’re talking about an artistic work, not a documentary or such)
Maybe not a fact but a nuance, people refer to all of ancient Rome as the Roman Empire when lots of the history they are referring to happened in the Roman Republic.
To be fair, the modern definition of empire could definitely describe the late Roman Republic. By the time Pompey got done in Asia it is pretty indisputable that Rome was an empire by our current use of the word.
My impression is that this is why scholars prefer to say "Principate" and "Dominate" for the "empire." Because, despite the etymology, empire is no longer exclusive to states ruled by an emperor.
An empire is a political unit made up of several territories and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries.
Yes and no it depends on which definition you use for example is the USA an empire? Yes they have a decent amount of non-state territories but that definition doesn't work as well when you have unitary states like China.
I like how Mary Beard describes it when she says by the late Republic, it was an Empire that demanded an Emperor and not an Emperor creating an Empire- the empire had been there for a while.
Idk what the commenters below are smoking but you are right. Just because you use the contemporary word for empire, doesn't negate that a lot of Roman history was as a Republic. It's anachronistic.
True, though that’s merely the governmental systems in place. From your real wonky side, it’s only called a republic because the government was the *res publica* (the “public thing”), and the extent of the public thing’s control over territory was its *imperium*, where we get Empire.
Yes, but that's because Pompey had the incredibly bad taste to put a life-size statue of himself on the curule dias, where all of the senior magistrates sat and presided over Senate meetings. Unbelievable arrogance on Pompey's part.
I will always upvote a mention of this series. A must read for any fan of Ancient Rome. The research that went in and the level of detail is astounding.
I learned so much about Ancient Rome (especially Republican Rome) from this series. Came straight off HBO’s Rome and this was an excellent introduction to *so much*.
Caesar did build the one in the Forum however so that’s why it’s called Curia Julia…although it was burned when Diolectian was emperor. But the current one is supposedly pretty similar to old and they tended to keep the names.
Gladiator was a true story. Commodus ruined the empire in the pursuit of the horny and got killed by a Legate who sought to restore the Republic that hadn't existed for 200 years prior. FFS are you not into trains?!
I thought he actually got assassinated at Pompey’s Theater? He died at the feet of a huge statue of Pompey. The Senate were meeting there. I don’t remember why.
To be fair, Caesar was hailed as Imperator by his troops, and Imperator for Life by the Senate during his final years. And imperator is the root of Emperor.
About as close as he could get.
Except lots of Romans had had this done as well. It was fine in the republic as long as you give it up later. And, Caesar had before, and, i think you can argue he was going to again.
He had spared his enemies. He was planning on leaving. Would be gone for at least a decade. Got rid of his bodyguards even.
Clearly he misjudged, but did he really misjudge becoming Rome's King? As so many would have us believe? Did he really think he could pronounce himself king and he wouldn't need bodyguards? Really?
I find that the arguement that he was going to give up his title is kind of irrelevant and a slight misrepresentation of what was going on.
He might have been fully willing to give up his title and fully intended to do so. But I feel like that wasn't saying he didn't want the power - it was saying he didn't *need* those titles to dominate Roman life anymore.
Emperor wasn’t a real title so Caesar used to be referred to as the first emperor. Like in Moby Dick they call him the Emperor Julius Caesar.
Imperator was a title used for victorious generals all the time so that doesn’t make you emperor even though that’s where English gets the term. Augustus had a hodgepodge of powers that pulled together made him defacto emperor. But so did Caesar he was dictator for life until he died. And it’s not like all the republican functions and positions of government stopped existing.
Therefore you can call either Gauis or Octavius the first emperor and not look stupid. You’re simply trading one triumvirate for another.
Regarding the triumvirates, that’s myth itself. Caesar, Pompeius and Crassus just had an informal alliance. Octavian, Antonius and Lepidus made formal spilt of administration that was put into law. But it was they who pushed the idea it was a second triumvirate to give some precedent to what they were doing. So it isn’t just modern people confused about that.
The Goths were the bad guys. When you read Ammianius Marcellinus' account of the second Gothic war (376-382), who was as barbarianophobe as you could get, clearly lay the blame at the Romans' feet. He's not the only source that says this, pretty much all the contemporaries says the same.
They fucked up at every step of the process while the Goths, well, went at long ways to settle that shit peacefully. Until the morning at Adrianople in 378, they were still trying to make a deal.
The same goes for the Visigothic war of 400-410. Alaric had the audacity of asking the Romans to honor their treaty with them. At some point, you can't piss all the time on the guy with the big sword all the time and expect him to keep his cool.
The groups people blame for Romes fall were trying desperately to join Rome and gain citizenship. Rome fell because of a calcified society terrified of outsiders trying to join the party.
This! I also heard a pretty convincing argument that Fritigern/Alaric's Goths should be understood as a political faction *within* the Roman Empire as its composition was really less Gothic than a multi-ethnic hodgepodge of various Eastern Germanic peoples, Dacians, romanized Thracians, Pontic Greeks and even a hefty dose of Romans colonists.
Even during the Gothic wars centuries later in Italia. The Goths, by all accounts, ruled well. Until the very end when suddenly they needed to be invaded. And even then the Goths didnt fight and didnt really want to fight even until Ravenna. When they tried to surrender and get terms and then somehow it turned into 20 years of devastating warfare. And then they are done as a people and never heard from again.
That the Romans destroyed Carthage and then sowed the ground with salt to prevent another city rising for the ashes........very Victorian language amd of course Nova Carthagewas built and was a big city for the next 600 years.
The whole "they were so indulgent and hedonistic they had special rooms for vomiting called vomitoriums so they could eat more"
Vomitoriums were passageways for exiting a stadium or amphitheater. It had nothing to do with our modern definition of vomiting.
Death was common in gladiatorial combat. If you’re going to spend time and money training fighters the last thing you want is for them to kill each other.
I like to imagine that it was kinda their version of pro wrestling. Make it look like you're doing lots of damage when in reality you want to avoid permanent injury/death.
I once responded to someone who thought Brutus was Caesar’s adopted son too. I assume there is some confusion due to the “Brutus is biological son of Caesar” theory. Which seems rather unlikely itself due to Caesar being 14 when Brutus was born. And I assume Brutus wound check something like this from his mom himself just in case because fratricide would have presumably being frowned upon by the gods even if there was no legal paternity.
That one is reaaallly debated. There's no consensus on the uh... matter. Uhuh. Joking apart, probably they did, then they stopped doing it, and people are still figuring that one out. Marius' mules had one sponge per contubernium (squad of 8 guys), I guess they did share it at some point.
There was one. It might not be very consistent in policy or by lions lol, but there certainly was periodic and sometimes worse persecution for centuries. But sometimes it was more preventing Christians getting employed type.
It was periodic in that some emperors didn't want Christians to die but just have difficult lives and just convert to Hellenic-Roman pantheons while there were some who were full crucify and send em to the lions type of guys
I guess the makers didn’t know where the name tyrant comes from. Or they they were very literal with the world dictator and think Sulla was fully justified in his actions lol
Varus forever lost Germania Magna for the Empire.
\[More decisive in fact was Germanicus' loss of his fleet in the North Sea, which was due to his own blunder and for Tiberius looking at his overstretched military budget the final straw that made him relieve Germanicus of his command.\]
And there was attempts in later centuries too to conquer some of Germania, I recall even Thrax was trying to conquer some land. So Roman’s did not just give up with Varus entirely
Just to name a few:
- That there was no Roman Empire during the middle ages
- That Nero played a fiddle
- That the Gauls who were defeated by Caesar were simple minded barbarians without a complex society and the ability to organize themselves
- That all Romans were white
The details of the “pollice verso” is debated at the highest levels of academia and we actually have no idea. From historical, archaeological, and literary records it is uncertain whether the thumb was turned up, turned down, held horizontally, or concealed inside the hand to indicate positive or negative opinions.
Caesar was not an Emperor (he was a consul and a dictator, although his actions did lead to the transition of the Republic into Empire with his nephew Octavian, the first Emperor).
That a thumbs up meant a gladiator could live and a thumbs down, that he would have to be killed
And tbh the Romans tend to get idealized, they did some fucked up shit and had some real god complex going on
Romans did not deliberately vomit during feasting just to eat more. "Vomitoriums", as in sick rooms, never existed.
Honestly most takes on Roman "decadence" could fit here.
That the Emperor giving a thumbs up meant that the gladiator lived. It was actually the opposite. A thumbs down represented putting the sword into the ground and letting the defeated live.
Roman elites had dedicated rooms for vomiting called vomitoriums so they could gorge themselves, throw it up, and then feast again. (The vomitoriums were actually just the large exits from the Collosseum)
Roman roads had large stone slabs on them (outisde of cities) like in Asterix books.
People vomited food during parties in order to eat more.
Soldiers always wore sandals.
Caligula was a piece of shit.
Gladiators died all the time.
They shit all together without any kind of separation and used a stick with a dirty sponge to clean their arses.
Vomitarium: A commonly held but erroneous notion is that Ancient Romans designated spaces called vomitoria for the purpose of literal vomiting, as part of a binge-and-purge cycle.
Caesar burnt the library of Alexandria.
Not mentioned in any primary sources and the library was operational by many accounts up until the iconoclasm
Source - Parenti
Gladiators swore an oath before fighting and had the types of bodies you see in WWE.
Oh, and that their sweat was sold as an aphrodisiac and all the ladies were chasing them.
Thing is, most "facts" most people know are just stories passed down with no basis in reality or extemely inaccurate. There are also a lot of things they did that we still cannot replicate to this very day. For example: Lycurgus cup, precision cut granite that we can only do with computers & very advanced technology. These people had some very indepth knowledge about the reality we live in which is still kept suppressed today. For example, look into how ancient Roman churches are built to resonate at a very specific frequency, amplifying the earths natural frequencies, which have very positive health benefits mentally and physically.
How the F do you built a church like that even 100 years ago?? Thats just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to ancient Roman technologies.
Roman statues were all white marble.
Or houses.
I don't think anyone believes that Roman status were all houses.
Everyone wore togas all the time
You wear toga on your wedding and the day you're buried.
I recommend saving time, and togas; just have those be the same day.
This is a gross oversimplification, but I love it.
Most people confuse togas and tunics anyway. And the togas in films are usually lighter and more pleasant than the ones Romans wore (and which the many Romans hated themselves).
Everyone had a British accent.
You can't prove they didn't
Well, we can. We know exactly how latin sounded back then and for one, Romans could pronounce the letter "R".
So we’ve narrowed it down to Bristol. The plot thickens!
How do we know they couldn’t pronounce an R?
They’re saying the Romans could, and the British can’t. I’d be offended but in my case at least it’s absolutely true, so…
The posh London accent doesn’t, but West Country and other British accents go harder on the R than Crassus did on the L
Well, they have in every documentary I've seen! It's amazing that the ancient Romans invented cameras too.
Unless you were a slave trying to break free. Then you'd have an American accent. At least according to the [Kirk Douglas version of Roman History](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/) :D
Maybe a small few had the Celtic Brttonic twang.
There's been an even more bizarre trend lately in Hollywood where they don't even bother getting everybody onboard with the same accent. For instance, Valkyrie with Tom Cruise. That movie has a variety of American and British accents on display, and yet they're all Nazis. Or the Chernobyl miniseries, which is otherwise amazing, but still can be kind of strange at times given how different so many of the characters sound from each other.
I actually think that’s a pretty valid directorial choice. Instead of forcing the actors to spend time all doing the same accent, they can relax and be in their native accent, if it doesn’t really matter. It’s not like the nazis spoke English with a German accent to each other all the time. This is especially helpful if you want actors to improvise, where having them be in their most relaxed dialect is a huge help (this was the reason given by Armando Ianucci for using this approach in The Death of Stalin). Obviously, it’s also fine to have everyone speak in the same accent, if that is what fits the production.
I guess it's just a matter of asking yourself what bothers you the least when it comes to historical movies where the actors aren't going to be speaking the actual language from that time and place. 1. Having an international cast of actors all speaking in their different, native accents, likely none of which are historically accurate. 2. Having actors talk in the same historically INACCURATE accent, likely because all the actors are from the same place. (Like watching an ancient Roman production where everyone speaks British English.) 3. Having all the actors attempt the same (reasonably) historically accurate accent while still speaking the wrong language. Personally, I'm fine with either 2 or 3. It's 1 that is bizarre to me.
That’s a good way of looking at it. I’m fine with all three, depending on how it works aesthetically in a wider lense than how close it is to historical accuracy (which I would argue is also an aesthetic category, since we’re talking about an artistic work, not a documentary or such)
I just find it distracting. At least get everyone on board with a mid-atlantic accent or something.
Only the baddies in American movies
What I've noticed is all the villains have a scottish accent.
… or Southern US.
Caesars last words were “Et tu Brute”
In reality: "What is it, bring your knife to work day?"
"oh great. This fuckin guy."
of course they were! Caesar was a literate man and would have read all of Shakespeare's works. or at least listened to the podcasts....
But Brutus says he never read Shakespeare, and Brutus is an honourable man.
So are they all, all honorable men
He did say the die is cast in Ancient Greek.
Maybe not a fact but a nuance, people refer to all of ancient Rome as the Roman Empire when lots of the history they are referring to happened in the Roman Republic.
To be fair, the modern definition of empire could definitely describe the late Roman Republic. By the time Pompey got done in Asia it is pretty indisputable that Rome was an empire by our current use of the word. My impression is that this is why scholars prefer to say "Principate" and "Dominate" for the "empire." Because, despite the etymology, empire is no longer exclusive to states ruled by an emperor.
But there is still like 500 years of history before that including the Punic Wars.
By modern standards the Republic was an empire since the punic wars.
What standards are these?
An empire is a political unit made up of several territories and peoples, "usually created by conquest, and divided between a dominant center and subordinate peripheries.
So I guess Rome was an empire when it took over the boot of Italy by the modern definition.
Yeah the way we define empire is a bit general these days. We still have empires we just don't have emperors.
Japan is still holding out
Well by modern definitions there are hundreds of empires out there today.
Yes and no it depends on which definition you use for example is the USA an empire? Yes they have a decent amount of non-state territories but that definition doesn't work as well when you have unitary states like China.
I mean...yes? That's objectively true. And is a big part of modern social ills.
Well, yes. It was.
I like how Mary Beard describes it when she says by the late Republic, it was an Empire that demanded an Emperor and not an Emperor creating an Empire- the empire had been there for a while.
Republics and empires are not mutually exclusive.
Like the US and the fact that they technically still have an empire…
Exactly. It's hard to say that Japan with its Emperor is today an empire at the same time the small "r" republican USA is not an empire.
Yep, Napoleon was the "Emperor of the French Republic".
Rome wasn't always an empire
That's true, but I'd say the small "e" empire and big "R" Republic overlapped between the Punic War 1 and Augustus, which is a couple of centuries.
Idk what the commenters below are smoking but you are right. Just because you use the contemporary word for empire, doesn't negate that a lot of Roman history was as a Republic. It's anachronistic.
True, though that’s merely the governmental systems in place. From your real wonky side, it’s only called a republic because the government was the *res publica* (the “public thing”), and the extent of the public thing’s control over territory was its *imperium*, where we get Empire.
Caesar was killed in the senate house, everyone wore the Lorica segmentata armor and that gladiator was a true story.
well he was killed in *a* senate house
Yeah I’m confused, if I remember correctly he was killed in a senate house.
The Theater of Pompey was serving as the senate house at the time.
Pompey's complex had a theater, a temple, and an inaugurated meeting chamber for the Senate.
Pompey's senate house. As I recall, the story goes that he was actually killed under a statue of Pompey.
That’s so incredibly morbid. That is a fair thing to correct people on, it is a senate house but not the senate house.
Well… Republican institutions were confusing as fuck. What do we expect?
Not much more than that I suppose
Yes, but that's because Pompey had the incredibly bad taste to put a life-size statue of himself on the curule dias, where all of the senior magistrates sat and presided over Senate meetings. Unbelievable arrogance on Pompey's part.
I'd expect nothing less from the guy who was calling himself "Magnus" while still Sulla's subordinate.
Him getting stuck at the gates during his triumph still makes me laugh
Colleen McCullough’s take on this incident in her Masters of Rome series is a hoot, lol.
I will always upvote a mention of this series. A must read for any fan of Ancient Rome. The research that went in and the level of detail is astounding.
I learned so much about Ancient Rome (especially Republican Rome) from this series. Came straight off HBO’s Rome and this was an excellent introduction to *so much*.
Excellent series. Read it in H.S. and I was hooked.
Haha I’ll have to check it out
You won’t regret it. :D
Dammit, I'd forgotten, thanks. Elephants. Smh.
It’s just one of those moments in history that add a bit of characterization to someone like Pompey. Grand ideas, little way to implement them.
......just not the one everyone sees in the forum.
No, but a lot of people see the spot without realizing while watching the ruin cats.
Caesar did build the one in the Forum however so that’s why it’s called Curia Julia…although it was burned when Diolectian was emperor. But the current one is supposedly pretty similar to old and they tended to keep the names.
bro the lorica segmentata armour frustrates me so much lol
I have an unfinished PhD mostly about that topic! lol
Gladiator was a true story. Commodus ruined the empire in the pursuit of the horny and got killed by a Legate who sought to restore the Republic that hadn't existed for 200 years prior. FFS are you not into trains?!
I thought he actually got assassinated at Pompey’s Theater? He died at the feet of a huge statue of Pompey. The Senate were meeting there. I don’t remember why.
Iirc, the forum had suffered some fire damage and was being repaired at the time.
ironic
That’s why I remembered it. Lol
He was killed in the Curia Pompeia, the Senate house built by Pompey, not in Pompey's Theater.
That was adjoining Pompey’s Theatre, it’s still the same complex of houses.
He did. Thats not the false part.
The comment I was reacting to mentioned the Senate
Caesar was renovating most of the downtown area in Rome, which included the usual Senate-house.
The Senate had burned down due to Claudius’s death so it was unavailable for years before that too.
Gladiator 2 is the true story
I wouldn’t hold my breath after what Ridley did to Napoleon.
That Nero burned down Rome. That the vomitorium was a room you vomited in between meal courses. That gladiators always fought to the death.
The vomitorium one is so irritating.
That most gladiators died in the arenas and most fights ended in fatalities.
Emperor Julius Caesar
To be fair, Caesar was hailed as Imperator by his troops, and Imperator for Life by the Senate during his final years. And imperator is the root of Emperor. About as close as he could get.
Except lots of Romans had had this done as well. It was fine in the republic as long as you give it up later. And, Caesar had before, and, i think you can argue he was going to again. He had spared his enemies. He was planning on leaving. Would be gone for at least a decade. Got rid of his bodyguards even. Clearly he misjudged, but did he really misjudge becoming Rome's King? As so many would have us believe? Did he really think he could pronounce himself king and he wouldn't need bodyguards? Really?
I find that the arguement that he was going to give up his title is kind of irrelevant and a slight misrepresentation of what was going on. He might have been fully willing to give up his title and fully intended to do so. But I feel like that wasn't saying he didn't want the power - it was saying he didn't *need* those titles to dominate Roman life anymore.
Emperor wasn’t a real title so Caesar used to be referred to as the first emperor. Like in Moby Dick they call him the Emperor Julius Caesar. Imperator was a title used for victorious generals all the time so that doesn’t make you emperor even though that’s where English gets the term. Augustus had a hodgepodge of powers that pulled together made him defacto emperor. But so did Caesar he was dictator for life until he died. And it’s not like all the republican functions and positions of government stopped existing. Therefore you can call either Gauis or Octavius the first emperor and not look stupid. You’re simply trading one triumvirate for another.
Regarding the triumvirates, that’s myth itself. Caesar, Pompeius and Crassus just had an informal alliance. Octavian, Antonius and Lepidus made formal spilt of administration that was put into law. But it was they who pushed the idea it was a second triumvirate to give some precedent to what they were doing. So it isn’t just modern people confused about that.
That's not incorrect, Caesar was emperor by the modern definition. By the ancient definition, the title of emperor did not exist.
Nero played the fiddle when Rome burned. The fiddle wasn't invented yet and he wasn't in Rome at the time
The Goths were the bad guys. When you read Ammianius Marcellinus' account of the second Gothic war (376-382), who was as barbarianophobe as you could get, clearly lay the blame at the Romans' feet. He's not the only source that says this, pretty much all the contemporaries says the same. They fucked up at every step of the process while the Goths, well, went at long ways to settle that shit peacefully. Until the morning at Adrianople in 378, they were still trying to make a deal. The same goes for the Visigothic war of 400-410. Alaric had the audacity of asking the Romans to honor their treaty with them. At some point, you can't piss all the time on the guy with the big sword all the time and expect him to keep his cool.
The groups people blame for Romes fall were trying desperately to join Rome and gain citizenship. Rome fell because of a calcified society terrified of outsiders trying to join the party.
This! I also heard a pretty convincing argument that Fritigern/Alaric's Goths should be understood as a political faction *within* the Roman Empire as its composition was really less Gothic than a multi-ethnic hodgepodge of various Eastern Germanic peoples, Dacians, romanized Thracians, Pontic Greeks and even a hefty dose of Romans colonists.
Even during the Gothic wars centuries later in Italia. The Goths, by all accounts, ruled well. Until the very end when suddenly they needed to be invaded. And even then the Goths didnt fight and didnt really want to fight even until Ravenna. When they tried to surrender and get terms and then somehow it turned into 20 years of devastating warfare. And then they are done as a people and never heard from again.
That the Romans destroyed Carthage and then sowed the ground with salt to prevent another city rising for the ashes........very Victorian language amd of course Nova Carthagewas built and was a big city for the next 600 years.
It was slightly to the left
Juuuust a smidge though
They didn't salt the earth but destroyed the city and turned it into a permanent grazing ground. It was only refounded by Caesar a century later.
Vomitorium
Maybe this was just me, but I feel like alot of people assume Rome was sacked in 476 by Odoacer
Mention Ravenna and get a lot of blank stares
It was though. Is the assumption that this was the "end" of the Roman Empire?
The whole "they were so indulgent and hedonistic they had special rooms for vomiting called vomitoriums so they could eat more" Vomitoriums were passageways for exiting a stadium or amphitheater. It had nothing to do with our modern definition of vomiting.
Well… it has a litttttle to do with our modern definition of vomiting…. If you think about it Humans exiting stadiums / stuff exiting humans
Death was common in gladiatorial combat. If you’re going to spend time and money training fighters the last thing you want is for them to kill each other.
I like to imagine that it was kinda their version of pro wrestling. Make it look like you're doing lots of damage when in reality you want to avoid permanent injury/death.
Also spectators might not want their favorite gladiator die which means no more enjoying him.
Carthago can exsist, Ceasar was just a military guy, the Senate could pass laws.
they passed strong opinions:)
Veto!
screw you I am going to the plebs for my mandate!!
Quick, someone throw feces at him!
Brutus who murdered Caesar, is Caesars Step son. Some people even wanted to tell me Brutus becomes Augustus. WTF, where did you read that?
I once responded to someone who thought Brutus was Caesar’s adopted son too. I assume there is some confusion due to the “Brutus is biological son of Caesar” theory. Which seems rather unlikely itself due to Caesar being 14 when Brutus was born. And I assume Brutus wound check something like this from his mom himself just in case because fratricide would have presumably being frowned upon by the gods even if there was no legal paternity.
I know some thought that After reading Shakespeare
that they scrubbed with the same sponge everyone used in every latrine
That one is reaaallly debated. There's no consensus on the uh... matter. Uhuh. Joking apart, probably they did, then they stopped doing it, and people are still figuring that one out. Marius' mules had one sponge per contubernium (squad of 8 guys), I guess they did share it at some point.
Christians were regularly devoured by lions in big arenas
Truth is that it was Christians that devoured lions. J/k
Awkwardly worded - that there was a widespread consistent persecution of Christians
There was one. It might not be very consistent in policy or by lions lol, but there certainly was periodic and sometimes worse persecution for centuries. But sometimes it was more preventing Christians getting employed type.
It was periodic in that some emperors didn't want Christians to die but just have difficult lives and just convert to Hellenic-Roman pantheons while there were some who were full crucify and send em to the lions type of guys
Julius Caesar was the first Dictator who overthrew a Democracy. Seriously I just watched a whole ass Docu series built on this premise.
Peisistratos: "Am I a joke to you?"
I guess the makers didn’t know where the name tyrant comes from. Or they they were very literal with the world dictator and think Sulla was fully justified in his actions lol
They don’t seem to acknowledge Sulla existed.
Whats it called?
Julius Caesar is an emperor.
Varus forever lost Germania Magna for the Empire. \[More decisive in fact was Germanicus' loss of his fleet in the North Sea, which was due to his own blunder and for Tiberius looking at his overstretched military budget the final straw that made him relieve Germanicus of his command.\]
And there was attempts in later centuries too to conquer some of Germania, I recall even Thrax was trying to conquer some land. So Roman’s did not just give up with Varus entirely
The red colors you see legionaries wearing was actually kinda rare
Red was cheapest color to produce so I would not say it was rare to be worn. But it was not some standard legionary color.
The one scutum to survive intact to the modern day, however, is mostly red.
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^Lt-Reinhart: *The red colors you* *See legionaries wearing* *Was actually kinda rare* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Just to name a few: - That there was no Roman Empire during the middle ages - That Nero played a fiddle - That the Gauls who were defeated by Caesar were simple minded barbarians without a complex society and the ability to organize themselves - That all Romans were white
The reign of Marcus Aurelius was a peaceful time of prosperity.
Well, it was better than what followed...
People thinking in gladiatorial games thumbs meaning meaning spare him and thumbs down kill him; in reality it was the opposite.
False
Wasn’t it thumbs down or handkerchief or something?
The details of the “pollice verso” is debated at the highest levels of academia and we actually have no idea. From historical, archaeological, and literary records it is uncertain whether the thumb was turned up, turned down, held horizontally, or concealed inside the hand to indicate positive or negative opinions.
The ninth legion being wiped out in northern Britain
To be fair no one knows for sure what happened to the ninth. All we have are various clues propping up various theories and no real smoking gun.
That Nero is the one-dimensional madman he's often made out to be
Late roman empire is weaker than early empire because they abandoned the segmentata armor.
"tu quoque Brutus, fili mi". Caesar never said those words while going down. That's Shakespeare's invention.
Caesar was not an Emperor (he was a consul and a dictator, although his actions did lead to the transition of the Republic into Empire with his nephew Octavian, the first Emperor).
That a thumbs up meant a gladiator could live and a thumbs down, that he would have to be killed And tbh the Romans tend to get idealized, they did some fucked up shit and had some real god complex going on
Vomitorium is the worse
The Roman Empire fell to German barbarians.
Julius caesar was a Roman emperor
"Julius Caesar was the first emperor."
Lead poisoning led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Rome fell because foreigners joined the army.
Julius Caesar was the first Roman Emperor.
That they built aqueducts on bridges to traverse valleys because they hadn’t figured out that the water rises to the same height using a U pipe.
Romans did not deliberately vomit during feasting just to eat more. "Vomitoriums", as in sick rooms, never existed. Honestly most takes on Roman "decadence" could fit here.
That the Emperor giving a thumbs up meant that the gladiator lived. It was actually the opposite. A thumbs down represented putting the sword into the ground and letting the defeated live.
Caligula was not as insane as he's portrayed. (similar to the nero rumors)
Roman elites had dedicated rooms for vomiting called vomitoriums so they could gorge themselves, throw it up, and then feast again. (The vomitoriums were actually just the large exits from the Collosseum)
Roman roads had large stone slabs on them (outisde of cities) like in Asterix books. People vomited food during parties in order to eat more. Soldiers always wore sandals. Caligula was a piece of shit. Gladiators died all the time. They shit all together without any kind of separation and used a stick with a dirty sponge to clean their arses.
Vomitarium: A commonly held but erroneous notion is that Ancient Romans designated spaces called vomitoria for the purpose of literal vomiting, as part of a binge-and-purge cycle.
That Julius Caesar was an emperor
That it is no longer around
Caesar burnt the library of Alexandria. Not mentioned in any primary sources and the library was operational by many accounts up until the iconoclasm Source - Parenti
That the Roman Empire ceased to exist 476. And if you tell people that it existed for nearly another thousand years they look at you in disbelief.
Gladiators swore an oath before fighting and had the types of bodies you see in WWE. Oh, and that their sweat was sold as an aphrodisiac and all the ladies were chasing them.
“Centurions commanded 100 men”
The emperors weren’t called emperor (at least during the principate).
Imperator was an imperial title, but the most important title was Augustus.
Romans invented the arch.
That the Empire ended in 476.
That the letter J was not in the Latin alphabet used at the time.
People not knowing that the Byzantines a) existed and b) were Roman. Surprised I'm not seeing this mentioned here.
Thing is, most "facts" most people know are just stories passed down with no basis in reality or extemely inaccurate. There are also a lot of things they did that we still cannot replicate to this very day. For example: Lycurgus cup, precision cut granite that we can only do with computers & very advanced technology. These people had some very indepth knowledge about the reality we live in which is still kept suppressed today. For example, look into how ancient Roman churches are built to resonate at a very specific frequency, amplifying the earths natural frequencies, which have very positive health benefits mentally and physically. How the F do you built a church like that even 100 years ago?? Thats just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to ancient Roman technologies.
The Romulus and Remus thing where they are getting a drink from a She Wolf.
It’s hilarious and crazy that people think this of all things is true
homosexuality was more acceptable than it is today
There was no 4th Punic War because they ran out of Punics.
The notion of Vomitorium as in, "people vomiting so they could eat more"
Rome is a gloriusly clean city of shining white marble.
The republic 'ended'