1 Like
Unless it goes too woke, it might be a decent or even good series, at the very least, Anthony Hopkins will offer a Phenomenal Performance.
There were women gladiators, but let’s see how much they want to push any modern narratives (truth be told, considering the fact that most historical records have been lost, almost anything becomes a possibility, even a revenge driven story or any other plot; survival will be the most obvious part, for those involved in the Gladiator Games anyway); however, I would still watch it, if it is Entertaining.
To give an old example: Ben Hur (the 1959 one, starring Charlton Heston), was an Amazing movie, combining elements of Roman and Israelite worlds, woven on a beautiful fictional narrative - but those kind of Epic Movies won’t be made in our current times.
Now, going back to the Gladiator theme, I just did some research and I found out that it takes place in 79 A. D., kind of the Golden Age of Rome, Pax Romana still being cast over the Ancient World, and the Gladiator games being THE Ancient Equivalent of Football, they were extremely popular, hugely ambitious and exotic in their display, thus the Trailer is Not actually an Exaggeration.
We might even see some early Christians being thrown to the lions, who knows, yet this is Modern Hollywood, not much Christian presence is expected in the Woke Era.
As I said earlier, if the story is good {the woman mentioned her missing children, if I got that right (or maybe they were killed)}, plus the Grandious Brutal Display of Ancient Entertainment being present, it might actually be worth watching.
Someone mentioned Spartacus (in a comment, on a YouTube clip) or a possible link to him (although, well, different Era), at the very least, we might see some Rebellious Elements, possibly a full scale Rebellion.
We’ll see, it might be good or it might be bad, only time will tell.
Edit: and let’s not forget Politics, Roman Politics, Drama, Family Values, Passion, Prostitution, Slave Economy, back-stabbing friends, eager senators, opportunists everywhere, corruption at the heart of the Whole establishment, plus a world ruled with an iron fist, being ready to erupt with rebellions…
YET, all of it intertwined with Strong Religious Values, Strong Morals, Poetry, Stoicism, Art, Ambitious Projects, Patriotism and Duty Loving Citizens and Legionaries…
The Top of The Ancient World, The Peak of Ancient Civilization,
A blend so diverse,
YET so cohesive…
2 Likes
Nobody should really expect anything now from music, games, TV shows and movies. All funded content is aimed for the woke generation. The early days had the best stuff.
I have the HBO Rome TV show boxset at home which is worth a watch. Although it’s quite boring (no action) but if you’re interested in a historical drama set during the fall of the Roman Republic and beginning of the empire, you might want to buy this. This series tells you alot more than anything that gets released today.
2 Likes
Im not saying you’re completely wrong, but you’re not completely right on this assertion either - I’ll start with this. 
România has been a crossroad of Empires, Migratory tribes and Nomadic Invaders of all kinds and the home of Ancient Local Populations.
Slavs were a big element of it’s History, yet I wouldn’t call it a Slavic country, not In a cultural sense anyway.
It’s core identity are its people, it’s Folklore, it’s Language, it’s Religion, it’s History and it’s Modern Laws, Lifestyle and Interactions.
Now, what does the word Slav means?
It can mean different things, depending who’s answering, but the core idea is that a Slav is a person who lives in a Slavic country, speaks a Slavic language, has Slavic Culture, and is a member of a Historical Slavic People/Group.
I will come back to these, but I’ll start with the most obvious Elephant in the room: genes.
As I said, Romania has been home to countless elements, some more fleeting {Huns, Mongols, Germanics (like the Ostrogoths), Cumans, etc.}, others more stationary (Dacians, Wallachians, Bulgarians, Hungarians, Saxons, Rromani (an older exonym being Gypsies), Greeks, Turks, etc.}, thus it’s genes are extremely diverse, however all European countries are diverse.
Indeed, it has a bigger share of R1a, like its Slavic neighbors, yet it is lower than Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Poland, etc.
Now, Romanian territory was inhabited long before the Slavs even appeared, a clear example of how old Human settlement has been here, can be seen in the Cave of Bones (Peștera cu Oase).
(copy-paste text) Located in southwestern Romania, this cave is considered one of the most important archaeological sites in the country. In 2002, the remains of three early modern humans were discovered, dating back around 37,800 years. The fossils were found in a cave system that consists of 12 karstic galleries and chambers. (back to my own words)
(Some of the earliest if not) The earliest Homo Sapiens in Europe have been found here.
Now, on the territory of today’s Romania, there have been quite a few cultures, the Cucuteni Culture (approx. 5500 to 2750 BC) being a major one.
Later, the Dacians/Getae appeared on the Carpato-Danubian Territory, probably a subgroup of Thracians (Herodot mentioned them), and they built a Strong Local Kingdom, under Burebista.
The Romans invaded and conquered them, annexing a part of their Kingdom (Trajan Wars), which became a Roman Province.
The Romans ruled in Dacia, from 106 to 275, and during that time, they brought Legionaries, Colonization, Commerce, Roman Administration, Culture, Latin and even some elements of Christianity to Dacia.
The constant raids from the neighboring Free Dacians and from the newly arrived Germanics, Madd it a very problematic Area, and the Romans decided to retreat South of The Danube.
Now, the Newly Mixed culture didn’t vanish, it endured North of the Danube {the Hungarians claim that Romanians have an origin south of the Danube, and that they brought Wallachians there, yet Archeological and Historical evidence points either towards Romanian variant or towards a middle ground; there were Wallachians (medieval name for Romanians) on the northern parts of the Danube}.
Later came countless Migratory people, countless tribal confederetsions, including the Slavs.
TO BE CONTINUED.
I’M A LITTLE BIT BUSY ATM.
Well, I meant ethnically, not by nationality. 
Sometimes have heard stuff like up until the beginning of the 20th century, their, or your, language seemed much more Slav-like, just they did then a lot of effort to further “latinize” their population.
1 Like
I will write about that too.
The core part of our language is Latin based, it’s not Slavic, yet for centuries, Slavs either ruled directly these lands or had their religious and cultural legacy still present.
I will come back later.
1 Like
I am sold.
When can I finally watch it?
1 Like
Well, these were just some of my speculations and some things which I have read …
Hopefully, they will be included, at the very least some intrigue.
Well, heres the small data which I have managed to gather…
There are not nearly enough samples to determine precisely the genetic makeup of the current population of Romania, since it is so genetically diverse.
Do we and Slavs share some genes?
Sure.
Are we Slavs?
No.
And that is because Romanians also share all the major haplogroups, in general Eastern Europe is more diverse than the West.
Here are some maps which I’ve downloaded:
As you can see, Romanians share genes with almost All of Europe and Beyond, we are quite diverse genetically.
So, again, are Slavs relatives?
Sure. We do have R1a, but it’s not that dominant, compared to Russia or Ukraine, for example.
Plus, all the Slavic countries, whether Eastern or Western or Southern Slavs, they all mixed with the local ancient/pre-Slavic tribes and formed new ethnic groups. Slavs are quite diverse actually.
Look at Poland, lots of R1b (compared to other Eastern Slavic Countries), for example.
We share things in common, but we are not (exactly) the same.
All Europeans share things, from genes, to cultural stuff, to religion, yet, each European population has kind of a unique (ad)mixture of things.
This is my view, of course.
All other views are OK. 
Now, for the language part…
Using modern letters, I will add a text, from an older Romanian document, from 1521 A.D., since the script was Slavonic centuries ago:
" I pak să știi domniia-ta că au venit un om de la Nicopoe (= [Nicopole]) de mie mi-au spus că au văzut cu ochii lui că au trecut ceale corăbii ce știi și domniia-ta pre Dunăre în sus.
I pak să știi că bagă den toate orașele câte 50 de oamini să fie în ajutor în corăbii"
I can understand the text and it’s quite close to modern Romanian, yet has a few words which I didn’t know, until I read about them.
The language is clearly Latin based, well, that is the opinion of linguists throughout Europe and Beyond.
It had (we still use some of those words) lots of borrowed words from Slavonic, from Hungarian, and less from Turkish, Greek or German, among them.
In the XIX th Century it borrowed A LOT from French.
Also, the Capital, Bucharest, came to be called “Le Petite Paris” (the small Paris).
Borrowing from other languages it’s not unique, especially from French, which was the Biggest European language back then (before English overtook it in mainland Europe).
Nowadays, we borrow a lot of English words.
To get to the basics, we borrowed many words from the Slavs, in the past, but the core of our language, was/is Latin based.
Anyway, that’s enough replying for today.
2 Likes
Although I’m quite Enthusiastic when it comes to all things Roman, I have not managed to watch that show, I barely saw a little bit.
It is definitely on my list.
2 Likes
This one is really great.
I have watched it 2x.
The actor (James Purefoy) who is playing Mark Antony is absolutely top level 
2 Likes
Do you want the title to remain the same, or it’s better to add some small changes?
(example: About Slavs and Romanians ; Rome in Modern Fiction - - - History Thread - The Many Manly…? ) (or just History Thread - The Many Manly…? )
- One Stable Title is Better.
- A few More Words, which would change according to the latest subjects, it Would be Good to have them.
- Either way it’s fine for me.
0 voters
It is quite an old show (2005), but it’s a gold one. Although you shouldn’t expect it to be like the movie Gladiator, it has a similar dramatisation and feel to that of Game of Thrones, with its complex political landscape, betrayals, and compelling characters. It’s aimed at a more mature audience than a young adult.
I’ve seen it around 3x.
Well, most actors back then were top-notch because they were cast based on talent, skill, and suitability for the script, not diversity. Also, many actors use to bring captivating gimmicking strategies that aligned with their craft so that they could attract the attention of the audience and stand out as a unique individual performer.
You can kiss goodbye to all that.
2 Likes
James Purefoy was also excellent in Iron Clad.
I fully agree. I think Disney is putting Ariana Grande into one of their upcoming movies. So akward… 
2 Likes
Yes, I know, I studied these things.
That was just a half-joke.
It just appeared to me funny how much “nationality” and stuff like that are to a lot of extent circumstantially and politically crafted.
1 Like
I don’t think that’s always anything to do with diversity or being Woke; sometimes they just cast other celebrities with huge fan bases to help sell the movie they’re making. It’s a bit like the movies Dunkirk ‘Harry Styles’ and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword ‘David Beckham’. In the past, they usually made cameo appearances, but nowadays, they can play a significant role in movies.
I’ve just seen the trailer and a few clips; it looks like a decent movie. It seems very underrated because I’ve never heard of it until now, but I’ll definitely give that a watch this week for sure when I get time. Thanks for the recommendation 
I’m astonished at how violent and gory this movie is. I was expecting it to be a PG-13 Sean Connery or Kevin Costner kind of family movie, like Robin Hood or First Knight … Back in the old days, when the English had bollocks, is all I can say.
2 Likes
2 Likes
Most famous Roman:
Summary
Russel Crowe
😂
1 Like
They were the Conquerors of Countless territories, Founders of France, Germany and other Countries, and they were The Defenders of Europe and Christendom: The Frankish People.
Here is a Good documentary and Quite Fast Paced, showing their tumultuous Rise and Reign which lasted for Centuries:
Their Legacy is Europe and the fact that Catholicism evolved the way it did, plus, în Western Francia, they adopted the Roman Ways, Language and Customs, giving Birth to the French People.
For centuries, The Byzantines called All Westerners with the apelative (of) Franks.
Their descendandants, the French people, exerted a Huge Influence over England, much of Europe and even the Holy Land, and they spread their culture everywhere, including in the Americas, Africa and Asia, Centuries later.
If they would have been more opportunistic, America (or the territory of the USA) and the World would speak French today.
For a while, the world did spoke French (or rather the Courts of European Monarchs, which conquered the World), the world language isn’t called Lingua Franca (current holder of the title is English) for nothing.
Edit: the History of France and the history of Europe and the World viewed from their perspective is quite a Huge subject and I barely mentioned a few things.
Of course, the Gauls were the first documented rulers of what is today France, and then came the Romanization and then finally the Franks, which cemented the future of France, or rather reforged it.
Feel free to add anything you wish about their history or well, any other subject if you so desire, this is merely my suggestion.