'Britannia' - Romans on TV?

[Nathan Ross]

Does anyone know anything about an upcoming 10-part TV drama for Sky about the Roman invasion of Britain, titled 'Britannia'?

I've heard a rumour that it's supposed to be shooting this summer, but I can't find any information about it online. Have any reenactment groups or individuals been approached about it, perhaps?

[LuciusSallustiusPlautus]

All I found was this. http://deadline.com/2015/04/back-up-film...201407168/ And if it's going to be anything like the HBO series, Rome, then I probably will not watch it due to that shows inaccuracies. Since its most likely going to be like Game of Thrones then I doubt it will be using reenactment legions and will be Hollywoodised.

[Renatus]

It sounds like utter tripe to me.

[Robert Vermaat]

"the growing relationship between Boudicca and Roman Consul Cassius who ultimately unite to lead an insurgency against Roman Emperor Claudius"...

Excuse me? Ah, but then of course 'the consul Cassius' (Who? Clay?) was recalled as they are after a short stint in the province and their LAT relationship did not survive the long distance. How sad but predictable. Cassius no doubt went back to his wife in Rome and his mistresses.
Soo, after being quite lovesick, broken-hearted and depressed for a while Boudicca then married Prasutagus and waited until SEVEN years after Claudius passed away to have a go at Nero.

ANYONE can write these stories, it's fun!!

[Nathan Ross]

All I found was this.

Good googlism - thanks!

It sounds like utter tripe to me.

It most certainly does! Shame...

[Nathan Ross]

And, over a year later, it finally breaks cover:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/08/04...s-new-sky/

It doesn't seem to have improved in the meantime though...

"Besides being hard, hard warriors, the Celts have a belief system which makes them almost invincible. It’s a deep, heavy magic," said Butterworth. "...Here we have a war between two pantheons — the Roman gods vs the Celtic gods," he continued.

[Emil Petecki]

"Besides being hard, hard warriors, the Celts have a belief system which makes them almost invincible. It’s a deep, heavy magic," said Butterworth.

That's about all I need to know about this show's accuracy. It's a pity that apparently it is too hard to combine historical accuracy with good writing.

[Alanus]

Frankly, I prefer Robert's version. Poor guy is stuck in the Netherlands when he should be writing in Hollywood.

[Robert Vermaat]

Frankly, I prefer Robert's version. Poor guy is stuck in the Netherlands when he should be writing in Hollywood.

The fame, the fame! Whereas this guy...
"Butterworth had previously tackled the myths and legends of Britain's early Celtic heritage in his hit 2008 stageplay Jerusalem"

Also, I see some big improvements in the script:
"Kella, an ancient Celt vying for power with her bitter rival Antedia. Following an invasion led by general Aulus Plautius, Kella and Antedia band together to repel the invaders."

At least they seem to have dropped the budding romance between Boudicca and consul Cassius!!

[Nathan Ross]

"Butterworth had previously tackled the myths and legends of Britain's early Celtic heritage..."

As a minor aside, I do wish people would stop conflating 'myths and legends' with 'history' - if something is mythical or legendary then it isn't real and didn't happen...!

References to (for example) 'the legendary Roman general Julius Caesar' or whatever are particularly irksome.

[Alanus]

Very good point. On a totally different subject, I'm writing about three famous American rodmakers who were "lengendary." They existed, although stories about them were conflated. But "mythical," to me, means an entirely different connotation-- re: the person Never existed in real life. We see this with "King Arthur," a mythical personage, but certainly not a legendary one. By the way, where do these script writers get so-called "Celtic" nomens from? Why can't they use something realistic rather than making-it-up as they go along? But I suppose that would require research.

[Nathan Ross]

"King Arthur," a mythical personage, but certainly not a legendary one.

I'm not so sure; 'mythical' seems to connote something that could never have existed, something magical or superhuman. 'Legendary' would be something that could have existed, but probably didn't, and is known only through dubious stories... Although I admit it's a fine line!

In this case it would depend on the type of 'Arthur' - the 'mythical' one who hangs out with wizards, or the 'legendary' one who may have fought the Saxons in the 6th century...

(I'd say both your rodmakers are non-legendary, btw, but there are legends told about them - another distinction!)

However, I think we can agree that the Roman Empire was neither mythical nor legendary.

where do these script writers get so-called "Celtic" nomens from?

Indeed! 'Antedia' seems to be some sort of Dutch brand pharmaceutical... Perhaps they thought that calling their characters Avittoriga or Boduocca or something would lack suitable 'celtic mythology' appeal?

[Crispianus]

I think Legends do sometime come true or at least in part, I guess enough people have heard of Caesar for him to be "Legendary" but it does imply a semi-mythical character, Famous though doesn't quite cut it at least not for me.... for many people in the past the only way to retell their "History" was by telling Stories and so it still is today, I think it would be wrong to assume all "History" is True and all Stories False.... though clearly some are and we seem to delight in this....

If you could show an Anglo-Saxon the fossilised bones of a Dinosaur found on a beach in Cornwall would he imagine a Dragon killed by a Great Hero or a species long dead before man existed... and which one would make the better story...

[ValentinianVictrix]

I think 'Legendary' has come to mean that the person's exploits have long outlived them. So Caesar has become a legendary character because two thousand years later people are still talking about him.

[Nathan Ross]

Caesar has become a legendary character because two thousand years later people are still talking about him.

I'd say Caesar is solidly historical, even if people might have told legendary stories about him in the past. The borders between history and legend can get a bit hazy at times, but if we can establish a historical context for something, and have evidence to support it, then surely we can say it exists within the fabric of history?

The Irish hero Cuchulainn, on the other hand, is a legendary and mythological character, with fantastical and magical attributes. He may have been based on a historical person, but we don't know enough about when the stories were written or told to know either way.

The problem with (what seems to be) the attitude of this TV show is the suggestion that history and legend are the same thing. It all happened ages ago, and who knows what went on back then....

(this is leaving out the current use of 'legendary' to mean 'famous', of course. Footballers are always described as 'legendary' when they die, even by people who knew them!... )