Talk:The Stolen Eagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleThe Stolen Eagle has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Screenshot[edit]

I would have preferred a screenshot with the recovered eagle, but was unable to find one among the online trailers. If anyone can find a better shot, please replace Image:Rome episode 1.png (note: the image should be 320px wide and 180px high). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right shape to fit in the infobox, but I added a picture of an Aquila to the page.

Beowulf314159 22:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting Quote[edit]

OK - I've reverted to quote spacing again.

I'm not sure whether your intense dislike of spacing quotes is part of the style manual or not, but my rational for using them is as follows:

Bullet points, which otherwise be ideal, won't work with multi-line quotes. The second line, and those following, cannot be made to line up with the initial like. Using an indent spacer doesn't indent the same amount as a bullet - and none of the couple of other tactics I tried to use to get bullets to work, dod.

Dividing lines are indistinguishable from the horizontal lines used as the main section dividers. I tried used a shorter horizontal rule, in the same manner that publishers use to divide breaks in the text flow, but you removed those as well.

Spaces aren't ideal, but nothing else to date seems to work constantly across multi-line quotes, on all pages.

If you can find a way to delineate mutli-line quotes, that works across all episode pages, that can't be confused for other page elements, that doesn't use spaces, that's fine - I'm not clinging to spaces out of any strong personal preference. I'm doing it because it's the only thing that seems to function unambiguously.

Beowulf314159 15:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and errors[edit]

Wouldn't be a less negative naming of the section more approbiate like "artistic license and deviations from history". I only think it stupid that anything that deviates from history is an error when the producers explicitly said they wouldn't follow history precisely but more in spirit trying to be authentic but not accurate. The current title implies they didn't know any better. Has anyone any proof for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.71.152 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I brought this up at Talk:Passover (Rome) - for Passover (Rome), I've suggested "Differences from historical events". The current wording that's used on all these episodes is pov/unsourced, and it's highly unlikely that these were errors, as opposed to intentionally meant to be fictional. Mdwh (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies and errors: The Draco[edit]

One of things I noticed watching this episode is that some of the Roman military equipment seems to be misplaced in time. One flashy example is that Caesar's men have, among their set of standards, the Draco (with a dragon's head and silk (or related fabric) body attached to the head). I am pretty sure that this did not appear in the Roman army until the early 2nd century AD at the earliest. -Peter, 19:59, 2 September 2007

Octavian's age[edit]

Somebody signing only as 68.194.241.81 commented that the way Octavian's age is depicted is "not actually inaccuracy, in episode 6 when talking about losing his virginity Octavian is said to be 13, and obviously some time has passed between eps 1 and 6" ... I beg to differ : Whether or not Octavius was 13 when he lost his virginity or not, something is deeply wrong here. Alright, he's "only 13" later in the series, and might be assumed to be younger at this point, but this does not change the fact that the Max Pirkis is obviously too old to portray an 11 year old, and that the responsibility of making the trip from Rome to Gaul with a prize gift, even under supervision by a trusted servant, is much too great for one so young (no matter how ambitious and politically minded mama is, and how trusted the slaves are, which may not be much, given her threats at departure). Also, by the time the events pictured in ep 2 (with the crossing of the Rubicon : 49 BC) happen, he is already 14 ... This should have been taken into account for later episodes (but I've not yet studied the timeline, so cannot assay when ep 6 might really be taking place, late 48, when he was 15, if already existing evaluations are right). But given milius' notorious record in adapting facts, or even existing data, in his scripts, I'm not at all surprised such a discrepancy should be present. Since he also vandalized this part of the article, before making an inaccurate "qualification", I'm taking the liberty to suppress it, having explained the fallacy of it. Any comments can be added onto this, or taken directly to me --Svartalf 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument makes sense to me. I was just tidying up, not trying to change what was put here - and thus incorporated that comment into the main point better. That particular comment about Octavian's age has been in the page for quite a while - Beowulf314159 22:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep... you did it while I was writing the comment above, I got the surprise as I was about to do the deleting. I was deeply riled up by mr number's shenanigans from the start, but had not studied the historical and series timeline deeply enough to feel right about acting on it before tonight, and decided to proceed anyway. Do we agree to let things stand as per latest edit? --Svartalf 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that - your arguments make perfect sense to me. I went back and added your arguement about it being unlikely that an 11-year-old would be sent into a war zone. That seems to me to be a more "solid" arguement for it being an error than "he looks 16". If you're happy with that, it looks good as it stands from my POV - Beowulf314159 23:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forms of surrender[edit]

You know - I think it would have tickled Caesar's vanity to have Vercingetorix to surrender to him personally and not the state of Rome :) - Beowulf314159 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly... A great man for vanity was Julius Caesar. But I strongly doubt he would have allowed himself such a trivial pleasure, at the risk of endangering his position... He was berated by the Optimates for his illegal wars, and pandering to the plebs with the huge profits thereof ; and he knew he was under frequent accusations of wishing to make himself king, the ultimate crime in Republican Rome. (which is why I guess he contended himself with overly extended stints as dictator, even more power and staying within republican forms) So it's unlikely he would have flouted the senate by taking personal victory and surrender from the Gauls rather than receiving them in the name of Rome.--Svartalf 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strabo[edit]

I notice that Caesar's paymaster and possibly secretary bears the name Strabo... and the link under the guest stars takes us to an article that mainly mentions the historian and geographer of that name. Is there any evidence whether the character is indeed supposed to stand for the geographer (who would have been a child at the time), or any other historical Strabo, or is he only supposed to be homonymous to them? --Svartalf 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it can be the historical Strabo, as you note, he would have been 8 or 9 years old at the time. I think I put that link in more for the comment on "Strabo" being a common nickname. The character is actually shown on camera in the second episose. He is not a boy of 10 or 11 at that point. - Beowulf314159 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


the Legion and marriage[edit]

I include this here because it's mentioned in this episode, and I'm not sure it would be more appropriate to ask in Vorenus' article. We are told that Vorenus married "by special dispensation". Could anybody direct me to sources telling whether legionaries were or not allowed to marry ? (of course, he couldn't have married before enlisting ;) ) Should this be mentioned in inaccuracies or in historical background? --Svartalf 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things that make me go, "Hmmm....". Just a quick Google, and I found this,
Vespasian made the term of service a flat 25 years, though discharges still seem to be given only every other year. Soldiers were forbidden to be legally married while serving, though of course many had local girlfriends, common-law wives, and children. Upon discharge, a soldier's "marriage" was recognized as legal, and any children he had were recognized as legitimate and Roman citizens. This is not only a nice "perk", since illegitimate children of civilians generally could not become citizens, but it also made a growing recruiting pool for the legions. A steadily increasing number of recruits listed their place of origin as "in castris", "in the camp", meaning their fathers had been soldiers (not necessarily that they had actually been born and raised in a military fortress!).

I'm not sure how useful this quote is. Vespasian ruled more than a century later than the timeframe covered by this episode. - 2006/May/20 23:31 EST

at http://www.larp.com/legioxx/orgoff.html. I can't vouch for this as a reliable site even though they do seem to have an impressive bibliography attached to it, they don't cite this fact specifically, so I'd treat it cautiously.
In any case, this is referance to Imperial legion practices, although it's possible to apply this kind of rule to any legion formed after the Marian reforms. - Beowulf314159 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a much better referanced work: http://it.geocities.com/paginedistoria/cherry.html. Note that it says such restrictions start "at least from the time of Claudius". It seems it's not exactly an error but it might be a historical liberty, or at least stretching a possible point to make a better story. - Beowulf314159

Nope, you're right - it's an error! "The ban seems not to have been in effect in the late Republic: Caes. Civ. 3.110.2."
The forces under Achillas did not seem despicable, either for number, spirit, or military experience; for he had twenty thousand men under arms. They consisted partly of Gabinius's soldiers, who were now become habituated to the licentious mode of living at Alexandria, and had forgotten the name and discipline of the Roman people, and had married wives there, by whom the greatest part of them had children. - Caes. Civ. 3.110.1-2.
Beowulf314159 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adrian Goldsworthy's book The Complete Roman Army has an entire section explicitly detailing the ban on a regular Roman soldiers' right to marry, and how it is a special privilege belonging only to centurions and higher. What this of course led to, was a number of children mysteriously appearing from females that seemed to follow the armies around...heh Ezedriel

Blue Spaniards[edit]

Does anyone know anything about who the Blue Spaniards that captured Octavian were? Should the fact that Octavian was held prisoner by them be mentioned in the article? --Zegoma beach 19:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Historical Inaccuracies" Octavian vs. Octavius[edit]

The use of the name Octavian should NOT be considered an historical inaccuracy, as claimed in the article. It is true that his name was "Octavius", but "Octavian" is the accepted English translation. If Octavian is an inaccuracy, then so are many other proper names in the series. Cicero was pronounced "KEY-ker-oh" by the Romans, not "SIS-er-oh." Caesar was pronounced like German "Kaiser." Cato was "KA-toh," not "KAY-toh." The producers' choice of Octavian over Octavius conforms to their choice that the scripts be written in English, not Latin, despite the fact that the Romans didn't speak English.

Frankly, the whole "Inaccuracies and errors" section might as well be titled "Historical speculation, trivia, and original research". The various instances of "it seems unlikely", the claims of an erroneous implication that Caesar was consul at the time (huh?), the quibbling over the amount of hair Ciaran Hines has... Alai 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Opening Battle[edit]

Despite the differences, the opening battle featuring Pullo and Vorenus seems very close to the depictions of them in De Bello Gallico. Pullo charges forward and Vorenus comes forward to get his sorry hide out of there. It takes an artistic license like the rest of Pullo and Vorenus' appearences in the series(and they're fighting a Celtic tribe, not a Belgae tribe), but it does seem similar to Caesar's description.--2ltben 02:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Character description[edit]

"Mark Antony comments to Vorenus that the Tribunes have noted him for his intelligence. Given the positions of the Tribunes (in this case probably the Tribuni Angusticlavii) within the legion, this meant that Vorenus had not only caught the attention of his commanding officer, but of 'mid-level' senior officers (Tribuni Angusticlavii being roughly the equivalent of a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Military). Vorenus must be a superlative officer."

This makes no sense. With five tribunes abgusiclavii and one tribunus militum Laticlavius in any legion and 60 centurions at full strength a veteran centurion who survived the whole 8 years campaign would be known by any tribune of that legion regardless of his capabilities (as centurions led by example their mortality rates were very high and legions rarely at full strength). So him being effective, loyal and coolheaded would be enough to raise some heads esspecially as the leadership of a legion was far less detached and centurions actually very important to run it effectively (the first centurion would be close to the executive commander of a legion as the Legate and tribunes often were politicians and thus he'd be often the most seasoned officer in a legion.

It is however difficult to define what a "second spear centurion" is meant to be. Vorenus is made "first spear" lateron. If the latter actually meant "Primus Pilus" he'd be member of the first cohort before and thus an esspecially highranked centurion leading a double century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.13.93.12 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consular Veto[edit]

According to the Roman Consul article "Two consuls were elected each year, serving together with veto power over each other's actions, a normal principle for magistracies." Pompey, however, uses his consular veto against a senator's (Cato) proposal. Was this possible? Wasn't such a broad veto reserved to tribuni plebis only (and possibly dictators)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.185.82 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White stallion[edit]

"Elsewhere, a hireling named Timon delivers a prize white stallion to Caesar's niece, Atia of the Julii and, in what appears to be a customary arrangement, takes his payment by having sex with her."

This is wrong, Atia and Timon are having sex and in return she wants the horse, while he is disappointed, that the sex was only business.

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Stolen Eagle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TRLIJC19 (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

  • Initial comment
    • At a start, there are no reasons to quickfail; fairly obviously, this article is in good shape.
  • Infobox
    • Any reason the caption is emboldened?
  • Lead
    • "Written by series creator Bruno Heller and directed by Michael Apted, the episode first aired in the United States' HBO on August 28, 2005, and on BBC in the United Kingdom and Ireland on November 2. -- MOS:ACRO says "Unless specified in one of the two tables below, an acronym or initialism should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in brackets (e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs))." That said, the table specifies that BBC does not need to be written out in full, but HBO does (Home Box Office).
  •  Done (I wrote out both for consistency) Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Heller chose to centre the series from the perspectives of two common soldiers, similar to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern." -- Is it supposed to be "center", or no? This article is about a British show, so perhaps that is a British English word?
      • Just dropping by to say that "centre" is, in fact, the British spelling of the word.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "HBO described its marketing strategy as "its largest, most aggressive for a new series,"" -- Per MOS:LQ, the closing quote should be inside the comma.
  • Actually, WP:LQ says "...maintaining their original positions in (or absence from) the quoted material." The punctuation falls within the quoted line in the original source, so its position is appropriate here. Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot
    • Per WP:TVPLOT, "summaries for episode articles should be about 200 to 500 words". That said, this article's plot section is 1065 words. Please filter out some content.
  • I have trimmed the plot to ~700 characters, which I feel is a sufficient length. Keep in mind that this is an article about a one-hour television pilot, which typically has more detail than others. Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The day after the siege, Vercingetorix, "King of all the Gauls," is brought before Julius Caesar and made to surrender. -- MOS:LQ, put comma outside of closing quote.
  • The length is fine now, but is there any reason the section is so split up? There are 6 short paragraphs, when it could easily be fit into 3-4 at most.
  • Much better.
  • Cast
    • Any reason for the existence of this section? I've never seen an entire cast list at an episode article.
  • Yeah, it was here before I began editing it and I wasn't sure if it was useful or not. I've now removed it. Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conception and writing
    • "It would have been a disgrace to lose it." -- Is this supposed to have quotes around it? If not, it breaches WP:NPOV and WP:OR, and should be removed.
  • I've removed it and added clarifying statement ("While the storyline detailing its theft was based on fiction,..."). Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Brutus' great great great grandfather "drove the last king out of Rome,"" -- Closing quote should be inside comma per MOS:LQ.
  •  Done (changed punctuation to reflect original quote). Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Casting
    • "Ciarán Hinds was cast as Julius Caesar, though he first thought it "silly" to be offered the part." -- This is improper grammar. Either (a) add "was" after "it" or (b) change "thought" to "considered", "deemed", or "found".
  • Filiming
    • "The series was given a budget of $100 million (£58 million), the largest both HBO and BBC had ever devoted to a series." -- Link HBO and BBC (don't forget to write out HBO in full again - it's the first mention of the channel in the article body).
    • "The season premiere as well as the rest of the series was shot on a huge set considered "to be the biggest and most expensive ever built for television."" -- MOS:LQ again (put closing quote inside period.
  • Same response as above. The period falls after television, thus the quote's punctuation should reflect this. Ruby 2010/2013 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Heller was responsible for writing the pilot's voice-over, despite his dislike of the task." -- Voice-over is a common term and should probably be unlinked.
    • "A later scene featuring Cicero the Younger in the Senate proved difficult to film because of the large number of Italian extras who did not speak English. In the DVD audio commentary, he remarked that "this is one of those scenes where you need really great assistant directors, because all of these Italian extras who have no idea whatsoever what [Cicero's] saying, so to keep them interested and focused and concentrated on what's going on is a real trick."" -- Same goes with extras, audio commentary, and assistant directors.
  • Marketing
    • "Referring to its marketing plan as "its largest, most aggressive push for a new series," HBO broadcast the first three episodes seven days a week at various times during the day. -- MOS:LQ (put closing quote inside comma).
    • ""You're trying to show it in a way that [doesn't look like] a history lesson but a fictional story about two guys working for Caesar's army and how history unfolds around them. That it's not just people walking around in nice clean togas." -- Why is there no closing quote?
  • I've removed all quotation marks from this. Ruby 2010/2013 22:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception
    • "Morrow also believed the episode suffered from lacking one "standout, signature character,"" -- Closing quote should be inside comma (MOS:LQ).
  •  Done Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC) (unlike above quotes, this one had punctuation outside quote). Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Paul English of The Daily Record stated that "Rome is visually dazzling, full of vim and tantalisingly seductive," and opined that "McKidd's growling turn as Ceasar's footsoldier Lucius Vorenus will undoubtedly propel him into the US major league."" -- The prose is choppy with two 'and's so close. Perhaps rewrite to: "Paul English of The Daily Record stated that "Rome is visually dazzling, full of vim and tantalisingly seductive," writing that "McKidd's growling turn as Ceasar's footsoldier Lucius Vorenus will undoubtedly propel him into the US major league.""
  • References
    • I was unable to do a full spotcheck of the sources, due to lots of {{subscription required}} tags. That said, the hopeful lack of copyright vios and WP:SYNTH is on the honor system.
    • FN12: Don't "shout" in references. (Note: The comments about citations are not mandatory; it is not a GA requirement.)
    • FN19: Don't "shout" in references.
    • FN21: Don't "shout" in references.
    • FN24: Don't "shout" in references.
    • FN26: Don't "shout" in references.

I am placing this on-hold for 7 days for the above issues to be addressed. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the thorough review! I believe I have addressed or replied to all of your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

With everything having been addressed, this article now fulfills the good article criteria, and is being promoted. Good job to the nominator and other significant contributors. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for reviewing! Ruby 2010/2013 03:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sections in wrong page[edit]

The Casting, Filming and Marketing sections should be moved to the Rome series article as they apply to the entire series, not this episode per se. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bron6669 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TVPRODUCTION, episode articles are meant to include background and production information. This article is about the pilot episode to the series, therefore it would not be complete without including some information about how the series was conceived. I wrote this article several years ago, but if I recall correctly, most of the sources discussed both the conception of the series and pilot episode interchangeably. Ruby 2010/2013 15:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's much more a case of that information should be available in the series article. Bron6669 (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Stolen Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Stolen Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Stolen_Eagle&oldid=1205467075"