In ancient Rome, gladiators were not only brutal fighters but also celebrities whose popularity extended beyond the arena and who were often featured in billboards and advertisements engaging in product endorsements for various goods and services, just like modern-day celebrities or influencers. Prominent fighters were depicted in frescos and mosaics, sometimes promoting specific brands of olive oil or weaponry. When developing the script for the 2000 film Gladiator, the filmmakers initially considered including scenes where gladiators engaged in product endorsements, reflecting this historical reality. However, they ultimately decided against it, fearing that audiences would perceive it as anachronistic rather than historically accurate.What are some other things which happened historically, but still feels weirdly anachronistic?
This is the major problem with most entertainment lately especially.They will change things for mass appeal and I just think that that is a mistake.Because then even people who work with religion myths esoterics will be misled by said entertainment despite knowing full well that the authors will take a lot of creative freedom that is not inspired by anything higher than the audience that makes them money
>>18450737>What are some other things which happened historically, but still feels weirdly anachronistic?The only thing that comes to my mind is regarding the rising niche of bartering/regional currencies/work & produce based currencies: those systems were the standard for much of human history. Even when coins existed they were reserved for long distance or especially abstract transactions. Thus much of the everyday commerce was based on bartering or reciprocal services. Especially taxes were often levied in the form of work services. >>18451638>They will change things for mass appeal and I just think that that is a mistake.And it doesn't even work. The most audiences understand when they are purposefully pandered to and most have enough of an education to realise obvious bullshit.
>>18450737>What are some other things which happened historically, but still feels weirdly anachronistic?basically the entire transformation of the Roman Republic to Empire: Rome in the first century BC was a deeply conservative society. Most people (especially in the elite) thought that, all the current evils (civil wars, extremely unequal wealth distribution) resulted from moral decay and the diversion from traditional Roman values. The ancestors didnt have civil wars, so their ways must have been better than ours. The ancestors kept the poor fed, so their morals must have been greater than ours. The ancestors constantly expanded the reach of the Res Publica, so their Institutions must have been better than ours.Consequently, every respected Roman policitian proposed the grand return to the old ways. No political reform can contradict the "Mos Maiorum" (~values of the elders). All power must be divided between the Senators as did the ancestors.Thus, when Augustus (* 63 BC † 14 AD) the first Emperor finally ended the civil wars, fed the poor, and embarked on the greatest conquests jet, he couldn't admit that he did all this by dictatorial power. He had to pretend real hard to be a republican conservative. He was never officially granted supreme power, but held it though opaque, sometimes improvised means. In his great autobiography, which was carved in stone everywhere across the Empire, he specifically pointed out, to have held no extraordinary political office or supreme power. He pretended to be a regular Roman polititian who was simply that much better than ervery other. (even though really he erected a military dictatorship)The Principate, which was the modus operandi for Roman government for more than two centuries, was a sham republic. The Roman Emperors swindled everyone, just as autocrats today veil their absolute power behind laws and the popular approval. (even though everyone knows well who is actually in power)
