Yes, I agree, Rome does look good in it, but I still don't understand why they omitted or distorted the raw bloody meat of history in favour of fabrications that are much less dramatically effective. Why, when Cicero's letters give us a UNIQUE glimpse into a world that would put 'Dallas' to shame, do they ignore the political manoeuverings that led up to the Rubicon? And why, when they actually get to the Rubicon, do they totally mess up one of the most dramatic moments in world history, when Caesar, standing on the bank, has his moment's hesitation? What could be more dramatic - and truer to history - than that? That was the moment when I stopped watching it, I'm afraid. (Though I will certainly tune in for Pharsalus and Alexandria - I love battles and thickly-applied kohl...)