Neither is particularly bloody, especially if you have seen Mel Gibson's display of sadomasochism in Passion of the Christ and the opening Apocalypto, or similarly sadistic Seven and other movies like it. In these movies, death and suffering are a means of entertainment by exploiting the viewer's primal, physical reaction. One feels a sheer chemical release by watching humans cut up, tortured, shot, blown into pieces, etc., ANONYMOUSLY. It does not go beyond the top of your kidney (adrenal gland).
Deadwood, however, treats violence and killing differently from these movies in that they are meaningful and signficant. Every death has a consequence and effects on the living. In one of the first episodes, the character Bullock (supposed good guy), kills an Indian who attacks him. And the resonance of this death lasts well into the next few episodes and in some way changes the character a little as a person. Wild Bill Hicock's death continues to haunt the town through the third season. No death is anonymous and indifferent. There is deep humanity in the death of even a passerby who is on screen for no more than one or two episodes.
Rome is more bloody, but every bit of the violence also serves a purpose other than exploitation of the physical reaction of excitement and release. Rome is also a fascinating anthropological study with incredibly well written characters.
I have long wanted to write an analysis to compare Rome and Deadwood in their thematic similarities and differences, but I suppose no one besides General would even read it. Both are fantastic work that you rarely see in the entertainment products. I have a little more fondness for Deadwood, probably because I'm such a "Word Nerd."
