Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink

Roman Empire TV series - a dissenting view

• Message 1.Ìý

  Posted by eques_99 (U7027104) on Sunday, 10th June 2007

  Hi
  
  I wasn't on this forum when that show came out last year but feel very strongly about how bad it was so am adding a brand new thread to emphasise the comments I made at the tail end of one started by another poster:
  
  I was utterly horrifed by this series and its simplified, ooh er shock horror view of Roman history, the makers obviously thinking that this would be the only way to get people to watch it. A particular betrayal was the caption at the beginning saying it was based on true events and ancient sources when the programme went on to make up major characters and events.
  
  1) Nero: This was the best one IMO (thanks to the scarily believable performance of Michael Sheen). However, they described his purge of opponents following a foiled plot as "like nothing Rome had ever seen before". Er, Marius? Sulla? Octavian? Sejanus? Caligula? In fact Nero's purge was pretty mild compared to some of these.
  
  2) Caesar: The worst one I saw. Caesar was portrayed as a mad, shouty, unstable killing machine. Now I'm sure he wasn't actually very nice but that portrayal was a complete travesty of what we know about the cold, rational cultured Caesar and his policy (from whatever motives) of clemency to Roman opponents. An equal travesty was the portrayal of Pompey as a genial, decent old buffer concerned to save Roman lives. In fact Pompey was an absolute monster (and civil war enthusiast) in his youth and he turned on his old ally Caesar because Caesar's success was an affront to his gargantuan ego.
  
  Also they completely made up a major opponent to Caesar called Marcellus, who stood in for Cato, Bibulus, Scipio and all the rest. Not only that but they blithely declared in an epilogue that Marcellus was pardoned by Caesar but a year later was MYSTERIOUSLY MURDERED!! Huh? What happened to actual events and ancient sources?
  
  Gracchus: Not only did they leave out Caius Gracchus but they completely misunderstood the nature of the issues the Gracchi wrestled with. Tiberius was not moved by righteous anger at small holders being thrown off their land by nobles who fancied stealing it. In fact there is no evidence for this happening on any large scale (Rome had a system of land law like most other civilisations). The problem was that as nobles grew rich from the spoils of empire they were able to buy larger and larger estates and parcels of land as they became available (rather like the modern system of corporate takeovers and mergers). Also because of empire they were able to bring in slaves to work these huge estates. This led to 2 problems: rural unemployment and the dilution of patriotic spirit as the mass of the populace had less stake in defending and improving the homeland.
  
  The programme ignored all this and portrayed Gracchus as a simple defender of the poor against the unjustices perpretrated by the big bad aristocracy.
  
  That's why I dislike history on TV. Just doesn't have the depth and won't trust the viewers to understand complex ideas.

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire TV series - a dissenting view

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 10th June 2007

  
  That's why I dislike history on TV. Just doesn't have the depth and won't trust the viewers to understand complex ideas.
  Ìý
  
  It used to, or at least I have recollections of programmes like "Civilisation" not insulting he intelligence of the viewer. But then that was before CGI graphics, stupidly obvious and intrusive 'mood music' (as subtle as the organ playing at an ice hockey match) indicating that the events being depicted by actors (who would be far better used as actors, rather than as plastic clothes horses serving as poor substitutes for the viewer's own imagination) are to be construed as dramatic and historical with a big "H", even if they are also simply the frenzied imaginings of the producers.
  
  There were several Marcellan Claudii who opposed Caesar - did the programme stipulate which one they were talking about? The two cousins who held the consulship in successive years (50 - 49BC) were instrumental in initiating the civil war based on anti-Caesar sentiment and principle but it was Marcus, the brother of the first consul (both had the same name Caius so were called 'major' and 'minor' to differentiate them), who was most actively in Pompey's camp, managed through the proconsuls' intercession to receive a pardon from Caesar, and who was assassinated by one of his own guard on the way home. There was absolutely no reason at the time to suppose Caesar ordered the assassination - why would he when he was in the middle of a huge 'clemency' thing at the time trying to end the civil war and cement alliances with his foes - and a disgruntled aide whose loyalty to the late Pompey led him to see his master as a turncoat was (and is) the much more likely explanation.
  
  Glad I missed the programme. Roman history can be confused enough without the Carry On Team's version becoming standard!

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire TV series - a dissenting view

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Sunday, 10th June 2007

  history programmes have been atrocious for a fair while now. theres a set called "secrets of ancient empires" that is particularly frustrating.

  Link to this forum: Roman Empire TV series - a dissenting view

  Report message3

Back to top