Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
roman empire
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by ladytee (U6267504) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
just wanted to say that the series on the roman empire is excellent viewing. my son has learnt a great deal from the series so far as i have too. maybe the bbc should consider doing a series like this about british history????
-
Message 2
Posted by TheGalloway (U5972718) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
I enjoyed it a lot, excellent viewing.
-
Message 3
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
i thought it had enough historical stuff not to over load a viewer and hopefully get people wanting to read history but lets have more British History. we must be the only country in the world that doesnt teach it at high school level! and its so important, it would help alot of people to know how and why we have such a nation as today!
-
Message 4
Posted by GertFrobe (U4970811) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
It was very well shot as well. Very atmospheric, especially when compared to shows like Torchwood and Dr Who where everything looks a bit cheap. I'm not an expert in media, but the director and producers on Ancient Rome have done a great job.
Educational too.
Gert. -
Message 5
Posted by U6269921 (U6269921) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
Isn't it smashing when the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ gets it soooo right!
-
Message 6
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
My major gripe was the order in which the episodes were shown. very confusing, for example the first was about Nero. It then shot back to Caesar, then forward to I forget who, then back, forwards - aarrgghh! Why didn't the episode with Vespasian putting down the hebrew revolt (which I thought was the best) follow Nero, I wonder?
-
Message 7
Posted by qqq111qq (U6358436) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
I'm no historian but am fascinated by the Romans and their success. The series gave a great deal of insight into the workings of the Empire and it would be fantastic to see one on the Vikings, Normans, Saxons or even the mamouth task of charting the ethnic origins of modern Europe.
-
Message 8
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
Missed the last two eposodes - I occasionly have a social life - were they any good, in particular were they accurate? Did the last one discuss Stilachio? (not sure of spelling)
-
Message 9
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Yes, the last one started with Stilicho's murder.
Personally, I thought the whole concept of putting a programme on ancient history on Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ1 at 9pm was an excellent idea, I'd much rather see my licence fee go on that than on "Celebrity vets dance challenge karaoke" and that sort of garbage, BUT....
Why no chronological order? Why have an episode on Tiberius Gracchus but ignore his brother? A better order would have been Gracchus, Caesar, Nero, Vespasian, Constantine, Alaric. How they could have Caesar and miss out Sulla and Marius is beyond me too! -
Message 10
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Sulla would have been great entertainment too. Can you imagine the potential for slapstick comedy with his sense of humour and love of proscriptions?
RF -
Message 11
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Slapstick comedy RF?
"Off with his 'ead!", Frankie Howerd tittering in the background as Lurcio?
Octavian would have made an outstanding episode in my opinion, bringing back the proscriptions before settling down to be one of the best emperors they ever had. -
Message 12
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
Totaly agree, DL, especially as to the 'why no Marius?' issue. I was also puzled by the claims in the papers that Ti. Gracchus was at the root of the downfal of the Republic - for me, the surprising thing about his use of the power of the Tribunitian veto was that nobody else had employed it to full its potential before.
If I had to pick a mere 6 subjects for the rise & fall of the Empire then I reckon they'd be:
1 Marius (professionalisation of the army)
2 Publius Clodius Pulcher (mob rule & old system's unsuitability for governing anything larger than a city state)
3 Octavian (1st emperor)
4 Constantine (though I'd show him being elevated to the Purple in Britain)
5 Adrianople (admission of barbarians to the Empire on their terms rather than the Empire's)
6 Mohammed (yup!) -
Message 13
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Wednesday, 1st November 2006
DK,
The trouble with your first 3 choices is that they are too close together. Essentially you could use Tom Holland's Rubicon as a source for all of them - they all deal with the fall of the republic.
One on Mohammed would just be too controversal...
My choices would have been -
1. Gracchus brothers.
2. Caeser
3. Augustus, but starting after he became emporer so that it is not just a sequel of Caeser.
4. Constantine starting as you say in York
5. Belisarus and the Gothic and African wars to get the link to the Byzantine empire -
Message 14
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Morning DK,
Good to see your evil feline presence back on the boards!
Mohammed? I see where you're coming from with this, digging up old Palaeologus again, but call me picky but I don't class Byzantium as being Roman, it's more a sort of a Greek/Roman/whatever hodge-podge of an empire in my opinion. Yes it was officially the Eastern Roman Empire, but, well, it just isn't Rome! My opinion is that it ceased to be the Roman empire on the day that a dodgy Germanic type named Odoacer woke up one morning and said to his mates "This Romulus Augustulus bloke's not very good, I can do a better job!". Once Rome ceased to be part of "Rome", Byzantium appeared, with all its namby-pamby ritual and silly long names. Basileus indeed, what sort of name is that?
Personally, I lose interest when we get to the Severan era. After that the emperors just don't have the impressive stature anymore.
Agreed on your other points, although to widen knowledge, I'd have used Cato instead of Caesar. Octavian would have made an excellent episode, and personally I can't wait for the next Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ/HBO series of "Rome"! I personally think they've got Octavian down to a tee, a bit nerdy, observant, extremely intelligent, watching and learning all the time, and it makes it all the more interesting knowing that he's going to bash some heads shortly!
Agreed on all the other points, couldn't believe they left out Adrianople either.
Clodius and Milo's fight for control of the mob would have been very good indeed!
And lastly, but definitely not least, one of my favourite characters in history, Catiline! Everyone always forgets Catiline!! -
Message 15
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
Colquhoun,
Agreed, but I find the fall of the Republic one of the most fascinating times in history, and it was the moment that Rome became the world's first superpower. Holland's book could indeed be used as a source for all, I found it an excellent read, and highly entertaining too!
Currently reading "Persian Fire" which is his take on the clash between the Greeks and the Persians, equally as good so far. He started the book with a nice comparison between the so-called "clash of civilisations" between the Middle East and the West in modern times, an interesting concept-removing religion from the east/west divide. -
Message 16
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Thursday, 2nd November 2006
I have read Persian fire as well and found I too found it an excellant read.
There does appear on the surface at any rate a continuation in the conflict between the middle east and the west dating back to the Greek Persian wars - Persians hordes attacking Greece; the Parthenan and then Sassanid threat to the eastern Roman empire; Arab and then Turkish hordes overrunning the Byzantine empire and much of eastern Europe.
On the TV series I have realised that I only gave five choices. I think a sixth could have involved the wars with Macedonia and Selucia. This part of Romes expansion is rarely publisised and tends to be forgotten about as it happened relatively soon after the final defeat of Hannibal. -
Message 17
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 5th November 2006
DL while it is your right to say that Byzantines were weird and had mumbo-jumbo rituals, the truth is that they outperformed Romans on most domains (apart bloody spectacles) employing the 1/30th of their army for protecting lands only 1/2, 1/3 later 1/4 and 1/5 smaller than the early Roman Empire, they produced more science (tell me just one Roman mathematician, or a doctor, - bridges are not that much an excuse for high-end science. It is not a secret that the global level of civilisation rested stagnant between 100 B.C. and 400 B.C. and took off again when then center moved again in the east (for well-known reasons). A bit unfair what you say for an Empire that was the focal point of the world for 1000 years (Rome was only for 500), that was generally not expansionist, that was responsible for the enlightment of western and eastern Europeans and Arabs (who imitated it to the bone), that brought into existence notions such as social state, public hospitals, public universities, a state that still remains one of bureaucracy that rarely seemed to hinder productivity and commerce, not to mention that it was the one that gave the Roman Law (Romans never sat down to write seriously law) ... having laws such as forbiding the construction of buildings higher than... 9 storeys (earthquake risks)... so much for bridge building.
The truth is that western Europeans in their effort to seek as much at west their past they tend to look Rome but then nobody sat down to explain why Europe remained within the group of backwards places on earth well after the fall of Rome and why only when it managed (one way or another) to sack the Eastern Empire to take off... hence there is little doubt that the contribution of Rome to western Europe was not that much as people think (there are some 1000 years of difference between 300 A.D. and 1300 A.D....). Hence, that leaves no doubt that Romans had not much to do with what Europe became later but it was Byzantium.
Like it or not it was Eastern Empire with its mumbo-jumbo and not the likes of Sulla and Ceasar or Adrianus. If the same holds true for Arabic civilisation (and it holds true as the same Arabs admit), then the mumbo-jumbo Byzantine ritual certainly outperformed not only in years but in every other sense the Roman cheap extravaganza. -
Message 18
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 5th November 2006
Honestly this "Roman Heritage" in western Europe and the 1000 years gap always puzzled me!
-
Message 19
Posted by sagethyme (U5272261) on Thursday, 9th November 2006
Agree with most of your posts especially how good the episodes were and would have been better in chronological order.
I am still in pre-mod so hope this appears before you have all moved on!
One nit-pick on the otherwise excellent settings: surely the standard legionary armour changed a little between the Gracchi and Constantine?
The senators also looked just the same after several hundred years of sitting on a bench in a toga.... -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 9th November 2006
I do not agree with the view that the Roman army changed little from the Gracchi to Constantine. I think it changed considerably. Where most people (even adept historians) make a mistake is that they have in mind a picture of Roman soldiers in a perfect array, clad in red skirts and carrying oval or rectangular shields and protected by those typical roman helmets and strip armour (the loricae segmentata). Of course this is the picture of the Roman praetorian between the late 1st and early 3rd century - and we are talking about praetorians dressed for the emperor's triumph. Troops on the outposts of the empire would had been much less impressive and more of a motley crew even in this heyday period of the Roman Empire. In Republican times, the roman soldier would bear little resemblance to the impressive praetorian since most soldiers carried a cheap heavy wooden oval shield, no armour (but still not very agile because of the heavy shield), a simple helmet and 1-2 spears and a sword of any type. Chain and scale mail became more frequent only at the time of Ceasar but again not for the 100% of soldiers.
I have highlighted that the Roman army in Republican times was really whatever in terms of appearence - an absolute motley crew, and the same goes for their battle tactics. It is no secret that they did not built their Empire out of the quality of weapons or even the tactical military capacity of their armies but out of the amazing capacity of their diplomacy to ensure "pre-bought" victories or otherwise endless numbers of allies and mercenaries to throw in battle. As proof of what I am saying comes their military records that were never any excellent, more or less 50-50%: They lost twice from Phyrrus, king of Epirus but had hordes more of soldiers to throw in so Phyrrus left without achieving much (i.e....Phyrreian victory!), later they suffered humiliatingly grave losses from Hannibal but still had another half million or more of hordes to drop in the war - Carthagenians had not that luxury so they lost. So terrible is their record that they had managed to lose 50,000 soldiers in only one battle with little if no saved people and this not because they were men of honour and stayed to the end but because they were encircled so they had no way out. Encircled by Hannibal that employed about half their numbers! That was almost unheard in those times... yet it was them that built successfully a stable Empire that remained for more than 300 years, not the Carthagenians, nor the generally military efficient Greeks.
The Roman army, however, was an army that evolved according to the ne threats. Hence, through the difficult period of the 3rd century it saw a lot of changes and by Constantine times it did not resemble in many things with the older legionaire. In Constantine's times the Roman soldier was largely resembling the Persian soldier (helmet, chain/scale armour asian-style) etc. It is that armour that remained in use with little changes throughout the middle ages.
For all those that think that the Roman army did steps backwards, I need only to emphasise that the previous lorica segmentata armour was no Roman great invention but was a design used by ... Myceneans some 2000 years earlier (and in much more impressive forms) hence, I cannot see the reason why its introduction in the Roman army was a step forward and the turn back to chain mail a step backwards. Afterall if you have to deal with non-gunpowder weaponry you have 10-20 solutions, not more. Most of these were known and used even by late 2nd millenia B.C. and thus whatever choice on design of weaponry one made was at the end of the day depending on the enemies he faced and the money he was willing to throw in. You certainly cannot expect Romans to had payed shining lorica segmentatas for all of the 1 million soldiers they employed, not even for the half or the 1/4 of that. For some 100-150.000 maybe but that is maximum. The rest was equipped according to needs and availability. -
Message 21
Posted by sagethyme (U5272261) on Thursday, 9th November 2006
Thanks E_Nik, you have confirmed what I expected and what I guessed in my original post.
Now I expect the senators and other folk also changed their fashions in the 500 or so years covered by the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ series?
But I do not wish to criticise the otherwise enjoyable series for having to use the same 'extras' for every episode! -
Message 22
Posted by generallobus (U1869191) on Friday, 10th November 2006
I'm sure I spotted a Roman soldier using a plumbata (lead weighted dart) in the Constantine episode. When did these become standard issue?
-
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 10th November 2006
Sagethyme, it is very understandable that in a documentary on Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Arabs or Chinese etc., the film director will select the most capturing photographic moments and certainly a group of shiny legionaires in perfect array is indeed a capturing moment. Imagine they tried to get it to the last detail, then you would have a less shiny group of soldiers (though still in perfect array! no doubt!) some with badly maintained weaponry, some lacking one or two components (a sword here a knife there), one with a rectangular (imperial) shield one with an oval (republican) one, one with a helmet type B one with a helmet type C and their officer with a bronze helmet (people make the mistake to think that Romans had it all in iron - actually them also they largely prefered bronze but at those times bronze was considerably more expensive).
What I like in the Roman army is not so much their appearence or their discipline, nor their records (as I said quite mediocre on the overall) but that it is an army that made sense. Yes they had experienced grave defeats but they seemed to learn from their mistakes and evolve.
What I mentioned above about the 3rd century evolution was all about the wars in the east. The rise of the new Persian kingdom of Sassanides was largely based on the highly efficient Persian troops that broke with Persian tradition of light cavalry-infantry that did not aid them much against the Greek/Roman tight tactics employing heavy infantry by employing tight tactics but of ultra-heavy cavalry, the well known Persian cataphracts who were able to briefly dissolve in most times the enemy's phalanxes with one charge.
Romans saw it and took it instantly. They also copied the Persian helmet (that became the standard for the middle ages throughout Europe) and turned back to chain mail and scale mail that are cheaper and more easily repairable thus more suitable for troops that have to be self-sustained for longer away from the supply lines since that was the need in those difficult times. It all coincides with greater organisational changes that were enforced during that period (abandonment of the legionaire tactics, smaller sizes of armies but more independency for gaining agility and reactivity etc.). Of course al$l these coincide also with reduced financial support from the state that would seek how to reduce military expenses - an effort that remained also the main idea of most Byzantine emperors (most famous example was Mauricius and Phocas, the latter took the throne when the former tried to reduce the wages then himself he found the same problems and ended up doing the same thus his lost to Heraclius who managed it better).
Rome was no Greek cities of 10-20-30,000 citizens that had the obligation to buy their weapons. The Roman state had to equip 100,000s of soldiers thus the financial burden was considerable hence such issues played an important role in the choice of weaponry along with effectiveness. The choice of chain mail and persian helmet was the golden solution and that explains why it remained for so long in service. -
Message 24
Posted by Pedantic Programmer (U5353495) on Saturday, 11th November 2006
If you ask me, there isn't much to see in terms of Ancient British History - why does it matter that we live in Britain? Surely we should be looking at the relevance of History today, and, especially in a television series, how interesting it is. I am, admittedly, quite ignorant to Ancient British History, but, as far as I am aware, there was littte going on but tribal wars, attacks on the roman empire, hadrian's wall and some other wall.
-
Message 25
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007
Hi All,
Just a quick one to say that this series is now being repeated on UKTV History this week (they repeated them non-stop all day yesterday). They're running a "Rome Season" which lasts all week as far as I know, so there may also be some decent documentaries on.
So, if you missed any episodes, or just want to experience the absolute joy of seeing the Dad from "Shameless" portraying Constantine the Great, then now's your chance.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 26
Posted by eques_99 (U7027104) on Friday, 1st June 2007
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 minded defender of the poor against 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.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.