Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

A Discovery Channel Feature: The Battle For Rome


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yay...the Discovery Channel is having a special feature on Roman Emperors....and it's not like those crappy History Channel ones...

Link to website

 

 

Here's the episode guide:

Episode Guide

 

Oh, It begins tomorrow on Sunday in America.

 

Thank you for posting FVC, I was completely unaware of this show... would've missed it entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this the same series discussed by our trans-Atlantic friends?

 

groan , the same! It is not good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the Graccus episode and the Caesar one tonight. I didn't stay up for the Nero one and didn't finish the Caesar one. I thought it was well done and far better than the HC ones. The only reason I didn't finish them was that I had a report to finish for tomorrow. All in all, I hope they do more of these. It was kind of like watching a movie, rather than a few repeat shots of reenactors followed by tedious comentary, followed by a million repeated commercials. Instead, this was a clean, straight narritive, cut up by a million repeated commercials. F'ing commercials...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw "Tiberius", "Caesar", and "Nero" last night. All had very good production values (cinematography, etc), and they all went a little deeper into their respective subjects than the standard History Channel special. Unfortunately, the historical narrative itself was a tad cartoonish.

 

For example, Tiberius Gracchus is portrayed as a Christ-like figure (complete with long hair!), who loves the poor but is martyred for it by the mean old rich Romans. (The one exception was Pulcher, who tells Gracchus that the rich have a moral duty to help the poor--a notion straight out of Christianity but absolutely NOT part of Greco-Roman ethics.) Like the explanation of some religious dogma, one never gets the sense that there could have been ANY legitimate grounds for opposing Gracchus' proposals. This is a shame because the land proposals in "Tiberius" were far more radical than the ones the real Tiberius Gracchus proposed. Of course, everyone who opposes Gracchus is portrayed as an evil snob, and everyone who supports Gracchus is portrayed as a benevolent idealist. If you loved "Titanic", you'd probably love this too--though this disaster didn't even have a soundtrack.

 

"Caesar" and "Nero" were fairly similar for oversimplifying the basic narrative. Strangely, Caesar was portrayed as a highly unsympathetic character, which is a nice twist I guess, but I'd like to think that there were better reasons to oppose Caesar than the fact that he was a melodramatic drama-queen. (At least they got Cato's age right, unnerving though it was to see Karl Johnson talking to Cato rather than for Cato.)

 

I thought "Nero" was the most enjoyable of the three, but that's because I'm prepared to believe most anything about that nutball. It's only too bad they didn't bring in Petronius, the most interesting character of the period and the perfect foil to Tigellinus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think 'cartoonish' was the best description so far, although I was only able to catch the Nero episode in it's entirety. Quite an over the top acting job and entertaining to boot. A bit impressed that in the Caeser episode the soldiers seem to be wearing the Montefortino helmets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps..But completely in line with the roman system of patronage, no?

 

Except that there's no evidence for such a Roman system of patronage. It's a Mommsenian reconstruction that could be totally false. We do have evidence that religious colleges provided some support for the poor (e.g., in providing for funeral arrangements), but there's nothing in the literature indicating that politicians had some moral duty to care for the poor--which isn't to say that they never did so.

 

BTW, I'm glad Julius Ratus mentioned Labienus. The portrayal of Pharsalus was better than average. However, they missed that Labienus' retreating cavalry stampeded over Pompey's slingers and archers thereby effectively wiping out Pompey's advantage in missle troops (suggesting that the loss of Labienus might not have been such a bad thing for Caesar!) and costing Pompey the battle. Instead, all the blame for the loss at Pharsalus is put on Marcellus and Cato, and Cato wasn't even present at Pharsalus! Again, these fictions are introduced to cement the cartoonish narrative--Caesar good, Senate bad.

 

Anyway, I hate to complain about this series because I'd really like there to be more of them, and I hope they inspire people to buy books on ancient Rome--but it would be nice if some more of those books were read by the film producers themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I read this now... :sadwalk:

 

I WILL NOT miss the ones next Sunday! Hopefully the previous 3 mentioned play again sometime...

Edited by Antiochus of Seleucia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...