Yesterday I browsed the 'Documentary' section on Netflix to find something interesting to watch. I came upon 'Roman Empire' - narrated by Sean Bean, it describes itself as stylish mix of 'epic' and documentary. I'm currently working on my Masters' Thesis in ancient history so I thought to myself 'hey, if nothing else it might be fun to take this whole thing apart and analyze it afterwards'.
How wrong I was.
The introduction alone was enough to enrage me. I started with Episode 1 of Season 3, which is about the reign of the emperor Gaius - more commonly known by his childhood nickname Caligula. Right away it began to perpetrate the whole 'CALIGULA IS KNOWN AS THE THE MAD EMPEROR' stereotype. Do you know why Caligula is known as the mad emperor? Because uncritical idiots like these writers continue to popularize this view of him that was transferred to us via hostile sources! Now, I could have forgiven them taking this angle, if only they had actually stuck to these sources. But no, Sir, oh no!
We start of with Caligula's childhood and his famous and popular father, Germanicus. Somehow Sean Bean has the knowledge that, and I quote, 'Germanicus was training Caligula to be a great warrior' - for which absolutely no evidence is given, or does in fact exist. It's true that Caligula and his mother, Agrippina Maior, had accompanied Germanicus to his German command, but Germanicus spent most of his time on campaign, and no such interaction between him and his son is mentioned.
Germanicus is also introduced as the 'sole heir to the emperor Tiberius', bis uncle and adoptive father. This is also wrong. Germanicus had been adopted by Tiberius as an heir, but was in fact part of a duo that was supposed to eventually take over the reigns of the empire, the other part of the duo being Tiberius' natural son Drusus. Neither Augustus, nor Tiberius had planned on a single person taking over after their death, and Augustus himself had always taken a junior partner during his own reign to help him out. This just shows a conceptually wrong understanding on part of the writers of the Principate as a monarchy. It eventually became that, but it was not envisioned as such at that time - remember, Augustus more or less improvised the whole system over many years, and Tiberius was the first one to take it over after him, so the system wasn't stabilized or formalized in many ways.
The documentary, again summoning secure knowledge of what people thought in their minds 2.000 years ago, then goes on to state that Tiberius, who is portrayed as a stereotypical tyrant reigning through terror - again, wrong, but at least consistent with some sources - wanted Germanicus dead to replace him with Drusus. Again, not a single shred of evidence for this exists, and it doesn't even make sense historically. Germanicus was popular and loyal, and Tiberius had no reason to destabilize his reign with such an act.
Germanicus is then poisoned and found dead in Germany, which is doubly ignorant: not only did he not actually die in Germany, but in the east of the empire, and it is also very unlikely that poison played a part in his death (although such rumours did exist back then!). Before he died Germanicus historically toured the east of the empire, likely catching some disease while in Egypt and dying because of that. We then see his corpse laying in state in Rome, his mourning family around it. Again, this is unneccessarily wrong: Germanicus' body was cremated, because that's what the Romans did, and his ashes brought to Rome. Why change such an unneccessary detail to be wrong?! I get it's more relatable to a Western audience, but it's not fucking supposed to be relatable, it's supposed to be accurate. The reality of Agrippina making a dramatic entrance with her husband's ashes, the mourning masses flocking to join the procession is also so much better than what they pictured. So they changed this to be not only more inaccurate, but also less visually dramatic.
Now, apart from the fact that the writers have obviously not consulted any historians or ever read a history book to get the facts right, the show also looks like trash. The costumes change scene by scene to depict republican outfits, then imperial outfits, and then sometimes late imperial outfits. People wear unhistorical leather cuirasses and look more like fantasy warriors than Romans. For some reason Tiberius wears armour in Rome - of course it's black armour, so you know he's a bad guy.
So, that's the first ~15 minutes of Episode 1 Season 3 of 'Roman Empire' - I couldn't continue to watch at this point, because at this point my blood began to boil. It's absolute garbage, has nothing at all to do with real history, and quite frankly it's insulting and false advertising to even call it a documentary. It's nothing else than trashy fiction. Please stop butchering history and insulting the viewer's intelligence - it's much more interesting and fascinating without your trashy addons for 'dramatic' purposes.
0/10, do not recommend.
Watch BBC's I, Claudius, HBO's Rome or Starz' Spartacus instead - they know that they're dramas and make it clear that they are not trying to depict history accurately.
Netflix has some interesting documentaries, but it is always their spin on it. Even when they cover two sides of something, they direct in such a way to try in have your view meet one of their perceptions. Whenever I watch one of their documentaries and usually end up doing a lot of fact checking so that I'm fully informed on what I actually watched. It's too bad about the show you mention because the version you tell sounds even more interesting to me lol.
On February 21 2020 21:47 Zambrah wrote: ALL OF THAT happened in FIFTEEN MINUTES?
Oh man, sounds like a ride.
Yep! I had an entire page of notes after those 15 minutes and was too salty to continue watching.
On February 21 2020 22:46 BisuDagger wrote: Netflix has some interesting documentaries, but it is always their spin on it. Even when they cover two sides of something, they direct in such a way to try in have your view meet one of their perceptions. Whenever I watch one of their documentaries and usually end up doing a lot of fact checking so that I'm fully informed on what I actually watched. It's too bad about the show you mention because the version you tell sounds even more interesting to me lol.
It really is too bad! This period of history especially is really fascinating and intriguing, even after you take out the more scandalous/unrealistic parts of the ancient narratives, as historians often do (for an 'unfiltered' depiction of this period, watch/read I, Claudius, which extensively used the Roman sources, but went about it rather uncritical).
Which is why I'm so puzzled by some of the decisionmaking here. The material is so rich in everything that makes for good TV, and could be presented interesting even in a more academic documentary setting.
Real life history does tend to be more interesting than false narratives, so it's baffling when familiarity is chosen. Leather depictions of the metal armour the Romans did use is a pet peeve of mine, especially since steel armour is so much better looking than leather.
Ancient history is so interesting!! I'm finishing up my last semester of undergrad as a history major and I've loved it, more of a modern history guy but that's sounds like a fascinating thesis. Seeing popular depictions of history can be pretty painful.
Shame that they have to lie and call it a documentary. Netflix must have a thing for leather outfits. I was enjoying a show called The Last Kingdom that started on BBC but got taken over by Netflix in 3rd season. Sure enough fetish leather outfits replaced the serviceable armor of the previous seasons.
On February 21 2020 23:34 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Real life history does tend to be more interesting than false narratives, so it's baffling when familiarity is chosen. Leather depictions of the metal armour the Romans did use is a pet peeve of mine, especially since steel armour is so much better looking than leather.
Very much agreed! Normally the imperial era lorica segmentata is what's commonly used for the depiction of legionaries, even when they try to depict earlier troops, simply because it so recognisibly Roman. Once again I'm baffled by the decisionmaking, since this is exactly the timeframe this armour would've come to be widely used in the army - they could have had an accurate and badass depiction of the legionaries.
On February 22 2020 01:54 sneakyfox wrote: I feel you brother. Don't turn on the History Channel, you might end up just jumping out of the window.
I've heard many negative things about the History channel (and I know the 'aliens?' meme of course). We have a similar phenomenon in Germany, where most history/documentary focused channels will just show Hitler/Nazi documentaries all day long, as if history only has that one subject.
On February 22 2020 07:52 starkiller123 wrote: Ancient history is so interesting!! I'm finishing up my last semester of undergrad as a history major and I've loved it, more of a modern history guy but that's sounds like a fascinating thesis. Seeing popular depictions of history can be pretty painful.
Sounds awesome! What do you find most interesting in modern history? My thesis specifically is about comparing the construction of stereotypes around imperial women and the praetorian guard in roman literature - there are some surprising and interesting patterns between these two very different groups, who've both gotten the shit end of the stick in historical treatment.
On February 22 2020 09:05 skindzer wrote: LOL I thought the criticism covered several episodes and then realized it was just 15 minutes.
I'd probably have to write an entire paper about a whole episode of this thing. Also get drunk to calm me down beforehand or something. :D
On February 22 2020 14:44 Starlightsun wrote: Shame that they have to lie and call it a documentary. Netflix must have a thing for leather outfits. I was enjoying a show called The Last Kingdom that started on BBC but got taken over by Netflix in 3rd season. Sure enough fetish leather outfits replaced the serviceable armor of the previous seasons.
Love The Last Kingdom, and totally agree! It's also noticeable in the battle scenes - they've gone from pretty authentic and accurate depictions to very unrealistic and Hollywood-esque over time, which really is a shame.
Knowing almost nothing about ancient history and having never watched the show, this was so entertaining! Seriously if academia doesn't work out for you you need to be a tv critic or something.
I've got a masters degree in early modern age history, I feel your pain. My main research field was the protestant reformation. Martin Luther is a very famous dude in Germany, 2017 was the big "Luther year". TV was brimming with shitty documentaries. Imho, it's not a big problem to simplify things. Hell, even adding some drama can work fine, but it has to be at least based on facts.
I also remember watching "Hitler's circle of evil" (I think that was the title) on Netflix a few years ago. That shit was utterly terrible. Bad research, hilariously bad acting, bad cinematography. But hey, Hitler.
I think I lost it laughing when I read that this was all the stuff you’d found that was incorrect in the first 15 minutes alone.
Either do a transparently dramatised story or an actual properly researched documentary, but don’t dress one up as the other.
It’s a shame as I do like this topic and general area and would love to have some good docs to watch late at night. As others have said too it’s even more baffling as some of the factual events are more dramatic and interesting than the stuff that replaces them.
Would there be any decent documentaries you would recommend?
On February 23 2020 01:55 mierin wrote: Knowing almost nothing about ancient history and having never watched the show, this was so entertaining! Seriously if academia doesn't work out for you you need to be a tv critic or something.
Hehe, thanks! Glad you enjoyed this little rant.
On February 23 2020 03:35 virpi wrote: I've got a masters degree in early modern age history, I feel your pain. My main research field was the protestant reformation. Martin Luther is a very famous dude in Germany, 2017 was the big "Luther year". TV was brimming with shitty documentaries. Imho, it's not a big problem to simplify things. Hell, even adding some drama can work fine, but it has to be at least based on facts.
I also remember watching "Hitler's circle of evil" (I think that was the title) on Netflix a few years ago. That shit was utterly terrible. Bad research, hilariously bad acting, bad cinematography. But hey, Hitler.
Oh, I agree - simplification is often a must when presenting topics to a wider audience, and obviously I'm totally fine if people do that, but as you said it must still remain within the facts.
On February 23 2020 23:07 Wombat_NI wrote: I think I lost it laughing when I read that this was all the stuff you’d found that was incorrect in the first 15 minutes alone.
Either do a transparently dramatised story or an actual properly researched documentary, but don’t dress one up as the other.
It’s a shame as I do like this topic and general area and would love to have some good docs to watch late at night. As others have said too it’s even more baffling as some of the factual events are more dramatic and interesting than the stuff that replaces them.
Would there be any decent documentaries you would recommend?
Specifically about Caligula there is a good documentary presented by scholar Mary Beard and produced by the BBC. Now, Mary Beard's view of history and approach to our sources is not without flaws - no historian's view really is - and can be rightly criticized, but she's highly respected in the academic community. I find all her documentaries quite well presented and acessible. She's quite funny and very educational, and she approaches our sources critically.
Ah, I am reading with immense joy the book The Roman revolution and it's from one of the most if not the most distinguished historians of 20-th century and is highly reputable. I stumbled upon this show and I was wondering if I should watch it because it is for the Roman empire and I kind of admire the Romans. Good thing this post came along. Thank you.
On March 01 2020 00:55 JoinTheRain wrote: Ah, I am reading with immense joy the book The Roman revolution and it's from one of the most if not the most distinguished historians of 20-th century and is highly reputable. I stumbled upon this show and I was wondering if I should watch it because it is for the Roman empire and I kind of admire the Romans. Good thing this post came along. Thank you.
Glad I could save you from wasting your time!
And yes, every historian studying Ancient Rome and the Principate does owe a debt to Syme for his remarkable and influential body of work. Do keep in mind, however, that 'The Roman Revolution' was written back in 1939 and very much projected developments of Syme's own time (such as in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union) back onto the Roman Republic - using the word 'revolution' for example is a very visible reminder of this. Syme's work should thus always be read with that context in mind, as no writer is above being influenced by the developments and ideas of their time.
On March 01 2020 18:33 TheOneAboveU wrote: Syme's work should thus always be read with that context in mind, as no writer is above being influenced by the developments and ideas of their time.
Vuluable advice indeed. He kind of stressed the same about Sallustius and Tacitus - they were both products of their time and wrote accordingly. Just as Syme does. This does not diminish the quality of his work, it is truly monumental, even taken with a grain of salt, like you suggest. I feel like this is the right place to ask. Can you recommend me some other historical books about the Republic and the Principate? I do not mean novels like I, Claudius, just pure historical books.
On March 01 2020 18:33 TheOneAboveU wrote: Syme's work should thus always be read with that context in mind, as no writer is above being influenced by the developments and ideas of their time.
Vuluable advice indeed. He kind of stressed the same about Sallustius and Tacitus - they were both products of their time and wrote accordingly. Just as Syme does. This does not diminish the quality of his work, it is truly monumental, even taken with a grain of salt, like you suggest. I feel like this is the right place to ask. Can you recommend me some other historical books about the Republic and the Principate? I do not mean novels like I, Claudius, just pure historical books.
It really depends on where your interests are since as you can probably imagine there's really a ton of material available for this timeframe, and a lot of it is specialized on certain topics. So if there's something you're especially interested in - be it a person, a province, some political development, whatever really - let me know, and I can give you a more specific recommendation.
If you want to stick to the timeframe 'Roman Revolution' deals with, you could check out Adrian Goldsworthy's 'Augustus. From Revolutionary to Emperor' (2014). Goldsworthy has a very accessible writing style and knows his sources. This would give you a more modern take on a period you're already familiar with, including all the newer evidence that was unearthed since Syme's book was released. It also has an extensive bibliography from which you could pick out something that interests you, which is something I'd definitely recommend you to do if there's no specific topic you already have in mind.
I think perhaps something like Anthony Barrett's 'Agrippina. Mother of Nero' (1996) could be interesting to you if you like reading about the family relations in the nobility and how they influenced politics, and it offers valuable lessons when it comes to dealing with our main sources for the time period.
Speaking of main sources - reading Caesar etc. is easier than ever nowadays, because translations are widely available, so that is always an option.
Tbh, I actually really admire Cicero's writing style and mostly his philosophical works on ethics, like Tusculan disputations and On duty. Yet his character seems to be wildly controversial, some claim he was the embodiment of Roman civil virtue, others - that he has been a spineless coward that goes with anyone in power. I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If you can point me to some works on his life and deeds from which I can form a really educated opinion on him, I would appreciate it immensely. I know that his character, whatever it actually was, does in no way diminish the quality of his writing yet I am curious.
I can say the same about Lucius Seneca actually. Yes, Cicero and Seneca. And Gaius Pollio, Julius Caesar's lieutenant. I hope I am not overwhelming. If I am, just ignore me, I won't mind. As it is now, I will surely take your suggestion and read Adrian Goldsworthy's 'Augustus, after I finish The Roman revolution. And I can only finish with saying how awesome and kind and polite you are to be taking the time and helping me develop my knowledge. Thank you!
EPT
