Romans and Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers 2017 Review
Disappointing
They got some facts wrong and omitted some others that are actually crucial.
Contrary to what a commentator claims, Roman armies were essentially militia instead of professionals until the Marian reforms of 107 BC.
Information technology was unlikely that Hannibal was Afro-looking. Carthago was itself a colony established by the Phoenicians and Hannibal was supposedly descended from Phoenician nobels. He near likely looked similar an Arab rather than an African.
The Scipio who fought Hannibal later in Carthago was really the son of the Scipio who went to Hispania merely failed to intercept Hannibal. In the show information technology was as if these ii had been the same guy.
The most important Roman figure during the war confronting Hannibal was Fabius Maximus. Yet he was non even mentioned once in the whole episode.
Hannibal eventually killed himself considering his patron at that time was being forced by Rome to deliver him. In the evidence it was as if he simply had got tired of life.
The only positive affair is that they unremarkably pronounced Scipio's name in the Latin way, i.east. Skipio instead of Sipio.
46 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Awful
I was very excited when I saw that this series was being aired. The thought of a well written and well acted await at the enemies of Rome, through their ain eyes is a very attractive one. All the same. I accept only been able to sentinel the starting time part of the first program which is about the bang-up general Hannibal Barca. This is a homo I know a lot about having read extensively virtually him. The plan is not interested in realism but in selling a story. First they make Hannibal black. In that location is no mention in any of the extensive Roman histories describing Hannibal every bit black. Still, I imagine it conforms to a certain blazon of historical wishful thinking. Underlined past the fact that they take Jesse Jackson commenting on the program. What does Jesse Jackson know about it? So much for experts... They keep calling Hannibal'southward troops 'Barbarians', why? I doubt even the Romans would have called them barbarians. The Carthaginians were a sophisticated empire that competed with Rome in many ways not just militarily. Hannibal was one of the bully, smashing generals of all time, yet the program skips over many of his greatest battles with barely a mention. I stopped watching.
63 out of 93 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A joke
Please, do not call this history. This is just a epic-romantic fictional drama. The fight of good against evil. An idealistic quest for freedom... Nothing to do with real history. Not only they become all the facts mixed up, when not entirely wrong, the worst is the "analysis" by the "experts". They actually sound like 7-year-olds talking virtually the last Disney cartoon. They exercise not understand the politics at all, how an empire is built. I gave it vi for the endeavour and, because as a work of fiction, information technology deserves some recognition.
ten out of 15 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Well worth watching
"Barbarians Ascension" offers a revolutionary perspective on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The traditional approach to the subject is that the Grecian "civilization" gave birth to the Roman "civilization" and somewhen led the path to "civilisation" as we know it today. This series has a unlike perspective, showing how the Roman "civilization" was an oppressor, taking lands and resources from less organized peoples and cultures, using harsh and often barbaric techniques. You may observe yourself cheering for the "barbarians" who resemble what are traditionally known today equally "freedom fighters". The idea that Rome was spreading civilization is turned upside downwards. Instead the makers of this documentary advise that the Romans are invaders who rape, pillage, and plunder their style around the Mediterranean seeking resource and slaves to maintain their lifestyle.
The series focuses on Hannibal (died 181 BCE) in Northern Africa, Viriatus (died 139 BCE) in Lusitania (Portugal), Spartacus (died in 71 BCE), Arminius (died in 21 CE) in Frg, Queen Boudica (died 60 CE) and Fritigern (died 380 CE) in Britain, Alaric (died 410 CE) of the Visigoths, Attila the Hun (died 453 CE), and Genseric (died 477 CE) of the Vandals.
The series is a bit claret thirsty, only so were the times. There are maps and voice overs to keep you well informed.
33 out of 68 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some educational value but past no means definitive.....
Firstly this is non, let me repeat this not, in my estimation, an accurate historical documentary. There's license taken with some of the historical facts in order, I doubtable to fit the flow of the story line(s) crafted for this brusque serial.
Casting that not inconsiderable fact aside, what this series does practise and does well, is bring a full general facsimile of ancient Western history live. This is a positive in so much every bit it that may encourage the interest of those who accept no academic background in the field of study.
What assists Barbarians Rising immensely, is a quality, by and large British cast. At that place are some well known faces here who exhale life, in a convincingly down to globe way, into primal historical players from the period.
As a note I'd add together some have criticized this serial because of its championship. Its true many of the civilizations the Roman's labelled "Barbarian" were sophisticated. Some more so than Rome itself. What this refers to is the Roman "mental attitude" towards other civilizations. This is clearly defined at the kickoff of each episode and indeed, does accurately reflect Romes general attitudes, to anyone not Roman or classically Greek.
All in all, as is often the example where historical truth meets the commercial imperative to entertain, some license has been taken but there is even so plenty on offer here, to say this series does have some full general educational value as well. vii/10 from me.
11 out of 20 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unwatchable
I made it 15 minutes into Ep. 1 and could non take more. At that place are and so many untruths in those 15 minutes, plus everything is presented in such an overly dramatic style, I turned it off. Coming back from the start commercial break, the narrator recaps everything that took identify in the first 10 minutes...Actually, practice they have such little respect for the viewer they assume attention spans are so short or is it uncomplicated laziness to stretch material? The History Channel should practice better than this...Roman history has some arguments going on notwithstanding, simply information technology is well established Hannibal was non African and neither was his begetter. These blazon of shows usually take historians and professionals who brand their life near ancient history....this plan has a Firm Rep. from Hawaii telling us '...the important affair about ability is who wields it' and as one of the 'Shark Tank' showed upward, I was out...done. Terrible, lazy effort History Channel.
29 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Only horrible
I wasn't going to review this series because I didn't think it deserved the effort. Information technology'southward that bad. But a unmarried argument in episode 1 was so infuriating, I had to annotate. At approx. 27 minutes in, an individual identified as Dr. Clarence B. Jones, a civil rights leader, makes the statement, "It was the barbarians, so called, who opposed slavery." In the context of this series, "barbarians" refers to the Carthaginians, although neither the Romans nor the Greeks would consider the Carthaginians to be barbarians. Did the Romans take slaves? Yes, they did. Did the Carthaginians have slaves? Yeah, they did. Did the true barbarians accept slaves (the diverse Germanic tribes, Visigoths, etc.?) Aye, they did. In fact, if you canvased the aboriginal world to see who took slaves and who did not, I don't think you would find any nation or tribe that did non take slaves. It's simply amazing that Dr. Jones' statement got past the History Channel editors unchallenged. And to make it into the terminal cut is unforgivable.
Many of the then-called "experts" in this series have no credibility at all. They may offer opinions, as we all tin can, only to promote them equally experts is simply bizarre. Jesse Jackson? This Dr. Jones? They may be experts in their respective fields, simply aboriginal history is not 1 of them.
The merely decision I tin can come to is The History Channel had an agenda with this series and was untroubled by promoting fake history if information technology will reinforce that agenda. The History Channel has been in a downward spiral for years, but this is so bad, information technology would be better if they had promoted it equally period reality TV cosplay. Simply horrible.
13 out of 18 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
C'mon really?spoilers
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler alert!!! I won't give too much away. This series had me very interested equally I'g a huge fan of ancient history,and Roman history. It'south well acted only they get basic details wrong from the commencement.Episode one made me cringe. Hannibal is portrayed as a black human being,which he was definitely not. Carthage is non given information technology's due as a contemporary rival to Rome but portrayed equally "barbarians" looking for freedom.the commentary includes prominent African Americans, leading the viewer to surmise that the conflict is somehow relevant to modern American race relations when information technology was in reality a state of war for trade and domination of the Mediterranean Body of water. Hannibals war machine achievements are largely missed altogether other than the march through the alps. If you lot have fifty-fifty a bones knowledge of ancient history you volition probably be disappointed. The interim is proficient, the history is definitely modern post atoning and why Jesse Jackson is a commentator is a mystery.the production past itself is worth watching imho but historical accurateness is not up to a channel that calls itself the history channel.history is not always pretty or one sided, this mockumentory attempts to give a modernistic have on complex issues in a modern pussified snowflake sensitivity kind of way
22 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not History only stories
When I listened that there was a series near ancient Rome coming from History Channel Documentary I said "It's a must to see", simply when at the end I can sentinel it I said "What they accept done?".
I believed History Channel was something y'all tin can trust when we talk almost History matters, but a moment subsequently I began to watch this .... (I don't know how to define it) I couldn't pass from the stories about Hannibal.
Carthaginian people wasn't barbarians, they were equals (if non more advanced) with Roman people if we talk virtually civilisation and the more than important and powerful empire in the western Mediterranean ocean.
I won't talk about Hannibal being black; I think I never read whatever fact about it, but it's true than I not retrieve anything against it either.
The facts than made me finish spotter this "history documentary" were, amid others, the demonization of some Roman generals only to idealize the "The Barbarian" side, not a actually historian signal of view; another affair is to make appear some characters out of their true office, like Scipio the African who was important years afterward Hannibal invade Italia because he was too young at this moment, or the missing reference about Fabius Maximus, the existent main enemy of Hannibal till he died of one-time age before Scipio defeated Hannibal.
Later on this I couldn't watch more, then I cannot follow talk about more chapters.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
No historical objectivity
As a former ancient history teacher, I found this series had a singled-out lack of objectivity, instead opting to take side of the barbarians as freedom fighters confronting the oppression of Rome. I besides noted the historical inaccuracies others have mentioned. History is nigh taking a adept look at all sides of the story, seeking out bear witness not just on the facts, but the motives backside them. This series over-sensationalizes the barbarians while leaving out the fact that some of them did not savor pop back up. Endeavor Terry Jones' Barbarians for a much better thought of what actually went on.
iii out of iii establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Historical events most historical characters challenging the rule of Rome , such as Boudica , Arminius, Alarico , Genserico, Fritigerno , Attila..
Televisión docudrama that arrogance on History Aqueduct, shot in Great britain and Bulgaria. Information technology deals with the true story of Rome through the optics of its primary contenders who fought strongly to come across its destruction. Narrated past Michael Healy , and by experts, scholars , and other hosts. Being well directed by Simon George, Sweeney and O'Dwyer . The series is told from the perspectives of those brave leaders of people that fought Rome who were termed equally Barbarians past the Romans. They battled cruelly and savagely and many myths, legends and heroes were born, these are the followings :
The notorious Carthaginian general Amilcar Barca had 3 sons , Asdrubal, Mago and Hannibal , all of them strike dorsum against Rome .During the second Punic war in 218 Bc Hannibal: Nicholas Pinnock , attacks the Roman Commonwealth by crossing the Pyrinees and the Alps with his vast regular army , he vanquished Fabio Maximus and , finally , defeated them in Trevia, lake Trasimeno, and Cannas , but being vanquished in Zama by Públio Cornelius Scipion. Then Hannibal committed suicide.
As the slave Spartacus: Ben Battle, in 73 bc leads a trigger-happy Revolt confronting the decadent Roman Democracy , after weeks of existence trained equally a gladiator for the arena he turns on his owners. He was a Thracian slave at a gladiators school, every bit the insurgence soon spreads forth Italy involving thousands of rebels to lead their concluding destination : Sicily . He and his thousands of freed slaves successfully make their fashion only to discover their centrolineal have abandoned them. Finally, they must face up the might of Rome represented past the powerful Marcus Licinius Crasus: Valentine Pelka.
In that location was a leader of Lusitania , the shepherd Viriathus who unleashes a wave of resistance to save his people from destruction . And Boudica : Kirsty Michell , the warrior Queen on Britain leads her tribe Icenos into rebellion confronting Rome , previously invaded by emperor Claudio and subsequently the mad emperor Nero. After her married man's expiry is left to Boudica to unite the fractious tribes of Celtics as Siluros and other Britons. The fiercy Iceni warrior , wife of a deceased King and proud female parent of 2 daughters stand up against the opressive and conquering empire. In raging torments and blood curling battles, the Barbarians and Roman legions , led past Paulinus who killed the Briton druids , fight a war of attrition, then ruthless and ominous that Boudica becomes a fable throughout the empire , the greatest the world has ever known.
In the beginning half of the first century , the Queruscos and other Teutonic tribes led by Arminius the terrible: Tom Hooper upheaval against the brutal Rome and other adversaries . Augustus: Steven Berkoff orders governor Varo to take command , simply he is really vanquished in the massacre of Woods Teoteburgo.
Meanwhile, the Roman frontier , chosen Limes , to Barbarians countries was being protected past the Roman/Goth general Stilichon simply he is unfortunately beheaded by the untrusted emperor . Long time later on, the brave leader Goth Fritigerno : Steven Washington defeats emperor Byzantine Valente in battle of Adrianapolis, 378, in the Roman province of Thracia . It concluded with an overwhelming Victory for the Goths and death of the Eastern emperor Flavio Julio Valente who was locked and burnt. Later on on , it takes identify the Rome sacking , 410 , past Alarico: Gavin Drea. And Genserico : Richard Brake , king of Vandalos, carries out Cartagho pillaging . His most famous exploit was the capture and plundering of Rome in June 455. Later , Atilla :Hostina , crossed the Danube twice and plundered the Balkans simply was unable to accept Constantinople commanded past Emperor Teodosius 2 . Attila was defeated by visigoth Teodorico who died in battle and past Full general Aecio in Catalunian Fields. However, Aecio was killed by the nasty emperor ValentÃniano III , son of Constantius and Galla Placidia, who previously married King Visigoth Ataulpho. And her daughter Honoria attempted to marry Attila to avoid the Rome invasion.
x out of 22 establish this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It could accept been expert if it stuck to the facts and history and avoided all the current day political correctness and rewriting history to fit their wish for the mode they wan
It could take been skillful if it stuck to the facts and history and avoided all the current day political correctness and rewriting history to fit their wish for the way they wanted history to accept been... In that location are some practiced tactical depictions and some good history merely in that location is besides much 'opinion' and political persuasion. And the 'documentary' loses all brownie when they allow Jessie Jackson spew his slanted, and false, narrations. Many other narrations were given by people with 'titles' in a failed effort to give the 'documentary' an air of credibility. Rome was by far the nigh civilized entity at the time. They provided more than justice, civil handling, regime, merchandise and commerce than anything that they opposed or that opposed them. Wherever they went they provided improve than the people had before them. If this is all y'all have heard about history, well, peradventure you can't see through the false impressions.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not good
I was very excited when I heard about this series,every bit there isn't much out at that place on Roman history. I enjoyed the ii other documentaries on the rise and fall of the roman empire. I a large fan of the testify Rome and spartacus,though they are not historically accurate ,but are TV serial. A documentary should do its all-time to create an enjoyable story and be historically accurate.
Barbarians rising did none of these. I totally agree with the above reviews on Hannibal. Scipios son not being mentioned is a huge corrigendum Heck how difficult would it have been to requite him his center patch, from losing his middle in boxing.
I did enjoy the the 2nd story on Veriatus. Maybe because I don't know much about his story. Spartacus,they butchered equally bad equally they did Hannibals story. They had him winning at Vesuvius and one other small battle. He fought several battles and won. Spartacus was tricked by some pirates who were suppose to bring him across the waters to Sicily. There's nix in history that says Marcus Crassus paid the pirates off,as they said in this episode. Information technology didn't say how Spartacus had to battle uphill in their last attempt to escape the tip and defeat Crassus. Not a mention of correct in the battle he killed his own horse,to rally his men
eighteen out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
History marked every bit. D at all-time. Every bit drama OK
It's revisionist history and a major disappointment becoming a propaganda theme for 'fighting for freedom'. While I greatly sympathise with blackness history- Hannibal as a blackness human being is wrong. Why not look towards the Numidian cavalry which were some of the best cavalrymen in the world at that time - used by Hannibal and later past the Romans?
Given the Usa. (and many other democracies) use a version of the Roman political system information technology is a fleck bizarre to berate the terrible Romans who similar to use the eagle symbol - I think the Us does too? What nearly the infusion of Roman legal, medical terms and it being the conduit for Christianity to flourish. The Roman Empire flourished for a k years afterward Rome itself savage in the Westward and held the knowledge that helped the Renaissance - ironically western mercenaries ably assisted the Turks in the devastation of its last vestiges.
It should likewise exist noted the many successfully completed guerrilla wars - Vietnam and Transitional islamic state of afghanistan as recent examples. In respect of Spain (showtime episode) - in current times there are nevertheless people seeking independence and being jailed for trying to use democracy to achieve it.
May watch more than - but equally drama, not history.
2 out of 2 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Horrible
Full and compete failure. The falsifying of history continues. They casted an African American to play Hannibal instead of using a Carthaginian looking actor ie Phoenician is Lebanese looking role player. Carthage was created by the Lebanese Phoenicians as a trading postal service along their thriving trading routes.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
This Documentary is a Joke!
Full of Faux information, American documentaries are full of Political Correctness unlike The European Documentaries.
ten out of xv plant this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interesting and well dramatized
A documentary series on the insubordinate leaders who stood upward to the Roman Empire, with varying degrees of success. Through narration, expert stance and dramatized scenes we see the histories of Hannibal, Viriathus, Spartacus, Boudica, Arminius, Fritigern, Alaric, Geiseric and Attila the Hun and their struggles for independence from Rome.
An interesting catamenia of history, with colourful subjects, well told. Well dramatized too - not just basic battle scenes as many military history series seem to consist of, merely decent dialogue and human being drama, in addition to some swell action scenes. Many well known actors and actresses likewise.
On the downside, the dramatization sometimes takes precedence over historical accurateness. Also, the experts that are wheeled out feel very staged, voice communication-filled, preachy and superfluous. For case, why on globe practice you need Jesse Jackson for a series near the Roman Empire? The experts are largely only padding.
11 out of 29 constitute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lacking objectivity
As an ex-high school Aboriginal History teacher, I thought this serial took a very ane-eyed view of Rome and, as others have pointed out, gets a few of the "facts" wrong. Information technology depicted the Romans as the bad guys and the barbarians as the good guys (and girls). The ancient globe was a pretty cruel place no thing where you were.
Call back back to the "What have the Romans ever done for u.s.?" scene in Monty Python'due south Life of Brian where the troupe satirically reels off a long listing of the good things the Romans had done. A lot of uprisings did non have pop back up, as many thought Rome offered an OK deal, or at least a better bargain than they were getting.
Rather than a one-sided narrative, this series would have been a lot better with some historical objectivity in the mix.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Anti-History at its greatest
I don't know if I'm making upward the term anti-history here, but it's exactly the word that should be used to depict this mess. I was actually looking forwards to watching this bear witness considering that we live in an age when the Internet has all the historical fact-checking tools limited just by the speed of our fingertips (or words if you're into vocalisation-recognition). I fully expected this show to incorporate conjecture in the areas of dramatization, and with those guest speakers who are not true historians(i.e. only in that location to pull the punters). Even so, equally other reviewers have noted, this testify is only designed to utilise the term "history" and characters that we know existed, to further an agenda or plot bespeak. That point is clearly anti-Roman slavery / "Fuck the police" mentality. Now, I'thou a person sympathetic to these ideas where they are advisable, however this is supposed to be a historical documentary! In guild to prove that this "documentary" is being used for an calendar, information technology is not required to get over historical facts, just the logical fallacies that are within the show. To be clear, I've only watched the first 1 and 1/2 episodes before i couldn't take information technology anymore.
1. Spartacus - The show defines Barbarian as one who is "not part of Rome or Greece." Thrace is Greek, Spartacus is a Greek proper name, so he's conspicuously not a Barbarian.
ii. Hannibal - The show claims that he is the "outset liberty fighter." Nevertheless, it is conspicuously stated in the bear witness that his motivations are revenge and a promise he made to his father.
etc...
In the above examples you can see that they've sacrificed accuracy for their agenda... that these "Barbarians" are somehow liberty fighters against an oppressive Rome. Yep, Rome had slaves, yes information technology was probably terrible. Yes, all slavery is terrible. However, all of these people probably had slaves themselves, slavery was common in and out of Rome, every bit far dorsum as we have truthful historical records. I'yard not saying that it shouldn't be fought against, just that you've ruined what could've been a great documentary past making information technology anti-history, giving the "Barbarians" motivations that have no factual basis whatsoever.
This series is truly awful and harmful and should be wiped from beingness.
21 out of 35 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
BARELY WATCHABLE AWFUL RE-IMAGINING OF HISTORY.
Yeah , i know this is docudrama just historical facts are pretty deficient. The nigh abrasive matter is Civil Rights leaders popping up pushing an calendar slyly equating Barbaric uprisings with the Ceremonious Rights Movement , which is ridiculous . Put your brain to 1 side and only remember Romans baaaaaaaaddd and Barbarianns gooooooood. Would have been a 2/10 only decent actors and good effects make information technology a iii/10.
4 out of half dozen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poor accurate.
History Aqueduct gives u.s. an unrealistic view of history. Comments from civil constabulary activists already show what this serial came from. Rome and the Greek nations are the basis of Western civilization. Hither they are painted with brutal usurper bandits, which does non stand for to the truth. All the cracking aboriginal nations such as Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Persians developed and expanded exactly as Rome did, merely none reached the human foot of the conquest it achieved. To Satanize Romans is to shoot yourself in the foot.
4 out of 5 institute this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Also 1 sided
Ok... So... As other reviews pointed out, some facts are just plainly incorrect and important elements totally omitted.
However, the worse thing about this documentary is the INSANE political position it takes... I hateful... Information technology is worse than Adept US and Evil Russians or Germans. Each "Barbarian" (some of which not existence Barbarians... Hannibal or Spartacus for example) is depicted as a Freedom Fighter versus the Roman Empire, the most EEEEEVIIIIIIL empire exiting on Earth.
I'm not saying Roman Empire was expert and gentle and yes they oppressed various cultures, yes they had slaves (as everybody had during those times... Athens did, Sparta did, Persian Empire did and most of the Barbaric factions), and yeah, similar whatever regular army (even United states ane) they committed atrocities, only Goddammit! This is supposed to exist a historical documentary not a Marvel moving picture...
And Ok, it's focused on the Barbarians, not on the Roman Empire. So I can get there is no reason to mention the insane evolution the Roman Empire provided to the unabridged occidental Europe. No need to say that it took virtually a millenia for Europe to recover from the fall and get back to the same levels of health, rubber, stable governments etc. Ok. It's not the focus and it's not what is driving me insane.
No, what drives me crazy is that yous can be prepared to ear like 10000 times: "Romans oppressed and raped and killed and raped and oppressed, and raped". "In their arrogance, Roman Empire..." all this in a very dramatic way, always highlighting how bad and evil Romans were..
And and so: "Boudicca killed ten,000 Civilians". This is a f****g War Law-breaking level of evilness. Only no... They say this similar just a uncomplicated normal fact.. Similar, "but yeah. Information technology'due south OK you know? It's normal, it's again the Roman Empire, and then that's fine". No mention of torture for the Barbarians? No rape? No genocide?
Give me a break.... Too cringy... Way too cringy...
What'due south the ptoblem? Is the producer / director jealous his country never shine in such a way for so long or what?
9 out of nineteen found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
worst of both worlds
This was in one case a DRAMA ONLY series, but the bad interim, cheap costumes and furnishings lead it to be REEDITED every bit a documentary... very poorly. This whole thing reeks of extremely low quality producers and directors. Has a great cast that i know tin act, too bad they were saddled with this mess.
i out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Facts non fiction
Why would you use American war machine veterans to explicate Roman history, European history, instead of a real and better documented historian, albeit an European one?
Why would you skip ii essential pieces of Roman history like Caesar in Gaul and Trajan in Dacia?
Why would you discard certain historic facts and instead dramatise the outcomes? Or goals?
Visually an story-wise it is attractive, but historically, not.
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fantabulous Docudrama
I call back the keyword hither is docudrama. Is the serial 100% authentic? No, it can't exist, we weren't there and most of the history of the times came from the Romans themselves. That said, it had well acted and engrossing stories that made me do much additional reading on the significant characters. It was enlightening, fun and entertaining to boot. If I was a teacher and wanted to get young adults interested in Roman history, I would definitely utilise this as an introduction. I highly recommend.
7 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5807292/reviews
0 Response to "Romans and Barbarians Beyond the Frontiers 2017 Review"
Post a Comment