Colosseum

Colosseum

Overall we learnt quite a bit, but it was quite a mixed bag of generalisms and grandstanding by several historians who went way beyond the history. All emperors had access to use the Colosseum to advance there standing with the people of Rome, not true, the Colosseum typified Rome not true, circus Maximus was the main draw in Rome. Gladiators were trained slaves not wholly true many freedmen to fame and wealth and chose to be gladiators. The Colosseum was how slaves became freedmen, not true Romans free thousands of people each year and even married them.

Several episodes dragged terribly and just kept repeating the same stuff, the worst one was the Martyr.

Overall I liked it but the historians irritated, one man moved his hands matching every syllable, this is like a text message in capitals it shouts at you. For me this is a 6 outta 10, it could have been great but turned out pedestrian.

This is how Roman history would have been if it had been Americans.

I'd quite like to see Mary Beard's (an actual academic that focuses on this period) opinion on this (I might ask her). Bettany Hughes makes an appearance but even she can't compete with the reality that Americans simply cannot do factual, informational programmes without over egging it (a bit like their food).

The programme attempts to suggest that Rome was like some form of a 50AD version of Las Vegas (a nonsense place if ever there was one).

The idea that if a new Roman emperor didn't put on entertaining enough games then the people would overthrow him is complete nonsense. The programme is filled with similar nonsense.

Is the presentation style something to do with low attention spans over the pond?

I understand the need for revenue, but dang.... trying to watch streaming was a battle to its own. The production was as good a documentary as ever. There was no shortage of stories, so I guess greed has to be the only reason.

Watching episode 4 out of 5 that has been realized so far and they have mentioned one "poet" of Rome as an actual historical source. Poetry generally isn't considered historical fact, especially when it is paid for by the emperor, a fact briefly mentioned once or twice. Oddly enough I can't seem to find any work by the poet they mentioned to read his work myself. They have "Roman historians" on never giving the details as to what makes them a Roman historian since clearly they didn't live through it details as to what degree and from where as well as any relevant experience they have would be nice, and well necessary according to my 6th grade English teacher and every teacher since in research papers. If they are going to present it as a historical factual documentary I expect enough information to be able to continue or further my research behind the short snips in the show and yet it feels more like a teaser based in rumors than a documentary.

Occasionally interrupted by an interesting series. Each episode might be less than 30 minutes per hour. First and last thing I'll ever plod through on The History Channel.