I want to start off by talking about something that I simply cannot not mention about the last episode. The Gauls, the ones whose homeland is being invaded, are somehow being portrayed as the evil side and as if they were one people. I will go into more detail with my review on this episode, but one line from the narrator especially struck me; that the Gauls would be ready to kill each and every last Roman citizen. In comparison to this documentary, the Romans were fully able to distinguish the different Gallic tribes from each other. The ones that sacked Rome came from North Italy. Their biggest ally in the region, which even enabled the war to happen in the first place, were the Gallic Haedui. Two more tribes asked for Rome's help in the beginning. The vast majority of the tribes were not the sworn enemies of Rome until the Romans attacked. Romans and Gallic tribes continuously traded with each other and formed alliances, such as with the Haedui.
Crossing the Rubicon
Now, the first part of the episode on the siege of Alesia is mostly well done. The reenactment is fairly decent and it's interesting to see the details of how the battle played out. As a side-note, it is also greatly appreciated that they don't say fire when shooting the arrows, but "loose!". However, this part is a perfect display of how manipulative a film documentary can get simply by the use of music. In my eyes, no work aiming to educate people on history can justify playing more than heroic music as Roman soldiers slaughter their Gallic enemies in slow-motion. The perspective that the Gauls are the defendants, not the aggressors, that they fight for freedom (more or less), that they even united for the very first time for that purpose is completely negated by those manipulative bits.
It also hit a nerve when they showed the celebration of Caesar and made gladiators kill each other left and right. The goal for gladiators were to wound each other, not more. That is why they had a substantial amount of fat on them as well. It took a large amount of time and money to train a gladiator. They wouldn't have wanted them to be killed in the first game. That is not to say that they rarely died during fights, they did, but that was not the main aim. The main purpose was to entertain with a good fight.
Onto the next issues. Hyperbole and simplifications. I'm sure the interviewed authors know much more about this subject than a simpleton like me does, but they make statements that even I can see is purely for dramatic effect. Such as that Caesar was now probably stronger than all of the Senate combined. No. Pompey alone had far more troops than he did. If Caesar hat zero support, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. As to the simplifications, they present the situation as if without Pompey the Senate would have never acted against Caesar. By that, they completely forget about Caesar biggest and most vocal opponent in the Senate during the wars: Cato. Much worse than that, they not only left out the whole Hispanic campaign of Caesar against Pompey, they explicitly stated that Caesar pursued Pompey to South Italy and then just sat there, building ships, effectively denying the campaign's existence. I can see why most has to be cut in a documentary series, but this way of narrating is practically spreading misinformation.
In my first review of this series I already talked a bit about the antagonist problem. To simplify everything, tell a good story and make Caesar likeable they create antagonists out of historical figures. Next to Pompey, there's now Brutus, the ultimate opportunist. They keep referring to the fact that Caesar would have gotten unfairly prosecuted due to his political enemies in the Senate, eventually making him having to cross the Rubicon and declare civil war. However, they barely mention that Caesar broke numerous laws. The only reason that Caesar spent so much time going to Britannia and Germania was because continuing the campaign gave him political immunity. He knew fully well that he was acting unlawfully. A big criticism in the Senate of Caesar was also that he broke something as severe as a truce against certain Gallic tribes, of which he was definitely guilty. My point is that this narrative is looking way too favorable upon Caesar, without showing the other side, as a documentary should. I wouldn't have as many problems with it if it were just a show about Caesar, but for better or for worse, this is a documentary.
To summarize some smaller inaccuracies: - Caesar and Pompey did not meet in Greece personally. - Pompey is being portrayed as unprepared when it comes to stopping Caesar, but he in fact had set up a sea blockade, that was hard for Caesar to break through (twice) until through some clever trick using the lack of yearly calendar correction (look up Historia Civilis video on that if you're interested) he managed to cross the sea safely. - There are fires everywhere in camps for lighting (I don't mean fireplaces for cooking etc.), even in daytime. - Armour still often doesn't fit the time period.
Review by BolloggBlockedParentSpoilers2018-08-09T23:32:01Z— updated 2018-09-02T09:24:32Z
I want to start off by talking about something that I simply cannot not mention about the last episode. The Gauls, the ones whose homeland is being invaded, are somehow being portrayed as the evil side and as if they were one people. I will go into more detail with my review on this episode, but one line from the narrator especially struck me; that the Gauls would be ready to kill each and every last Roman citizen. In comparison to this documentary, the Romans were fully able to distinguish the different Gallic tribes from each other. The ones that sacked Rome came from North Italy. Their biggest ally in the region, which even enabled the war to happen in the first place, were the Gallic Haedui. Two more tribes asked for Rome's help in the beginning. The vast majority of the tribes were not the sworn enemies of Rome until the Romans attacked. Romans and Gallic tribes continuously traded with each other and formed alliances, such as with the Haedui.
Crossing the Rubicon
Now, the first part of the episode on the siege of Alesia is mostly well done. The reenactment is fairly decent and it's interesting to see the details of how the battle played out. As a side-note, it is also greatly appreciated that they don't say fire when shooting the arrows, but "loose!". However, this part is a perfect display of how manipulative a film documentary can get simply by the use of music. In my eyes, no work aiming to educate people on history can justify playing more than heroic music as Roman soldiers slaughter their Gallic enemies in slow-motion. The perspective that the Gauls are the defendants, not the aggressors, that they fight for freedom (more or less), that they even united for the very first time for that purpose is completely negated by those manipulative bits.
It also hit a nerve when they showed the celebration of Caesar and made gladiators kill each other left and right. The goal for gladiators were to wound each other, not more. That is why they had a substantial amount of fat on them as well. It took a large amount of time and money to train a gladiator. They wouldn't have wanted them to be killed in the first game. That is not to say that they rarely died during fights, they did, but that was not the main aim. The main purpose was to entertain with a good fight.
Onto the next issues. Hyperbole and simplifications. I'm sure the interviewed authors know much more about this subject than a simpleton like me does, but they make statements that even I can see is purely for dramatic effect. Such as that Caesar was now probably stronger than all of the Senate combined. No. Pompey alone had far more troops than he did. If Caesar hat zero support, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere. As to the simplifications, they present the situation as if without Pompey the Senate would have never acted against Caesar. By that, they completely forget about Caesar biggest and most vocal opponent in the Senate during the wars: Cato. Much worse than that, they not only left out the whole Hispanic campaign of Caesar against Pompey, they explicitly stated that Caesar pursued Pompey to South Italy and then just sat there, building ships, effectively denying the campaign's existence. I can see why most has to be cut in a documentary series, but this way of narrating is practically spreading misinformation.
In my first review of this series I already talked a bit about the antagonist problem. To simplify everything, tell a good story and make Caesar likeable they create antagonists out of historical figures. Next to Pompey, there's now Brutus, the ultimate opportunist. They keep referring to the fact that Caesar would have gotten unfairly prosecuted due to his political enemies in the Senate, eventually making him having to cross the Rubicon and declare civil war. However, they barely mention that Caesar broke numerous laws. The only reason that Caesar spent so much time going to Britannia and Germania was because continuing the campaign gave him political immunity. He knew fully well that he was acting unlawfully. A big criticism in the Senate of Caesar was also that he broke something as severe as a truce against certain Gallic tribes, of which he was definitely guilty. My point is that this narrative is looking way too favorable upon Caesar, without showing the other side, as a documentary should. I wouldn't have as many problems with it if it were just a show about Caesar, but for better or for worse, this is a documentary.
To summarize some smaller inaccuracies:
- Caesar and Pompey did not meet in Greece personally.
- Pompey is being portrayed as unprepared when it comes to stopping Caesar, but he in fact had set up a sea blockade, that was hard for Caesar to break through (twice) until through some clever trick using the lack of yearly calendar correction (look up Historia Civilis video on that if you're interested) he managed to cross the sea safely.
- There are fires everywhere in camps for lighting (I don't mean fireplaces for cooking etc.), even in daytime.
- Armour still often doesn't fit the time period.