When Rome Ruled on National Geo. channel

Someone brought this new series to my attention, and I tried to find the thread but was unable to. I was able to catch most of the first episode Sunday night about the Colosseum, and then there followed another episode about Caligula. I decided after watching awhile that there wasn't any real new info presented, but there were some interesting graphics (reconstruction of the amphitheater); didn't watch the second one on Caligula as I suspected same ole', same ole' as well. Anyone watch?

Tonight's episode (9pm) deals with Pompeii, so I'll have to watch to see if and how they present any new facts. I'm sure the graphics, again, will be good. The second episode profiles Julius Caesar.

I caught a bit. It seemed like there were some recycled visuals from other similar presentations. After a while there is a certain sense of deja vu. (Or a sense of vuja de -- the feeling that you will see this again some time. )

I may have to try to catch the Pompeii ep. I saw a docudrama recently via Netflix on the last hours. That was very fascinating because they related what happened via the eyewitness account of Pliny the Younger, the remains excavated and what is now known about volcanic eruptions and pyroclastic flow and tried to explain some possible scenarios of what the people experienced, i.e., why did they find the body of a young woman with elaborate jewelry in the barracks of the gladiatorial school or why some skeletons were found and why other people were vaporized based on where they were at the time and the heat of air vs heat of ash, etc. Putting the human face on things is always very interesting to me.

"Putting the human face on things is always very interesting to me".

Me too.

I suspect this may be a repeat showing of the BBC docu-drama Pompeii: The Last Day which was first shown in the UK back in 2003 and I believe recently by the Discovery Channel.

If so I agree that it does provide some plausible explanations for a few of the remains found in Pompeii.

I suspect this may be a repeat showing of the BBC docu-drama Pompeii: The Last Day which was first shown in the UK back in 2003 and I believe recently by the Discovery Channel.

 

If so I agree that it does provide some plaiusibl;e explanations for a few of the remains founsd in Pompeii.

Do you think so? I thought it was very good, at least they didn't do the "everyone ran to beneath the piers on the shore" scenario again. I never knew skeletons were found in homes and buildings, but why wouldn't there have been? This is the first time I've heard this information.

Do you think so? I thought it was very good, at least they didn't do the "everyone ran to beneath the piers on the shore" scenario again. I never knew skeletons were found in homes and buildings, but why wouldn't there have been? This is the first time I've heard this information.

One problem with any popularist programme about Pompeii is they tend to conflate both Pompeii and Herculaneum even before the discovery of something like 300 actual skeletons in the cliffside boathouses at Herculaneum suddenly provided something ever so slightly visceral that they could use on TV rather than the rather bland and somewhat homogenous 19th Century plaster casts from Pompeii.

The recent programme by Mary Beard discussed elsewhere falls slightly into the same TV limbo by using the Pompeii name rather than the much less well know Oplontis where the new batch of skeletons were found.

Most of the more detailed books on the area do make the distinction of where different groups of skeletons were found and obviously the more recent the better. As a case in point I do have at least one book in my library which because of when it was written states that only one skeleton had been found in Herculaneum of someone presumably crippled and lying in a bed. This skeleton was actually found close to the ceiling of one of the buildings because 'mud' had swept in and lifted everything up to the top of the room as it filled with debris.

However it does point up the TV producers mentality of why mention one lone skeleton or several ancient casts when you can have lots of brand new 'real' bodies to pan lingeringly across during your next iteration of what really happened at Pompeii - just don't mention where they were actually found

One must say that the Herculanum pier squeletons do make for a visual shock, and their setting at the Napoli National Museum (or, to be more precise, the cast of them) is damn impressive ! But yes, most documentaries play on the same few items, both because they expect readers not to know some elements and because, well, why work hard when there is enough material lying around ?

"Putting the human face on things is always very interesting to me".

 

Me too.

It is a fascinating thought. Were they just like us? It makes the Romans seem more familiar. We even share some of their customs, such as the various marriage rituals passed down via the christian church. Exchanging rings, carrying your bride across the threshold, and other such behaviour are essentially pagan Roman.

However, be careful, because human beings have a natural tendency to anthropomorphise. We see ourselves in everything, be it cars or cartoon characters, and the primitive side of our psychology is designed that way a part of our recognition expertise. However, this very same tendency results in our desire to look and behave the same way as our colleagues, which is normal group behaviour, and thus we invent fashion and peer pressure.

In fact, if you want a prime example, check out the wikipedia section on legion organisation. It's hilarious. Whilst the information is basically factual, the interpretation is interesting because they're describing a modern army. A lot of people want the Romans to have a modern style army so they see it that way. They see rows of identical shields and perfect parade ground order even when we know those things were not practicalible, or when archaeological evidence points toward variation we didn't expect.

I'm not dismissing the fact that the Romans are our ancestors, and thus the same species with the same instincts and tendencies. I'm reminded of a wall painting at Pompeii in which two men argue angrily over whether one had cheated at gambling, and the landlord demands they take it outside. We recognise that situation immediately. We understand the confrontation implicitly. Therefore we assume everything else about it. If you think about it, there are plenty of details we don't know. What social class were the two gamblers? What game did they play? Was this a random game played between friends (former friends?), or part of a social event deliberately staged? Or was that painting merely instructions on the wall that such behaviour was not to be tolerated among customers of that establishment?

The historian Mary Beard recently appeared on a BBC documentary about Pompeii and came to the conclusion that Romans were no more interested in sex than we are. Despite this popular image of decadent sexual orgies the imagery we see at Pompeii conveys a different message than we first assume. A changing room uses pornographic imagery to allow customers at a bathhouse to remember where they put their clothes. Romans found it titillating to daub art of a sexual nature on their walls. It was almost a manly thing. By displaying such imagery, you reinforced the the idea of Roman virility upon your visitors. It's almost like having a porno mag on your coffee table at home. Look how virile this person is.

Yes, you can find associations and similarities that are familiar to us. But never forget they lived two thousand years ago in a different world. They had a different outlook on life, macho, chauvanist, and greedy. They had little or no concerns about the enviroment other than how it affected their profit. They had deep superstitions and strong peer pressures. They accepted violence in their society far more than we do, they accepted that soldiers would be badly behaved, corrupt, and larcenous, although they did try to curb the excesses.

Yes, I agree, the Romans were as human as us and the discovery of something familiar is a treat. But never assume you're right about it. Always look further into it, because the reality isn't always the same as ours and we tend to forget that in the rush of recognition. At least that's my two cents anyhow.

Sounds worth more than two cents to me.

Someone brought this new series to my attention, and I tried to find the thread but was unable to.

Ursus deserves the credit for pointing this one out, in this thread.

One problem with any popularist programme about Pompeii is they tend to conflate both Pompeii and Herculaneum

...and thus 'Pompeii' has become the generic name in popular culture for the entire disaster, regardless as to whether we are talking about Pompeii, Herculaneum or Stabiae.

Regarding sex, I believe Mary Beard is quite correct when she says they were no more or less interested in it than ourselves. They were just better at dealing with it. We are still living in the long shadow of medieval and victorian coyness about sex which still supresses discussion and portrayal of it - at least, in an open way. Some red-top newspapers and laddish magazines attempt to address this, but it is always done in a cheeky and infantile way which compounds its 'naughtiness'. Portrayal and regard of sex is alive and kicking in a Roman (Pompeiian) manner to this day. Regrettably for me, because I detest the music, style and culture, it is found in the Rap-scene.

. . . We are still living in the long shadow of medieval and victorian coyness about sex which still supresses discussion and portrayal of it - at least, in an open way. . .

Steady on, Northern Neil. Children read this, you know!

 

Ursus deserves the credit for pointing this one out, in this thread.

Yep, but ironically I haven't gotten to watch any of it myself.

Doesn't sound like I am missing much, though.

Doesn't sound like I am missing much, though.

I obviously can't comment on the rest of the series, but the Pompeii episode (which seemingly we saw over here as a one-off) was OK. The others, I'm sure, will back me up in my recomendation that you give (that particular episode) a go.

I liked the other episodes more than Pompeii one. In all cases, it is fun to freeze frame and back up for views of the archeology which somehow seems more clear on HiDef than real life. The best scenes just appear for a second or two - there is some name for that annoying process that makes impressions by bombarding you with machine gun scene changes.

Pompeii episode had one interesting insight explaining the poses of the bodies being artificial. The fetal positions were not from gasping for breath, but happened after death as the muscles were cooked before rigor mortis set in. The big muscles contract more than opposing smaller ones, so give a "pugilistic" stance including clenched fists like a boxer. I will have to check that next time I visit a cannibal BBQ.

One aspect annoyed me. There was heavy condemnation of it as a slave market, and when finding a skeleton in shackles with no signs of hard labor (joints) they decided he wasn't a murderer but one of hundreds of slaves left cruelly to die in their supposed massive caged building. They did mention one successful ex slave, but not all the nuances about slaves often being more like indentured servants. Basically it echoed a UC Berkeley online course on Romans which implied it was an utterly corrupt diversion on path of civilization because it was non-Marxist.