Colosseum

Love the programme but would like to challenge the statement from Shelley P. Haley regarding how the Romans viewed the afterlife.

I believe she stated that was nothing only an underworld of darkness. This is simply not true. The Romans believed you were judged on your life. The underworld was the receptacle of all departed persons, of the good as well as the bad, it was divided into five parts: the first may be called the previous region; the second is the region of waters, or the river which they were all to pass; the third is what we may call the gloomy region, and what the ancients called Erebus; the fourth is Tartarus, or the region of torments; and the fifth the region of joy and bliss, or what we still call Elysium.

I would have thought that such an intelligent person would have known this.

I'll preface my review by saying that I ploughed through Mike Duncan's The History of Rome podcast which is several hundreds of hours long and insanely in depth. Colosseum contained eight compelling stories which were entirely new to me, not having been covered in the podcast or my other studies on Rome, and did them really well.

Now, that doesn't mean that it covers them in depth at 40 minutes an episode, but the story choices are well chosen and the show is well conceived, well executed and well told.

Colosseum is part documentary, part dramatisation. A narrator covers the vast majority of what is going on, backed up by talking head experts and with important scenes acted out. Generally this works really well.

The narration is excellent. Robert Cargill strikes the perfect note in his speech. The script is good and covers the important notes of giant books of history in a swift manner. It leans more towards getting the story of the individuals across and that's fine because the stories are powerful.

The talking heads are the weakest part of the production, and not because of who they are or what they have to say, but because the interviews are clipped into two or three sentence soundbites and sprinkled throughout the episode. It does work within the context of the show, but the soundbites do leave you wanting to hear a bit more from the historians.

The dramatisations are excellent - if you ignore the clearly limited budget. You are not getting big budget cgi here or Hollywood choreographed fights. However, the Director and Editor are on the ball, the CGI has been stylised so that once you buy into the non photorealistic style, it works perfectly well. The Gladiatorial fights are edited well enough to hide the fact that there wasn't the budget to take things to a higher level safely and that's absolutely fine. You'll also spot occasional continuity errors or reused shots, but none of this takes away from the production. Because what shines in the production is the actors. The actors in each story have just three or four scenes and not much more than a few lines in which to establish a historical character in a way that can sustain the episode. As a former actor myself, I know that this is a tough ask because characters are created from their dialogue and actions. The less you have to go on, the more has to be made up and the more of a sketch or caricature the character can fall into. I have to say that each and every one of the main actors in these stories brings in a complete and compelling character that could sustain an entire season, not just a few scenes in a single episode. Excellent work by all involved.

And of course this is a History Channel production. It is an excellent presentation of History, taught me plenty that I didn't already know and was highly enjoyable. More like this please.

Following the first installment I abandoned it, checking it a few times now & then if it had improved. Some of the information is extremely interesting but the intense interruptions of commercials was the end for me. It's value is hopefully inspiring someone to have an interest in ancient history, etc.

As for the commercial breaks - exactly the reason why we all but put "Oak Island" on hiatus.

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.

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.