User reviews

This programme goes much deeper into the origins and history of the Colosseum than any other that I've seen about it.

The details of the construction are mind-boggling and the skill of the master builder behind it is remarkable. The programme also does a good job of placing the construction project in the timeline of the Roman imperial Flavian dynasty.

The dramatic scenes are well done too, with some good acting performances and effective special effects.

You'll certainly have a much better understanding of how the Colosseum was built and it's place in the reigns of Vespasian, Titus, Domitian and other emperors who followed them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I just happened to notice the first episode in the channel guide and decided to give it a chance since it was a topic that's usually interesting. So I used my DVR to grab all the episodes and then I forgot about it.

When I got around to watching the first episode, I was stunned by the quality of this production. I learned things in each of the episodes that I did not know. And I thought I had a pretty knowledge of the subject.

They hit the ground running with the first episode "The Gladiators". This first episode was full of information that is not widely known about these men and the lives they lived. After this first episode I was hooked. I watched all the rest in quick succession. And none of the rest of the episodes were a let down. All in all it's a very compelling production. If you have any interest in history, and especially the Roman Empire and specifically the Colosseum. This is a great show to grab. I can't recommend it highly enough.

At first I enjoyed the show quite a bit, but upon doing research on some of the individuals that the episodes are based on, I've found it to be historically false in the least. Yes, the general information about the Colosseum itself and the emporers that reigned over the years is generally correct in that they existed. However, at least 2 of the gladiators shown in specific episodes are false. Carpophorus is only mentioned historically 1 time in 1-2 sentences; history channel fabricated his entire life story as it is never mentioned historically, only his name is. Naevia is a complete fabrication, as only 2 references in roman history mention female gladiators, and in short, her name never comes up. Incidentally and probably not so accidentally, her name is a character in the Spartacus tv show from about 10 years back, do with that what you will. I dont mind if something is a docudrama, as clearly this is, the only problem is, history channel never calls it that; they treat this series (as do the experts shown on this program), as being actual history...and quite frankly, it's just a blatant lie. You'd learn more about the Colosseum by looking at the wikipedia page, as I believe someone else has mentioned.

Warning the programme has a fair amount of blood and gore in but what would you expect from an ancient monuments that was essentially a killing field. An interesting watch that draws you in from the off. The full premise is from the rise of Rome to its peak with the "Good Emperor's" (ending with Marcus Aurelius) .. The strey how in essence the Colosseum was used as Emperor's "Fox News" IE propaganda machine to keep the mob happy. Episodes are 45minutes long .. I watched on the BBC iPlayer so didn't have the problem with adverts 👍 If you enjoy your history dramatised and told in an episodic manner you will enjoy this series.

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.

Gave up after 30 mins of episode 1. The endless droning of a selection of boring talking heads, sorry 'academics', tediously intercut every minute with 'action sequences' was too much. Basically daytime TV crud. The only thing missing were adverts evert 10 mins for funeral services, stair lifts, online gambling and teeth whitening. I assume the endless emphasis on gore, mutilation and death was for the American audience, who like that sort of thing. No brain needed to watch this. A real shame as 8 episodes is enough to go into detail on an internationally fascinating subject. The facts are all there it's just horrendously badly scripted, presented and edited. Go read a book on it.

More leftist doco drama from History channel.. Ancient Aliens used to be great but decended into trash. This tv series exaggerates the Roman Empire same time pushing liberal agendas and messages, while completely omitting realities of Roman Empire. Makes we wonder did these so called experts pay history channel to make this bad 'documentary'? Adding messages that are not there from that period and pushing the whole liberal agenda regarding men and women makes me wonder did they make this just for the subliminal messages and political agendas. Maybe not enough students in universities studying these history now so they have to get people to make these tv series? It's almost like it's written to be targeted to the very low IQ.

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?