Why would you use American military veterans to explain Roman history, European history, instead of a real and better documented historian, albeit an European one?Why would you skip 2 essential pieces of Roman history like Caesar in Gaul and Trajan in Dacia?Why would you discard certain historic facts and instead dramatise the outcomes? Or goals?Visually an story-wise it is attractive, but historically, not.

I just finished watching the this series and I enjoyed it very much!I cannot say how much I appreciated that people who were, historically, from the African continent, had dark skin. That was so lovely to see! I'd never seen a dark- skinned Hannibal before, even though it makes worlds of sense that he wasn't white. Some commentors are complaining about this and stating he shouldn't have been "African looking" because he was descendant from Phoenicians? Well, my mother and every single one of my ancestors from her side are white Germans, yet looking at me, you would not know. Human genetics sure are a thing of wonder! Trying to hide the fact that you do not want a great figure of history to look a certain way behind a pseudo-scientific comment on a TV series is a strange thing to do. Personally, I was so happy that it occurred to someone that Hannibal and his people, no matter what he looked like exactly, couldn't have been white and cast the actors accordingly because it's 2017 and it matters.Another thing I appreciated a great deal was the diversity in the historians and other experts that were consulted. It was so so refreshing and what they had to say was extremely interesting to me! There were many historians consulted, of course, but also other professionals with relevant input. A CEO speaks when it comes to explaining the mindset of an opportunistic ruler and actual Civil Rights fighters from the USA share what they know whenever the topic of slavery arises, which it often does, or when the psyche/actions of an oppressed group needs to be analysed and explained. Furthermore, I'd like to mention that for the first time in any historic documentary I've ever seen, not all of the historians are old white men! Young, accomplished historians of different ethnicities speak on several topics. There were a few interviews with an expert who was a woman, too, but not many. I like the idea that for the purpose of dealing with an empire that influenced so many different cultures and ways of life across such a large territory, people with different viewpoints and strengths came together. I liked that the documentary focused on a small number of female figures, too. I'd never dealt with Boudica before and now I know of her. I do not doubt that things were left out, as this series has four episodes, each of them being roughly the length of a movie. I do, however, feel that they did very well giving the layman an overview of what resistance to the Roman Empire looked like throughout the centuries. All four directions and the borders running along them are talked about and the maps, which are shown repeatedly, are extremely helpful and visualize the shifting of the borders well. I imagine that a selection for peoples to go into detail about had to be made and I like the results.As for the violence: Every episode starts with a warning about intense violence and there truly is a lot of fighting, killing, and a general realistic depiction of human suffering. However, unlike in many other series of this kind, there are no unrealistic amounts of blood spurting, there are no sex scenes, no zooming in on corpses with maggots everywhere and there is no nudity.

I don't know if I'm making up the term anti-history here, but it's exactly the word that should be used to describe this mess. I was really looking forward to watching this show considering that we live in an age when the Internet has all the historical fact-checking tools limited only by the speed of our fingertips (or words if you're into voice-recognition). I fully expected this show to contain conjecture in the areas of dramatization, and with those guest speakers who are not true historians(i.e. only there to pull the punters). However, as other reviewers have noted, this show is only designed to use the term "history" and characters that we know existed, to further an agenda or plot point. That point is clearly anti-Roman slavery / "Fuck the police" mentality. Now, I'm a person sympathetic to these ideas where they are appropriate, however this is supposed to be a historical documentary! In order to prove that this "documentary" is being used for an agenda, it is not required to go over historical facts, only the logical fallacies that are within the show. To be clear, I've only watched the first 1 and 1/2 episodes before i couldn't take it anymore.1. Spartacus - The show defines Barbarian as one who is "not part of Rome or Greece." Thrace is Greek, Spartacus is a Greek name, so he's clearly not a Barbarian.2. Hannibal - The show claims that he is the "first freedom fighter." However, it is clearly stated in the show that his motivations are revenge and a promise he made to his father.etc...In the above examples you can see that they've sacrificed accuracy for their agenda... that these "Barbarians" are somehow freedom fighters against an oppressive Rome. Yes, Rome had slaves, yes it was probably terrible. Yes, all slavery is terrible. However, all of these people probably had slaves themselves, slavery was common in and out of Rome, as far back as we have true historical records. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be fought against, but that you've ruined what could've been a great documentary by making it anti-history, giving the "Barbarians" motivations that have no factual basis whatsoever.This series is truly awful and harmful and should be wiped from existence.

They got some facts wrong and omitted some others that are really crucial.Contrary to what a commentator claims, Roman armies were essentially militia instead of professionals until the Marian reforms of 107 BC.It was unlikely that Hannibal was Afro-looking. Carthago was itself a colony established by the Phoenicians and Hannibal was supposedly descended from Phoenician nobels. He most likely looked like an Arab rather than an African.The Scipio who fought Hannibal later in Carthago was actually the son of the Scipio who went to Hispania but failed to intercept Hannibal. In the show it was as if these two had been the same guy.The most important Roman figure during the war against Hannibal was Fabius Maximus. Yet he was not even mentioned once in the whole episode.Hannibal eventually killed himself because his patron at that time was being forced by Rome to deliver him. In the show it was as if he simply had got tired of life.The only positive thing is that they usually pronounced Scipio's name in the Latin way, i.e. Skipio instead of Sipio.