I Watched 6 hours of Roman Documentaries On Amazon Prime, So You Don't Have To Part I

I Watched 6 hours of Roman Documentaries On Amazon Prime, So You Don't Have To. By: Marcus Cestius Pullus With the advent of digital streaming services, such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime video, there is no shortage of things to watch on television or off of the old computer. One thing I noted as I aimlessly cruised through my Amazon Prime videos (as the proud owner of a Fire Stick, I can say I am part of the cut the cord cult) I noticed an assortment of films and documentaries set in the Roman period. To which a horrible thought occurred to me: what if someone was subjected to all of the Roman videos, these streaming services had to offer? Discussions amongst my Roman Reenacting friends, as well as the online community, sometimes center on depictions of Romans, especially legionaries, in film and television. That there is an actual bar set for what we can consider lousy and what we can consider passable as somewhat accurate. In most cases, these products of entertainment are horrible, and often face abuse by the historical and living history community. More abuse than a mentula caught in a zipper. So in the pursuit of academic and artistic curiosity, as well as a slight issue of being the bad movie equivalent of a masochistae, I decided to start to watch, analyze and write about the various Roman works offered on the different streaming platforms. The rules are fairly simple if it is a show, documentary or movie, set in the Roman period (I should cut it off at 600 B.C.E.) then I will watch it and dissect it on some criteria. For example the historical accuracy of the story, the costumes (leather bracers anyone), strength of the story and dialogue. One piece of work could fail in accuracy but still win for the story and acting or vice versa (in the field of American Civil War, it would be the equivalent of Cold Mountain vs Gettysburg). Or it could be a horrible piece of trash all around. To which begs the question: "What is the standard in which we measure these works?" A question I posed to the RAT community on Facebook (and proposed my own minimum standards). TV shows tend to be easy, as there seem to be less of them compared to films. But the gold standard (in my opinion, which for the sake of argument is the correct one) would be HBO's Rome. Sure it had its flaws, but it had solid acting, a fantastic story, beautiful sets, and these nuggets of Roman daily life. As for film that is a tougher issue to deal with, as Hollywood seems to turn out more crap than not. Yet it seems everyone goes back to the Ridley Scott epic, Gladiator when setting minimum standards for Roman films. Which I do not blame them, it is more recent, the movie didn't completely suck, and it reinvigorated an interest. Flaws aside it is a pretty solid blockbuster. I mean Pompeii had Kit Harrington, and even the King of the North could not polish that turd. Another problem area is that of documentaries. If you live in the United States, especially in the early 2000s, we relied heavily on the "History" Channel for our documentaries. Some mediocre, some really bad. As a younger adult, I will admit I consumed shows like Conquest and Engineering an Empire (I feel you cannot go wrong with Peter Weller). But that after the film 300 circa 2004, things took a turn for the worst. For for the purpose of this experiment I will settle for Engineering and Empire as the minimum standard to which all other documentaries will be tested. ..a very low bar indeed, like competing against Emperor Valens in a hide and seek competition. So tune in next time for part two, where I will place the first few films on the chopping block. These gems are all documentaries that are available on Amazon Prime. Surprisingly the first 6 hours were less painful than anticipated. Vae Victus! Praetor Marcus Cestius Pullus