Barbarians

[Skarr]

I have read some interesting comparisons between the US vs Rome in the past.

 

However, despite the clever nature of the arguments to substantiate this thesis, Rome was vastly different and if you look at the initial 400 years of the Republic since its founding vs the American "Republic", there is no basis at all for comparison.

 

Firstly, Rome had a fairly small population, not numbering in the millions like we do.

 

Second, the structure was more tribal with the initial tribes being the settlers on each of the hills.

 

Thirdly, although the monarchy had been displaced, a quasi-monarchy was the rule as the consul / pro-consul ruled literally as kings. However, they had checks and balances - the senate, the short term of their offices and later, when the plebeians were included, the famous veto, which was much abused in later periods.

 

Numerous other points can be made to annull the comparisons but chief among them all is the very form of Government. There were no parties or factions in the senate, as it was conceived. This was to happen much later, after the Gracchi brothers, when the 'boni' began to exert an influence. Otherwise, there was only one party, Rome, and the senate was supposed to act as one, for the benefit of Rome and its people.

[Virgil61]

The second show is now online at Google Video entitled Barbarians: The Savage Goths.

 

A lot of talk about Teutoberg Forest, the annihilation of the Dacians and the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410 AD. This one includes a few minutes with Peter Heather who was a guest here on UNRV. Terry Jones continues wearing his anti-Roman feelings on his sleeve but at least makes a few points about barbarians being more civilized then popular culture portrays them. Fair enough I suppose but the anti-Roman bias does irritate.

[Pertinax]

He did a similar job on the "Crusades" , which I will now search for on the same database, basically suggesting they were a bloody shambles from start to finish. Nothing new there then.

[WotWotius]

It seems that as with most Revisionist Historians, Terry Jones has camped himself too far away from the well-established, traditional view of Roman history; and in the process has given the impression that he is just being controversial for the sake of being controversial.

 

I admit he does a brilliant job of emphasising the sheer volume of Rome's grasping nature, as well as the barbarity and violence within Roman culture, even if it was judged by today's standards...

 

However, he goes against the well-established idea that the violence within the Celtic way of life was probably on a par with Rome. Instead the celts are depicted as saints enriched with civilization and culture, living within an almost Utopian society full of equal rights and technology. Like Virgil said earlier in the post just because they made roads out of planks does not mean that they are comparable to the builders of the pyramids...I suppose I'm exaggerating my point a bit, but you get the idea.

 

Sure, the Romans were blood thirsty, but so were the Celts, so was everybody at this time. My point being that just because a civilisation is downtrodden and demonised by another, it doesn't mean that they are free of sin. I think it's a very British thing to love and admire the losers of History.

 

Though this may sound like an unfavourable view of Terry's series, despite his overall conclusion, I actually enjoyed the program: he walked into the past at a different angle...and isn't that what history is all about.

Edited June 17, 2006 by WotWotius

[DecimusCaesar]

Got the book, but unfortunately I haven't seen the TV series, although I would have liked to seen it.

 

Anyone else think that his interpretation of British Chariots as being slightly odd? or am I just incorrect about this?

I always believed that when Caesar first landed in Britain he was surprised to see the Britons till using chariots on the battlefield as they had become rather obsolete as a weapon of war. In the book Terry Jones has interpreatted it in a diffrent way, claiming that the Celts had a higher level of technological sophistication because they did use chariots in battle and the Romans never did.

 

So were they smarter to use chariots, or were they just using a primative battle tactic?

[Moonlapse]

Sure, the Romans were blood thirsty, but so were the Celts, so was everybody at this time. My point being that just because a civilisation is downtrodden and demonised by another, it doesn't mean that they are free of sin. I think it's a very British thing to love and admire the losers of History.

This reminds me of something I heard on some radio interview today, "Being a victim doesn't make you right."

[M. Porcius Cato]

There were no parties or factions in the senate, as it was conceived. This was to happen much later, after the Gracchi brothers, when the 'boni' began to exert an influence. Otherwise, there was only one party, Rome, and the senate was supposed to act as one, for the benefit of Rome and its people.

 

And there were no rational disagreements at all about what would benefit Rome and its people? Then the early senate must have been ruled by zombies or robots! I wonder how these creatures handled the secession of the plebs. Or--maybe there were amicitia in the early senate just as there were in the late senate.

[Pertinax]

Got the book, but unfortunately I haven't seen the TV series, although I would have liked to seen it.

 

Anyone else think that his interpretation of British Chariots as being slightly odd? or am I just incorrect about this?

I always believed that when Caesar first landed in Britain he was surprised to see the Britons till using chariots on the battlefield as they had become rather obsolete as a weapon of war. In the book Terry Jones has interpreatted it in a diffrent way, claiming that the Celts had a higher level of technological sophistication because they did use chariots in battle and the Romans never did.

 

So were they smarter to use chariots, or were they just using a primative battle tactic?

 

The technology was sophisticated ( indeed exqusitely so in the undersatnding of wood technology) but its "honour culture" usage less so, the quick delivery of an armed fighter (to fight on foot) was an excellent ploy if massed ranks of them exist , but this was more of the "display and intimidate " mode.

[longbow]

The technology was sophisticated ( indeed exqusitely so in the undersatnding of wood technology)

 

The Bronze Harness fittings were allso very sophisticated.The fittings are beautifully decorated,made out of Bronze with coloured glass inlaid it was skillful craftsmen who made the examples in the British Museum.Did they use steam to bend the wood to the right shape?

 

British Museum.

 

British Chariot.

 

 

L

[Pertinax]

Nice shots Longbow. I did post previously about the wood technology , namely the use of oak, ash and elm for specific parts of the wheel (rim, spoke and hub) each wood suited to its specific role in terms of compressive and tensile strength. ( I just cant fine the thread now!). The pliability of the suspension units was excellent, I suspect a crossover craft ,ranging from making bee-skips (pickled bramble can be/was used and is like leather ) via ordinary wattle and basket work to this "top of the range" flexible, light construction. Steam? Why not if a people were so knowledgable about the use and inter usage of woods.

The Harness does not surprise me but may surprise many , the ownership and use of the chariot was the apex of status and skill in this particular society and given the chanelling of Celtic sensibility into plastic arts the decorative features are the final embellishments of a prize possesion , and despite the outrageous bravery and showmanship of the spearman/swordsman who might jauntily stand on the yoke pole, the real skill and prestige was said to be the proper handling of the unit as a driver- a sort of, armed formula one crossed with dressage and acrobatics.

[Pantagathus]

Nice shots Longbow.

 

Definitely!

 

From the way I understand the technology, these British chariots would have been a much smoother ride compaired to the more 'eastern' design.

 

On that note, I've had this on my wishlist for some time and will eventually pick up a copy: The Earliest Wheeled Transport from the Atlantic Coast to the Caspian Sea by Stewart Piggott

[Pertinax]

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=h...cial_s%26sa%3DG

 

as you can see this is a subject that gets scholars hot under the collar.

[WotWotius]

Sure, the Romans were blood thirsty, but so were the Celts, so was everybody at this time. My point being that just because a civilisation is downtrodden and demonised by another, it doesn't mean that they are free of sin. I think it's a very British thing to love and admire the losers of History.

This reminds me of something I heard on some radio interview today, "Being a victim doesn't make you right."

 

Amen to that.

[Jasminia]

Terry Jones came to my campus last year to give his Barbarians talk. Some of the material did seem off-key, but on the whole, he offered provocative new perspectives while keeping the audience laughing their heads off. If nothing else, it was fascinating to think of Rome from the perspective of the vanquished. It also put a startling light on how much money it took to keep the Roman Machine going -- funds that were most often supplied by its conquered provinces. The most important thing that the students who went to see Terry Jones that evening learned was that history can be fun. And for that, I'll forgive any seemingly undue exaggerations.

 

Afterwards, I bought the book, got it autographed, and some faculty and some students went out with him for some cold ones. I've since taken up his line of the evening: "I'll talk to anyone who buys me a beer."

Edited August 2, 2006 by Jasminia

[docoflove1974]

I've since taken up his line of the evening: "I'll talk to anyone who buys me a beer."

 

Or, as I believe Ms. Mae West once said: "Honey, I'm easy, but not cheap"