Excellent documentary on Parthia

[gamegeek2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QKqaquGuYg

Very well done - showing the Parthian military and feudal system. They even have the Zurkhaneh!

[J.R.M]

Terry Jones barbarians!! i loved this documentary, the hole chapters actually.

[NikosMaximilian]

If I've learned something new from that documentary is that Terry Jones posts in this forum and is a member of the Romaioktonoi group.

[Ibrahim]

Terry Jones barbarians!! i loved this documentary, the hole chapters actually.

amen.

afterall, Terry Jones, being a Python, is just plain awesome. there is simply no debate.

[gamegeek2]

Man, I love British media. Much more than our American media...

Anyways, yeah, this seems like a page out of the Romaioktonoi's book.

[gamegeek2]

Another one, on the Celts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hAo8h2gYA&feature=PlayList&p=713DB4E1B55D08E3&index=0

[Mulceber]

I've only had a chance to watch the first segment of the Parthian one, but it doesn't really strike me as excellent. I noticed one inaccuracy in the first couple minutes - it shows a map of Parthian lands in the 1st century BCE and it lists central turkey and Antioch as being held by the Parthians and afaik, that's not correct - the Parthians had mesopotamia and what was left of the Seleucid Empire held Syria. Then, when Pompey came through Asia, he essentially subsumed Syria into Roman hands. So I'm pretty sure the map that documentary showed is inaccurate.

Secondly I take issue with that remark "chasing down fleeing enemies is something the Romans knew all about." - that seems like it's trying to imply that the Romans only were good at fighting when their enemy was retreating, but the simple fact of the matter is, EVERYONE did that in the Mediterranean. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. The Hellenistic Successor States did it. The Carthaginians did it. I'm no expert on Celtic culture, but I imagine they did it as well. That's how you turned military victories into massive military victories.

I also thought that it did a massively inadequate job of explaining Crassus' motives for invading Parthia. I realize that it's a documentary of Parthia, not Rome, and thus they should focus on Parthians. But how long does it take to say "Crassus, envious of the massive plunder being brought back by Caesar from Gaul, felt a need for some conquests of his own, and decided to invade Parthia, against the advice of many of his contemporaries."?

Also, they really truncated the Battle of Carrhae down. I'm not saying that they made Crassus look more foolish than he was - just that they didn't give the full details of what happened.

Lastly, I thought it funny that Jones was showing us the statue of that "Parthian Warrior" and failed to mention that it's believed to be a statue of Surena himself - the very man he was talking about less than a minute before. I'm not sure how they messed that up.

I think NikosMaximilian said it best: "If I've learned something new from that documentary is that Terry Jones posts in this forum and is a member of the Romaioktonoi group." And not a very well-informed one either. -M

[Jebivjetar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QKqaquGuYg

Very well done - showing the Parthian military and feudal system. They even have the Zurkhaneh!

Nice video, Gamegeek. Thank you.

(it's not the first time i hear that Parthian arrows were able to penetrate the armor because of their use of the composite bow: did someone of you, or someone from EB team consider to give AP ability to parthian horse-archers. Maybe in EB2? Just wandering)

Now i go to watch this video again, and to see Parthian mighty army smashing teh barbaroi!

[Tyrfingr]

Secondly I take issue with that remark "chasing down fleeing enemies is something the Romans knew all about." - that seems like it's trying to imply that the Romans only were good at fighting when their enemy was retreating, but the simple fact of the matter is, EVERYONE did that in the Mediterranean. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. The Hellenistic Successor States did it. The Carthaginians did it. I'm no expert on Celtic culture, but I imagine they did it as well. That's how you turned military victories into massive military victories.

Actually, it was not commonplace to chase down fleeing enemies before the hellenistic times (due to changes in the army composition, from mainly an infantry-based force to a more mixed with cavalry).

[seienchin]

I've only had a chance to watch the first segment of the Parthian one, but it doesn't really strike me as excellent. I noticed one inaccuracy in the first couple minutes - it shows a map of Parthian lands in the 1st century BCE and it lists central turkey and Antioch as being held by the Parthians and afaik, that's not correct - the Parthians had mesopotamia and what was left of the Seleucid Empire held Syria. Then, when Pompey came through Asia, he essentially subsumed Syria into Roman hands. So I'm pretty sure the map that documentary showed is inaccurate.

No, syria at that time were were held by the seleucids, but was taken over by the armenian before beeing conquered by the romans.
The documentary is typical anglosaxon "The allmighty roman empire found his match" and boy what a crazy desciption of persian culture at that time.Its just exaggeration beyond believe.
And again lies about the parthian bows... They werent armour breaking miracleweapons...

[Mulceber]

Actually, it was not commonplace to chase down fleeing enemies before the hellenistic times (due to changes in the army composition, from mainly an infantry-based force to a more mixed with cavalry).

Thanks Jaertecken - I didn't know that. Ok, so Classical Greeks can be stricken from that list, although during the Chremonidean War it was probably a different story. But can we agree that chasing down fleeing enemies was a very common practice in warfare in this era and not confined to the Romans?


No, syria at that time were were held by the seleucids, but was taken over by the armenian before beeing conquered by the romans.

You learn something new every day. Thanks for the info. =) -M

[Macilrille]

I think what is meant by the sentence is that the Romans knew very well that the Parthians chased down fleeing enemies. I have not seen the clip, but if quoted correctly above that is a more likely interpretation IMO. Especially if TJ is a Romanoiktoi.

[Alien of Germania]

Like this gamegeek2 , good find.

[Mulceber]

I think what is meant by the sentence is that the Romans knew very well that the Parthians chased down fleeing enemies. I have not seen the clip, but if quoted correctly above that is a more likely interpretation IMO. Especially if TJ is a Romanoiktoi.

I think you mean that the Parthians knew very well that the Romans chased down fleeing enemies. Yes, I'm sure that is what Jones was trying to say, but keep in mind, most people watching the special aren't as well-informed about ancient warfare as we are; we know that most Hellenistic and Roman armies chase down their enemies. Heck, most of us have done so ourselves in EB. But the average viewer doesn't. When they hear TJ say "after all, finishing off an army in retreat was something the Romans knew all about," they're liable to think that this was particular to the Romans. My point is, when you're writing a documentary which is designed to inform the average viewer, you need to take these things into account so that people don't get the wrong idea. It would have been very easy to just include a phrase to the effect of "The Parthians knew that, like most mediterranean armies, the Romans tended to chase down fleeing enemies. But they had a nasty trick up their sleeve that the Romans would never forget." -M

[Ludens]

I haven't seen the documentaries, but I have read the accompanying book and I agree with Mulceber. Jones is not a little biased against the Romans. But that's the point. It's supposed to be an anti-dote against the Rome-biased popular history, which is derived in large part from 19th century historians that did not question the Romans' view of themselves. Hence it's called "history from a different point of view". Jones wants to make the point that the Romans could be just as savage and greedy as anyone else; and that the cultures they fought had their own share of civilized advancements.

However, since we are familiar with EB we don't need an antidote. Take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

As for the map, in the book Jones mentions that two of Caesar's murderers actually led a Parthian army against the second triumphirate, and succeeded in conquering a big chunk of Rome's eastern possessions. Maybe that is what the map refers to? The Parthians lost in the end, but if true it's telling that this episode of the Roman civil war has been swept under the rug. Most popular history makes no mention of a foreign power hijacking Rome's civil war.

[bobbin]

I noticed one inaccuracy in the first couple minutes - it shows a map of Parthian lands in the 1st century BCE and it lists central turkey and Antioch as being held by the Parthians and afaik, that's not correct

Yes the map did seem strange, they seem to have taken the maximum limits of conquest of Pacorus who invaded around 40bc (with help from some roman rebels as Ludens stated) and did capture syria, judea and parts of anatolia before being defeated a couple of years later. I suppose it is no different to maps of the Roman empire showing Trajans conquests in Mesopotamia but he did hold onto those possesions for a bit longer the Pacorus


Secondly I take issue with that remark "chasing down fleeing enemies is something the Romans knew all about." - that seems like it's trying to imply that the Romans only were good at fighting when their enemy was retreating

That wasn't at all what was being implied, he was saying that they were used to doing it because they won battles so often, hence their surprise when the enemies they thought were retreating turned round and shot them in the face.



Lastly, I thought it funny that Jones was showing us the statue of that "Parthian Warrior" and failed to mention that it's believed to be a statue of Surena himself - the very man he was talking about less than a minute before. I'm not sure how they messed that up.

No one knows if that statue is of Surena, it is just believed to be by some.

It was a fairly good documentary that gave some interesting information that usually doesn't get talked about although it did tend to jump about history a bit too much which made it confusing at times.

Apparently Barry Cunliffe served as consultant for the seires so the celtic one should be pretty good (i have only watched the first part).

[Macilrille]

Ludens said
Jones wants to make the point that the Romans could be just as savage and greedy as anyone else; and that the cultures they fought had their own share of civilized advancements.

Well, in fact the Romans were if anything more savage and greedy than the average back then. Something that contributed to their empire. You do not win empires by being nice.

[Mulceber]

I wouldn't say that they were more savage or greedy by nature. They achieved a world Empire not through cruelty or greed but because Italy provided them with an absolutely huge supply of manpower and they had an unwillingness to ever back down. But I wouldn't say they were more savage or greedy. I would say that their position of power gave them greater opportunity to be savage and greedy than others. Basically, as the old saying goes, power corrupts. Brutal and avaricious behavior was a result of their power, not of any innate part of their culture. -M

[Macilrille]

I love the Romans, make no mistake about it, but you hold a dated view. Harris and Ørsted both convincingly conclude that the Romans were brutal and militaristic even for their times.

Harris, W. V.: War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327- 70 BC, Oxford, 1979.
Ørsted, Peter: Cæsar, Cph, 2006.

[Mulceber]

Now the bit about militarism is definitely true - Polybius talks at great length about the military bent of their culture. I'll have to check out those sources - thanks for the tip. -M

[Macilrille]

No pro. Ørsted is in Danish though and Harris does overdo his case a bit. But it seems consistent with the evidence we know; if nothing else the gladiatorian games gives us a hint that Romans were not exactly the hippies of antiquity.

I hope I was not offensive BTW.

[NikosMaximilian]

I got the impression of Jones being a Romaioktonoi after watching not only the Parthian chapters, but also those referring to the Celts, the Germanic tribes and the Huns (you can watch them by searching "Jones Barbarians Huns" or "Jones Barbarians Celts" in YouTube)

Every time the Romans won a battle the reason was "because of good luck and treachery, combined with the fact that they were bloodthirsty animals who were technologically and culturally backwards compared to the rest of the inocent people living in the world". When the Romani were pagans, they sacrificed humans, hosted bloody gladiatorial games and enslaved everyone (and looks like they were the only ones doing it). When they were Christians, he implies that they are the ones to blame for the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and everything that happened later, including the Crusades, the Inquisition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY) and priests abusing children.

Every time the Romans lost, well, not only he rejoices over it, he also makes it clear that it was "because they were bloodthirsty greedy animals who were technologically and culturally backwards". The Gothic, Vandal and Hunnic incursions are mentioned as someone renting a penthouse for a couple of years: "Oh, yeah, you don't mind, do you? I'll just enter here and take this place". Of course, when Roman citizens (even if they weren't Italians) were killed, that's not much of an issue.

It's bad revisionist history, because in order to talk about the engeneering, the technology, the culture and military achievements of the "Barbarians", he needs to paint Rome as Mordor and the "barbarians" as innocent wildmen. This is a weak form to create an argument, simple and fails to reach any good point. It's like supporting Al-Qaeda or the Taliban because you don't like US foreign policy. The World isn't black or white, Mr Jones (he should really go back to comedy).

[satalexton]

We've been keeping to ourselves lately...are you taking a jab at us? Don't mix modern politics with ancient history.

[vartan]

I think you mean that the Parthians knew very well that the Romans chased down fleeing enemies. Yes, I'm sure that is what Jones was trying to say, but keep in mind, most people watching the special aren't as well-informed about ancient warfare as we are; we know that most Hellenistic and Roman armies chase down their enemies. Heck, most of us have done so ourselves in EB. But the average viewer doesn't. When they hear TJ say "after all, finishing off an army in retreat was something the Romans knew all about," they're liable to think that this was particular to the Romans. My point is, when you're writing a documentary which is designed to inform the average viewer, you need to take these things into account so that people don't get the wrong idea. It would have been very easy to just include a phrase to the effect of "The Parthians knew that, like most mediterranean armies, the Romans tended to chase down fleeing enemies. But they had a nasty trick up their sleeve that the Romans would never forget." -M
:balloon2: Well said. Even if the documentary was made to let people know that it's not just ALL about the Romans, it still wouldn't be fun without some zest. I suppose that's what TJ meant with the tending to chase statement. Not that it wins him an award at the Oscars.

[NikosMaximilian]

We've been keeping to ourselves lately...are you taking a jab at us? Don't mix modern politics with ancient history.

No, it's not directed at you, it's at Jones' documentary. He just jumps into conclusions without presenting evidence or documents supporting them. He also presents his personal opinion as historical facts, it's almost as bad as a History Channel documentary.

[Ludens]

It's bad revisionist history, because in order to talk about the engeneering, the technology, the culture and military achievements of the "Barbarians", he needs to paint Rome as Mordor and the "barbarians" as innocent wildmen. This is a weak form to create an argument, simple and fails to reach any good point. It's like supporting Al-Qaeda or the Taliban because you don't like US foreign policy. The World isn't black or white, Mr Jones (he should really go back to comedy).

Fair point and I agree, but I think it was a deliberate decision. Jones wanted to write about the Romans in the way the Romans (and many uncritical writers since) often wrote about the barbarians. Hence I called it an antidote. Jones can do better than this (I personally very much enjoyed his writing on the Crusades, also based on a BBC documentary that I managed to miss).

[Horatius]

I got the impression of Jones being a Romaioktonoi after watching not only the Parthian chapters, but also those referring to the Celts, the Germanic tribes and the Huns (you can watch them by searching "Jones Barbarians Huns" or "Jones Barbarians Celts" in YouTube)

Every time the Romans won a battle the reason was "because of good luck and treachery, combined with the fact that they were bloodthirsty animals who were technologically and culturally backwards compared to the rest of the inocent people living in the world". When the Romani were pagans, they sacrificed humans, hosted bloody gladiatorial games and enslaved everyone (and looks like they were the only ones doing it). When they were Christians, he implies that they are the ones to blame for the rise of the Roman Catholic Church and everything that happened later, including the Crusades, the Inquisition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY) and priests abusing children.

Every time the Romans lost, well, not only he rejoices over it, he also makes it clear that it was "because they were bloodthirsty greedy animals who were technologically and culturally backwards". The Gothic, Vandal and Hunnic incursions are mentioned as someone renting a penthouse for a couple of years: "Oh, yeah, you don't mind, do you? I'll just enter here and take this place". Of course, when Roman citizens (even if they weren't Italians) were killed, that's not much of an issue.

It's bad revisionist history, because in order to talk about the engeneering, the technology, the culture and military achievements of the "Barbarians", he needs to paint Rome as Mordor and the "barbarians" as innocent wildmen. This is a weak form to create an argument, simple and fails to reach any good point. It's like supporting Al-Qaeda or the Taliban because you don't like US foreign policy. The World isn't black or white, Mr Jones (he should really go back to comedy).

I couldn't agree more.

Jones could and usually does better, but as far as Rome goes he really has nothing but hate for it. He gives it some recognition in his "Surprising History of Rome", which actually contradicts all of his other ancient world documentaries by depicting Roman Technology that his other documentaries claim they didn't have among other things, but overall I get the feeling that he would have a wonderful time giving Hannibal an interview or two.

Although he usually does better on non ancient history, he still does have some obvious bias. I.E. he does claim some universal aspects of the middle ages (Knighthoods granted to low born for example) are English unique, but his medieval things are still much better then his ancient, although that could just be my own bias in liking the way he depicts England.

[vartan]

...although that could just be my own bias in liking the way he depicts England.
My eyes went straight for where it says "location" and I couldn't help but read "England". Haha. I know nothing of medieval Evropa other than the fantasy that I imagine. This will change with education, though!

[Ca Putt]

one really could get the impression that many people here think Documentaries(and history books) are meant to be totally unbiased. things like this are always biased. if one follows the opinion mainstream one may not notice that and condemn all opposing opinions as highly biased, but personally I find it highly important to look at a matter from more than one perspective. this does not mean to look for books whose authors claim to be unbiased but to listen to both sides rather than only those with whom you agree.

ps: very nice find gamegeek2, I'll watch all episodes now :)

[Mulceber]

They are intended to be unbiased. They always fail, because all mediums are biased. But in the field of academia we should strive to be as unbiased as possible. It is impossible of course to completely remove bias, but we can get fairly close. TJ clearly is not trying at all to be unbiased. And no, you are not correct that we should listen to all biases - that would be like suggesting you should only get your news from MSNBC and Fox. What we should do is try to find the sources that have the least bias and listen to them. ie. the scholarly equivalent of watching PBS news and CSPAN. -M

[ARCHIPPOS]

Historic documentaries and films are targeted to largely uneducated audiences and are usually produced by non-historians ( artists and media-people) who have a flare for theatrics and stylisation... i suppose similar comments can be made by actual soldiers on war-films, police officers on cop flics, organised crime members on crime films etc... the problem of history is that it's usually perceived as "boring" and "uninteresting" by people. If such efforts succeed in inspiring (some) youths and convincing them there is something exciting in studying the past then we're ok. Of course to the majority of historians, social scientists etc such representations seem "graphical" or flawed (and they are)... however they are elemental in luring larger audiences into studying and develloping a historical/political awareness... in didactic courses they teach us to actively use such stuff into triggering kids' interest...

[Mulceber]

Historic documentaries and films are targeted to largely uneducated audiences and are usually produced by non-historians ( artists and media-people) who have a flare for theatrics and stylisation... i suppose similar comments can be made by actual soldiers on war-films, police officers on cop flics, organised crime members on crime films etc... the problem of history is that it's usually perceived as "boring" and "uninteresting" by people. If such efforts succeed in inspiring (some) youths and convincing them there is something exciting in studying the past then we're ok. Of course to the majority of historians, social scientists etc such representations seem "graphical" or flawed (and they are)... however they are elemental in luring larger audiences into studying and develloping a historical/political awareness... in didactic courses they teach us to actively use such stuff into triggering kids' interest...

This is largely true - although I think a lot of people would find the real history more interesting. For example, I'm very much into history, but even I thought history was boring in high school: they don't breath life into it. They keep it as purely stale facts without asking you to involve your mind. Not only that, but they censor it to take out some of the more colorful elements. Once I got to college, my opinion of history courses took a 180 degree turn. So I think that history can be presented in an interesting and yet accurate way. I think the biases of most documentaries is due to the fact that in order to be accurate, they would have to either gloss over a lot of the more basic material in order to cover the important points, or just cover a very small topic, neither of which would be very helpful to those uneducated in history. Thus they dumb it down so that people can have something which in some way resembles the truth. And I think that is what this documentary does. Since properly dispelling the Romano-centric view 19th century historians imposed on us would cover far too much ground for a project of that scope, they just take a Romaiophobic viewpoint and hope it will cancel out the bias people have grown up with. -M

[vartan]

And no, you are not correct that we should listen to all biases - that would be like suggesting you should only get your news from MSNBC and Fox. What we should do is try to find the sources that have the least bias and listen to them. ie. the scholarly equivalent of watching PBS news and CSPAN. -M
Nope. It would be like getting your news from MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...and so on and so forth. Nobody in their right mind has the time for that. And what has the least bias? MSNBC? Fox? CNN? Assume that all have similar amounts of bias, and then go ahead and pick a few perspectives to listen to. You can't possibly sift through so much dude. It's not realistic. For instance, right now I'm reading a text on Greek and Persian wars of 499 to 386 BC, and mostly it is an author's interpretation of Herodotus' text combined with more realistic estimates (as opposed to his ridiculously large amounts of PERSIAN ZERGLINGS). I don't really have the time to read all texts on these wars, but a few is more than enough. Besides, you would only go through all texts if you were working solely on these wars.