Excellent documentary on Parthia

**gamegeek2** · 02-12-2010, 09:03

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** · 02-12-2010, 09:19

Another one, on the Celts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9hA...5D08E3&index=0

**Mulceber** · 02-12-2010, 10:03

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

**Tyrfingr** · 02-12-2010, 11:00

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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).

**Mulceber** · 02-12-2010, 12:40

Originally Posted by Jaertecken

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** · 02-12-2010, 13:29

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** · 02-12-2010, 15:21

Like this gamegeek2 , good find.

**Mulceber** · 02-12-2010, 15:40

Originally Posted by 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.

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

**bobbin** · 02-12-2010, 16:56

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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

Originally Posted by Mulceber

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** · 02-12-2010, 18:46

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.

**seienchin** · 02-12-2010, 12:38

Originally Posted by 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.

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...