Most Historically Accurate Films/Documentaries/Video

[Ludens]

The few modern historians who do tend to either have a moralist agenda against what they percieve as pro-Roman bias (Terry Jones), or a nationalist agenda, but most accept the findings of archaeology and historical text.

Did Jones mention Carthaginian child sacrifice in his documentary? He did not in the accompanying booklet. AFAIK the facts of the matter are this: no one disputes that the earlier Phoenician city states practised live child sacrifice. However, the only evidence for this practice during Roman times is a mention in a much later source and the presence of apparently healthy children in a special section of a Carthaginian graveyard. So the conclusion is that the Carthaginians probably did sacrifice children, but the evidence is not watertight.

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

[Apázlinemjó]

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

I read about this quite a lont time ago, but if I remember right, all triumphal processions ended with the execution of the enemy general/leader or if he wasn't alive already then they killed a doll shaping him.

Edit: Well not all, but a lot.

[Meneldil]

I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

Vercingetorix was murdered in his jail, not strangulated at the end of Caesar's triumph, as HBO Rome seems to imply.

[Mulceber]

Would you still consider it racist if the "ignorant Mayans" were saved by Western Muslims? Or Eastern Christians?
That's always a good way of testing your own attitude.

If the film was being made by Western Muslims or Eastern Christians, then yes. If not, then perhaps not quite racist, but certainly offensive. -M

[TancredTheNorman]

I don't know, I would gladly watch mass murderers and pedophiles fight to death against eachother.

That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.

That's really interesting. Thanks!

Your welcome, and technically speaking the official date of that law was 97 BC, although Human Sacrifice was extremely rare before that, and limited to mob responses to disasters like Arusio and Cannae. The Romans could understand the presence of Human Sacrifice, they could not understand it being done by the state with the force of law behind it and without an unwashed masses element.

Did Jones mention Carthaginian child sacrifice in his documentary? He did not in the accompanying booklet. AFAIK the facts of the matter are this: no one disputes that the earlier Phoenician city states practised live child sacrifice. However, the only evidence for this practice during Roman times is a mention in a much later source and the presence of apparently healthy children in a special section of a Carthaginian graveyard. So the conclusion is that the Carthaginians probably did sacrifice children, but the evidence is not watertight.

And, as others have mentioned, live human sacrifice in one form or another was still a feature of most if not all Iron Age cultures. The Romans themselves sacrificed two couples after the disastrous defeats at Cannae and Aurausio. Gladiatorial fights also had a religious origin, although they ended up being entertainment (then again, from a modern perspective killing people for entertainment is as revolting, if not more, as killing them to appease the gods). I also suppose that the ritual strangulation of Vercingetorix after Caesar's triumph was a religious sacrifice. Was this a common feature of the triumphal processions?

The evidence seems pretty solid to me, there is more then one later source testifying about it, and those later sources are almost completely trusted on things they are farther away from, and there is archaeological evidence. Terry Jones doesn't explicitly say the Human Sacrifices was a lie, but he very highly implies it by stating that education is biased in favor of Rome, and warning the audience not to confuse Rome's propaganda and lies for history, and he does use that moralizing line on every enemy of Rome he goes over. The Roman Triumph didn't always involve killing the enemy leader, but it did involve showing that he was dead, Mithradates was beheaded despite his death and his body being far away from Rome. It didn't actually matter if an enemy leader was around at the Triumph unless he was a capable and dangerous man who the Romans wanted dead anyway. Tha Gladiator Games are simply revolting though, and the worst thing about the Romans.

[Apázlinemjó]

That was an excuse Romans used, and an excuse for public executions in more recent times, it just doesn't work, and the theoretical justification wasn't always acceptable, and even in Roman times there were critics (i.e. Marcus Aurelius). Even so do you really think people attended public executions for the sake of justice? The Games really are the worst aspect of the Romans, although they did build some magnificent things because of them.

You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.

Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.

[Mulceber]

You missunderstood me, I was talking about the 21. century.

Edit: By the way, saying that that was their worst/bad aspect is a very modernist statement. The problem is that we can't imagine how they were thinking about the world and it's easier to say that they were brutal, because they let people to hurt eachother and fight to death. If we were living in that time, I'm sure most of us would watch the games, because it was probably the same as watching football nowadays. Also the moral code was different and the gladiators, prostitutes, slaves were properties, "not" humans.

I agree completely. You run into a problem when you start applying modern moral standards to the ancients. Many civilizations committed acts that today would be considered horrible attrocities. You have to remove yourself from the modern mindset and try to see things the way they did. It helps that it's more interesting that way too. -M