Barbarians Rising (2016) User Reviews (34)

Some educational value but by no means definitive.....

[s3276169 · 7/10 · 27 June 2018]

Firstly this is not, let me repeat this not, in my estimation, an accurate historical documentary. There's license taken with some of the historical facts in order, I suspect to fit the flow of the story line(s) crafted for this short series.

Casting that not inconsiderable fact aside, what this series does do and does well, is bring a general facsimile of ancient Western history alive. This is a positive in so much as it that may encourage the interest of those who have no academic background in the subject.

What assists Barbarians Rising immensely, is a quality, mostly British cast. There are some well known faces here who breathe life, in a convincingly down to earth way, into key historical players from the period.

As a note I'd add some have criticized this series because of its title. Its true many of the civilizations the Roman's labelled "Barbarian" were sophisticated. Some more so than Rome itself. What this refers to is the Roman "attitude" towards other civilizations. This is clearly defined at the beginning of each episode and indeed, does accurately reflect Romes general attitudes, to anyone not Roman or classically Greek.

All in all, as is often the case where historical truth meets the commercial imperative to entertain, some license has been taken but there is still enough on offer here, to say this series does have some general educational value too. 7/10 from me.

Well worth watching

[drjgardner · 9/10 · 3 July 2016]

"Barbarians Rising" offers a revolutionary perspective on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire. The traditional approach to the subject is that the Grecian "civilization" gave birth to the Roman "civilization" and eventually led the path to "civilization" as we know it today. This series has a different perspective, showing how the Roman "civilization" was an oppressor, taking lands and resources from less organized peoples and cultures, using harsh and often barbaric techniques. You may find yourself cheering for the "barbarians" who resemble what are traditionally known today as "freedom fighters". The idea that Rome was spreading civilization is turned upside down. Instead the makers of this documentary suggest that the Romans are invaders who rape, pillage, and plunder their way around the Mediterranean seeking resources and slaves to maintain their lifestyle.

The series focuses on Hannibal (died 181 BCE) in Northern Africa, Viriatus (died 139 BCE) in Lusitania (Portugal), Spartacus (died in 71 BCE), Arminius (died in 21 CE) in Germany, Queen Boudica (died 60 CE) and Fritigern (died 380 CE) in Britain, Alaric (died 410 CE) of the Visigoths, Attila the Hun (died 453 CE), and Genseric (died 477 CE) of the Vandals.

The series is a bit blood thirsty, but so were the times. There are maps and voice overs to keep you well informed.

Historical events about historical characters challenging the rule of Rome , such as Boudica , Arminius, Alarico , Genserico, Fritigerno , Attila..

[ma-cortes · 8/10 · 27 June 2018]

Television docudrama that airs on History Channel, shot in UK and Bulgaria. It deals with the true story of Rome through the eyes of its main contenders who fought strongly to see its destruction. Narrated by Michael Healy , and by experts, scholars , and other hosts. Being well directed by Simon George, Sweeney and O'Dwyer . The series is told from the perspectives of those brave leaders of people that fought Rome who were termed as Barbarians by the Romans. Rome. The greatest empire the world has ever known. This docudrama tells the story of Rome through the eyes of the empire's many adversaries who battled to see its destruction. As the Roman Empire expands , it encounters local populations that it considers 'barbarians'. That's why Hannibal, Viriathus, Armenius, Spartacus and more strike back against Rome, some from without and some from within. They battled cruelly and savagely and many myths, legends and heroes were born, this is as follows :

¨Barbarians Rising¨ deals with their struggles, their motivations, and the outcomes as these indigenous people's fight for justice , vengeance and survival. The notorious Carthaginian general Amilcar Barca had 3 sons , Asdrubal, Mago and Hannibal , all of them strike back against Rome . They fight back, effectively and savagely, dealing Rome one blow after another . During the second Punic war in 218 Bc Hannibal (Nicholas Pinnock) , attacks the Roman Republic by crossing the Pyrinees and the Alps with his vast army , he vanquished Fabio Maximus and , finally , defeated them in Trevia, lake Trasimeno, and Cannas , but being vanquished in Zama by Públio Cornelius Scipion. Then Hannibal committed suicide.

As the slave Spartacus (Ben Battle) , in 73 bc leads a violent Revolt against the decadent Roman Republic , after weeks of being trained as a gladiator for the arena he turns on his owners. He was a Thracian slave at a gladiators school, as the uprising soon spreads along Italy involving thousands of rebels to lead their final destination : Sicily . He and his thousands of freed slaves successfully make their way only to find their allied have abandoned them. Finally, they must face the might of Rome represented by the powerful Marcus Licinius Crasus (Valentine Pelka) .

There was a leader of Lusitania , the shepherd Viriathus who unleashes a wave of resistance to save his people from destruction . And Boudica (Kirsty Michell) , the warrior Queen on Britain leads her tribe Icenos into rebellion against Rome , previously invaded by emperor Claudio and subsequently the mad emperor Nero. After her husband's death is left to Boudica to unite the fractious tribes of Celtics as Siluros and other Britons. The fiercy Iceni warrior , wife of a deceased King and proud mother of 2 daughters stand against the opressive and conquering empire. In raging torments and blood curling battles, the Barbarians and Roman legions , led by Paulinus who killed the Briton druids , fight a war of attrition, so ruthless and ominous that Boudica becomes a legend throughout the empire , the greatest the world has ever known.

In the first half of the first century , the Queruscos and other Teutonic tribes led by Arminius the terrible (Tom Hooper) carry out an upheaval against the brutal Rome and other adversaries . Augustus (Steven Berkoff) orders governor Varo to take command , but he is really vanquished in the massacre of Forest Teoteburgo.

Meanwhile, the Roman frontier , called Limes , to Barbarians countries was being protected by the Roman/Goth general Stilichon but he is unfortunately beheaded by the untrusted emperor . Long time after, the brave leader Goth Fritigerno (Steven Washington) defeats emperor Byzantine Valente in battle of Adrianapolis, 378, in the Roman province of Thracia . It ended with an overwhelming Victory for the Goths and death of the Eastern emperor Flavio Julio Valente who was locked and burnt. Later on , it takes place the Rome sacking , 410 , by Alarico: Gavin Drea. And Genserico (Richard Brake) , king of Vandalos , proceeds Cartagho pillaging . His most famous exploit was the capture and plundering of Rome in June 455. Subsequently , Atilla (Hostina) , crossed the Danube twice and plundered the Balkans but was unable to take Constantinople commanded by Emperor Teodosius II . Attila was defeated by visigoth Teodorico who died in battle and by General Aecio in Catalunian Fields. However, Aecio was killed by the nasty emperor Valentíniano III , son of Constantius and Galla Placidia, who previously married King Visigoth Ataulpho. And her daughter Honoria attempted to marry Attila to avoid the Rome invasion.

Interesting and well dramatized

[grantss · 8/10 · 25 August 2016]

A documentary series on the rebel leaders who stood up to the Roman Empire, with varying degrees of success. Through narration, expert opinion and dramatized scenes we see the histories of Hannibal, Viriathus, Spartacus, Boudica, Arminius, Fritigern, Alaric, Geiseric and Attila the Hun and their struggles for independence from Rome.

An interesting period of history, with colourful subjects, well told. Well dramatized too - not just basic battle scenes as many military history series seem to consist of, but decent dialogue and human drama, in addition to some great action scenes. Many well known actors and actresses too.

On the downside, the dramatization sometimes takes precedence over historical accuracy. Also, the experts that are wheeled out feel very staged, speech-filled, preachy and superfluous. For example, why on earth do you need Jesse Jackson for a series about the Roman Empire? The experts are largely just padding.

Excellent Docudrama

[curtisdgomez · 9/10 · 18 November 2018]

I think the keyword here is docudrama. Is the series 100% accurate? No, it can't be, we weren't there and most of the history of the times came from the Romans themselves. That said, it had well acted and engrossing stories that made me do much additional reading on the significant characters. It was enlightening, fun and entertaining to boot. If I was a teacher and wanted to get young adults interested in Roman history, I would definitely use this as an introduction. I highly recommend.

Great show marred by useless commentators

[PrinceGasket · 8/10 · 27 May 2020]

The "drama" part of this docudrama is surprisingly excellent. The dialogue, acting, costumes, and special effects blew me away. However, I can't for the life of me figure out why they decided to have CEOs, random politicians, and Civil Rights activists interrupt great scenes with useless comments. The professors and archeologists sometimes have insightful comments, but everyone else is laughable. Would be interested to see an edit of this series where all of that stuff is removed, because it really could stand on its own.

decent

[Kirpianuscus · 11 December 2019]

It represents only the invitation and the first step to discover enemies of the Rome, to see stories and heroes and to explore mechanismes of ilitary actions and political decisions. Far to be perfect, it is just a docudrama.Decent in all senses.

A Great Use of Modern Resources, Very Captivating

[esperancaed · 9/10 · 17 March 2017]

I just finished watching the this series and I enjoyed it very much!

I cannot say how much I appreciated that people who were, historically, from the African continent, had dark skin. That was so lovely to see! I'd never seen a dark- skinned Hannibal before, even though it makes worlds of sense that he wasn't white. Some commentors are complaining about this and stating he shouldn't have been "African looking" because he was descendant from Phoenicians? Well, my mother and every single one of my ancestors from her side are white Germans, yet looking at me, you would not know. Human genetics sure are a thing of wonder! Trying to hide the fact that you do not want a great figure of history to look a certain way behind a pseudo-scientific comment on a TV series is a strange thing to do. Personally, I was so happy that it occurred to someone that Hannibal and his people, no matter what he looked like exactly, couldn't have been white and cast the actors accordingly because it's 2017 and it matters.

Another thing I appreciated a great deal was the diversity in the historians and other experts that were consulted. It was so so refreshing and what they had to say was extremely interesting to me! There were many historians consulted, of course, but also other professionals with relevant input. A CEO speaks when it comes to explaining the mindset of an opportunistic ruler and actual Civil Rights fighters from the USA share what they know whenever the topic of slavery arises, which it often does, or when the psyche/actions of an oppressed group needs to be analysed and explained.

Furthermore, I'd like to mention that for the first time in any historic documentary I've ever seen, not all of the historians are old white men! Young, accomplished historians of different ethnicities speak on several topics. There were a few interviews with an expert who was a woman, too, but not many. I like the idea that for the purpose of dealing with an empire that influenced so many different cultures and ways of life across such a large territory, people with different viewpoints and strengths came together. I liked that the documentary focused on a small number of female figures, too. I'd never dealt with Boudica before and now I know of her.

I do not doubt that things were left out, as this series has four episodes, each of them being roughly the length of a movie. I do, however, feel that they did very well giving the layman an overview of what resistance to the Roman Empire looked like throughout the centuries. All four directions and the borders running along them are talked about and the maps, which are shown repeatedly, are extremely helpful and visualize the shifting of the borders well. I imagine that a selection for peoples to go into detail about had to be made and I like the results.

As for the violence: Every episode starts with a warning about intense violence and there truly is a lot of fighting, killing, and a general realistic depiction of human suffering. However, unlike in many other series of this kind, there are no unrealistic amounts of blood spurting, there are no sex scenes, no zooming in on corpses with maggots everywhere and there is no nudity.

A joke

[miromoman · 6/10 · 1 December 2017]

Please, do not call this history. This is just a epic-romantic fictional drama. The fight of good against evil. An idealistic quest for freedom... Nothing to do with real history. Not only they get all the facts mixed up, when not entirely wrong, the worst is the "analysis" by the "experts". They really sound like 7-year-olds talking about the last Disney cartoon. They do not understand the politics at all, how an empire is built. I gave it 6 for the effort and, because as a work of fiction, it deserves some recognition.

Pretty Good Entertainment wise

[wentbrown · 9/10 · 10 September 2020]

I often have a problem with how others are rude in reviews........ Its not fun. This docudrama is a docudrama, reviewers need to remember that. No documentary is going to be 100% accurate, as far as we can tell its impossible to be 100% accurate and yet I see lots of reviewers complaining vociferously about historical inaccuracies. I used to indulge in that sort of thing, now however I understand that its not realistic to expect complete historical accuracies. Hannibal being portrayed by an African American is A-Okay by me even though we don't know precisely what skin tone he had. We will probably never know for sure. Seems to me that a lot of viewers had unrealistic expectations. Yes it is biased but lets not forget that much of Roman history was written by Romans, so they were being biased themselves. There were some things they left out and included that made me raise an eyebrow but nothing 'cringeworthy'. The drama is there to show viewers how the characters feel. All the critical viewers seem to be nit-picking. Something that I find annoying these days.

My dissent against the critical reviews

[sass_i_am · 7/10 · 6 August 2017]

I enjoy history, however, other than the Roman Gods all I know I learned from a 6th grade world history class, the Bible, Shakespeare, 'Gladiator' and 'Rome.' Yes, I am aware three out of five of those are fiction. Even if you don't believe in God, the book was written during the height of the Roman empire. My reasons for disagreeing with the negative reviews: *HISTORICAL ACCURACY-'Barbarians Rising' is clearly listed as a docudrama (a dramatized TV movie based on real events.) *HANNIBAL-The fact that a black man played Hannibal should matter just as much as the white Englishmen playing Romans, Barbarians and Attila the Hun. *BARBARIAN-The definition of a barbarian is a community of a tribe not belonging to the Greek, Roman, or Christian civilization. Unfortunately, no matter how great the might or how beautiful the civilization of Carthage might have been, they were still part of the Barbarian horde. WAR OVER TRADE OR SLAVERY?-One reviewer stated the Carthaginians owned slaves, but I don't believe that meant they were willing to become slaves, themselves. As to why Hannibal and the Carthaginians went to war with Rome (revenge, slavery, control over the Med, or because they were invaded) I would assume it was for multiple reasons as opposed to just one. *DEMONIZING ROME-History is never absolute. Most of the media we see is told from the side of the Roman point of view, thereby demonizing the 'others.'This story was told from the Barbarians side and doing so can only demonize Rome. Though, to be fair Rome fought to conquer, not defend themselves. *COMMENTATORS-I understand the selection they made. The Military leaders spoke of the battles and the strategy behind them; the CEO spoke about leadership, topics with which they were experienced. Though I often believe Jesse Jackson to be an opportunistic narcissist, he does have a tremendous way to make others see the oppression, and his area of expertise came into play because of what the barbarians were facing, I would like to point out that the inclusion of the other, more celebrated, commentators did not push out those to whom history is their expertise. And, if nothing else, watching Tom Hopper never hurt a soul. (Sigh)

Very good

[graphchiqovani · 8/10 · 28 October 2020]

I liked it. Well enought provided information and screenplay is very good as well. Nice history lessons.

Disappointing

[petra-axolotl · 1/10 · 1 October 2016]

They got some facts wrong and omitted some others that are really crucial.

Contrary to what a commentator claims, Roman armies were essentially militia instead of professionals until the Marian reforms of 107 BC.

It was unlikely that Hannibal was Afro-looking. Carthago was itself a colony established by the Phoenicians and Hannibal was supposedly descended from Phoenician nobels. He most likely looked like an Arab rather than an African.

The Scipio who fought Hannibal later in Carthago was actually the son of the Scipio who went to Hispania but failed to intercept Hannibal. In the show it was as if these two had been the same guy.

The most important Roman figure during the war against Hannibal was Fabius Maximus. Yet he was not even mentioned once in the whole episode.

Hannibal eventually killed himself because his patron at that time was being forced by Rome to deliver him. In the show it was as if he simply had got tired of life.

The only positive thing is that they usually pronounced Scipio's name in the Latin way, i.e. Skipio instead of Sipio.

No historical objectivity

[petersykes-85084 · 3/10 · 14 December 2021]

As a former ancient history teacher, I found this series had a distinct lack of objectivity, instead opting to take side of the barbarians as freedom fighters against the oppression of Rome. I also noted the historical inaccuracies others have mentioned. History is about taking a good look at all sides of the story, seeking out evidence not just on the facts, but the motives behind them. This series over-sensationalizes the barbarians while leaving out the fact that some of them did not enjoy popular support. Try Terry Jones' Barbarians for a much better idea of what really went on.

C'mon really?spoilers

[ktpatrol · 3/10 · 11 May 2017]

Spoiler alert!!! I won't give too much away. This series had me very interested as I'm a huge fan of ancient history,and Roman history. It's well acted but they get basic details wrong from the start.Episode one made me cringe. Hannibal is portrayed as a black man,which he was definitely not. Carthage is not given it's due as a contemporary rival to Rome but portrayed as "barbarians" looking for freedom.the commentary includes prominent African Americans, leading the viewer to surmise that the conflict is somehow relevant to modern American race relations when it was in reality a war for trade and domination of the Mediterranean Sea. Hannibals military achievements are largely missed altogether other than the march through the alps. If you have even a basic knowledge of ancient history you will probably be disappointed. The acting is good, the history is definitely modern post apologetic and why Jesse Jackson is a commentator is a mystery.the production by itself is worth watching imho but historical accuracy is not up to a channel that calls itself the history channel.history is not always pretty or one sided, this mockumentory attempts to give a modern take on complex issues in a modern pussified snowflake sensitivity kind of way

Awful

[aloidi · 2/10 · 5 September 2016]

I was very excited when I saw that this series was being aired. The idea of a well written and well acted look at the enemies of Rome, through their own eyes is a very attractive one. Yet. I have only been able to watch the first part of the first program which is about the great general Hannibal Barca. This is a man I know a lot about having read extensively about him. The program is not interested in realism but in selling a story. First they make Hannibal black. There is no mention in any of the extensive Roman histories describing Hannibal as black. Still, I imagine it conforms to a certain type of historical wishful thinking. Underlined by the fact that they have Jesse Jackson commenting on the program. What does Jesse Jackson know about it? So much for experts... They keep calling Hannibal's troops 'Barbarians', why? I doubt even the Romans would have called them barbarians. The Carthaginians were a sophisticated empire that competed with Rome in many ways not just militarily. Hannibal was one of the great, great generals of all time, yet the program skips over many of his greatest battles with barely a mention. I stopped watching.

Unwatchable

[hedge685 · 1/10 · 2 December 2016]

I made it 15 minutes into Ep. 1 and could not take more. There are so many untruths in those 15 minutes, plus everything is presented in such an overly dramatic way, I turned it off. Coming back from the first commercial break, the narrator recaps everything that took place in the first 10 minutes...Really, do they have such little respect for the viewer they assume attention spans are so short or is it simple laziness to stretch material? The History Channel should do better than this...Roman history has some arguments going on still, but it is well established Hannibal was not African and neither was his father. These type of shows usually have historians and professionals who make their life about ancient history....this program has a House Rep. from Hawaii telling us '...the important thing about power is who wields it' and as one of the 'Shark Tank' showed up, I was out...done. Terrible, lazy effort History Channel.

Simply horrible

[mattja01 · 1/10 · 17 June 2019]

I wasn't going to review this series because I didn't think it deserved the effort. It's that bad. But a single statement in episode 1 was so infuriating, I had to comment. At approx. 27 minutes in, an individual identified as Dr. Clarence B. Jones, a civil rights leader, makes the statement, "It was the barbarians, so called, who opposed slavery." In the context of this series, "barbarians" refers to the Carthaginians, although neither the Romans nor the Greeks would consider the Carthaginians to be barbarians. Did the Romans take slaves? Yes, they did. Did the Carthaginians take slaves? Yes, they did. Did the true barbarians take slaves (the various Germanic tribes, Visigoths, etc.?) Yes, they did. In fact, if you canvased the ancient world to see who took slaves and who did not, I don't think you would find any nation or tribe that did not take slaves. It's simply amazing that Dr. Jones' statement got past the History Channel editors unchallenged. And to make it into the final cut is unforgivable.

Many of the so-called "experts" in this series have no credibility at all. They may offer opinions, as we all can, but to promote them as experts is simply bizarre. Jesse Jackson? This Dr. Jones? They may be experts in their respective fields, but ancient history is not one of them.

The only conclusion I can come to is The History Channel had an agenda with this series and was untroubled by promoting fake history if it will reinforce that agenda. The History Channel has been in a downward spiral for years, but this is so bad, it would be better if they had promoted it as period reality TV cosplay. Simply horrible.

Not good

[Guylasorsa56 · 3/10 · 4 October 2016]

I was very excited when I heard about this series,as there isn't much out there on Roman history. I enjoyed the 2 other documentaries on the rise and fall of the roman empire. I a big fan of the show Rome and spartacus,though they are not historically accurate ,but are TV series. A documentary should do its best to create an enjoyable story and be historically accurate.

Barbarians rising did none of these. I totally agree with the above reviews on Hannibal. Scipios son not being mentioned is a huge blunder Heck how hard would it have been to give him his eye patch, from losing his eye in battle.

I did enjoy the the second story on Veriatus. Perhaps because I don't know much about his story. Spartacus,they butchered as bad as they did Hannibals story. They had him winning at Vesuvius and one other small battle. He fought several battles and won. Spartacus was tricked by some pirates who were suppose to bring him across the waters to Sicily. There's nothing in history that says Marcus Crassus paid the pirates off,as they said in this episode. It didn't say how Spartacus had to battle uphill in their last attempt to escape the tip and defeat Crassus. Not a mention of right in the battle he killed his own horse,to rally his men

This Documentary is a Joke!

[twit1977 · 1/10 · 20 April 2020]

Full of False information, American documentaries are full of Political Correctness unlike The European Documentaries.

Lacking objectivity

[petersykes-85084 · 3/10 · 17 November 2021]

As an ex-high school Ancient History teacher, I thought this series took a very one-eyed view of Rome and, as others have pointed out, gets a few of the "facts" wrong. It depicted the Romans as the bad guys and the barbarians as the good guys (and girls). The ancient world was a pretty brutal place no matter where you were.

Think back to the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian where the troupe satirically reels off a long list of the good things the Romans had done. A lot of uprisings did not have popular support, as many thought Rome offered an OK deal, or at least a better deal than they were getting.

Rather than a one-sided narrative, this series would have been a lot better with some historical objectivity in the mix.

Poor accurate.

[pedrobariani · 1/10 · 20 December 2020]

History Channel gives us an unrealistic view of history. Comments from civil law activists already show what this series came from. Rome and the Greek nations are the basis of Western civilization. Here they are painted with cruel usurper bandits, which does not correspond to the truth. All the great ancient nations such as Egyptians, Mesopotamians and Persians developed and expanded exactly as Rome did, but none reached the foot of the conquest it achieved. To Satanize Romans is to shoot yourself in the foot.

History marked as. D at best. As drama OK

[weshall55 · 4/10 · 16 June 2021]

It's revisionist history and a major disappointment becoming a propaganda theme for 'fighting for freedom'. While I greatly sympathise with black history- Hannibal as a black man is wrong. Why not look towards the Numidian cavalry which were some of the best cavalrymen in the world at that time - used by Hannibal and later by the Romans?

Given the US. (and many other democracies) use a version of the Roman political system it is a bit bizarre to berate the terrible Romans who like to use the eagle symbol - I think the US does too? What about the infusion of Roman legal, medical terms and it being the conduit for Christianity to flourish. The Roman Empire flourished for a thousand years after Rome itself fell in the West and held the knowledge that helped the Renaissance - ironically western mercenaries ably assisted the Turks in the destruction of its last vestiges.

It should also be noted the many successfully completed guerrilla wars - Vietnam and Afghanistan as recent examples. In respect of Spain (first episode) - in current times there are still people seeking independence and being jailed for trying to use democracy to achieve it.

May watch more - but as drama, not history.

BARELY WATCHABLE AWFUL RE-IMAGINING OF HISTORY.

[VIKTORS633 · 3/10 · 19 November 2020]

Yeah , i know this is docudrama but historical facts are pretty scarce. The most annoying thing is Civil Rights leaders popping up pushing an agenda slyly equating Barbarian uprisings with the Civil Rights Movement , which is ridiculous . Put your brain to one side and just remember Romans baaaaaaaaddd and Barbarianns gooooooood. Would have been a 2/10 but decent actors and good effects make it a 3/10.

Anti-History at its greatest

[jdavis15-128-667916 · 1/10 · 7 February 2017]

I don't know if I'm making up the term anti-history here, but it's exactly the word that should be used to describe this mess. I was really looking forward to watching this show considering that we live in an age when the Internet has all the historical fact-checking tools limited only by the speed of our fingertips (or words if you're into voice-recognition). I fully expected this show to contain conjecture in the areas of dramatization, and with those guest speakers who are not true historians(i.e. only there to pull the punters). However, as other reviewers have noted, this show is only designed to use the term "history" and characters that we know existed, to further an agenda or plot point. That point is clearly anti-Roman slavery / "Fuck the police" mentality. Now, I'm a person sympathetic to these ideas where they are appropriate, however this is supposed to be a historical documentary! In order to prove that this "documentary" is being used for an agenda, it is not required to go over historical facts, only the logical fallacies that are within the show. To be clear, I've only watched the first 1 and 1/2 episodes before i couldn't take it anymore.

1. Spartacus - The show defines Barbarian as one who is "not part of Rome or Greece." Thrace is Greek, Spartacus is a Greek name, so he's clearly not a Barbarian.

2. Hannibal - The show claims that he is the "first freedom fighter." However, it is clearly stated in the show that his motivations are revenge and a promise he made to his father.

etc...

In the above examples you can see that they've sacrificed accuracy for their agenda... that these "Barbarians" are somehow freedom fighters against an oppressive Rome. Yes, Rome had slaves, yes it was probably terrible. Yes, all slavery is terrible. However, all of these people probably had slaves themselves, slavery was common in and out of Rome, as far back as we have true historical records. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be fought against, but that you've ruined what could've been a great documentary by making it anti-history, giving the "Barbarians" motivations that have no factual basis whatsoever.

This series is truly awful and harmful and should be wiped from existence.