Eight Days That Made Rome (2017) User Reviews (16)

Not as good as previous work

[bob-1135 · 7/10 · 5 November 2017]

Another series by Bettany but not quite up to the mark. There seems to be a distinct bias here against the Romans. In the first episode she tells the tale of Hannibal, how he invaded Spain, parts of France, crossed the Alps and down into Italy where he caused all kinds of havoc.

However when the Romans fought back by invading Carthage and finally defeating Hannibal, she seems outraged at them for 'invading someone else's country'! So apparently it's OK when Hannibal goes invading but not when the Romans do it.

The second episode about Spartacus seems likewise very biased. She describes the battle when the Romans finally defeated him and complains about the brutality it showed to the defeated slave army - but absolutely nothing about the brutality shown by the slaves to the thousands of men women and children they murdered.

She needs to lose the bias for one side or the other, just concentrate on the history.

i beg to disagree

[smcghee-54810 · 8/10 · 17 April 2018]

I loved the series and learnt a lot from it and thoroughly enjoyed the series. whilst its not perfect neither am i and i would like to see the previous reviewer do better.

Worthwhile

[henrycoles9 · 9/10 · 23 June 2020]

Bettany Hughes is very engaging and she really nailed it unpacking the history of Rome and Roman society.

Deserves recognition

[goldenchomp1 · 10/10 · 23 February 2019]

I hope this series gets recognition for excellence that it deserves. This was a fascinating journey through time and history unlike any television experience that I can remember. I found myself eagerly awaiting the arrival of the dreaded Monday for the arrival of the next installment. The host was engaging I feel truly captured the essence of each tale. Also, the tales themselves were great, both riveting and interesting. I love how the actual locations and artifacts were incorporated into each episode to make immersion into to time and place complete. Bravo to Smithsonian channel and to all of those involved.

Depth Level Perfect for a Cable TV DocuSeries

[ivanojdl · 5 February 2019]

Use of background historical sites and scenes very good. Foreground very good too...especially when BH is in them.

Worth a watch

[pornpirate_nick · 8/10 · 30 January 2023]

Firstly, there is some utterly disgusting comments here from other reviewers regarding the appearance of the presenter- not necessary, .

The series itself is obviously meant to be snapshots of the history around some important days, and these days just so happen to be centred around acts of war and the like, so that's important to keep in mind- very few of these events were without death and bloodshed. There are also lots of arguments that you shouldn't view these events through a modern moralistic lens- but why shouldn't we? Genocidal acts are horrible, no matter when they happened in our historical timeline, it's important to get both sides of this, especially when accounts at the time lament the death and destruction.

It's a nice change from the usual glorification of all things Rome, and I don't think it is biased as other people say, I think that it is balanced. Sure there are more details that could have been mentioned, but with the run time of each segment (~50min or so) there's only so much room there. Hopefully if anyone sees this and wants more info on any of the stories, they will seek it out.

Drop that patronizing moralism

[claudioaltafini · 3/10 · 4 August 2020]

Keeps reminding of how "violent", corrupted and degenerated roman society was, apparently forgetting that you cannot apply today's metric to a civilization of 2k years ago. Why bother mentioning Rome's contribution to civilize Europe, between wn one massacre and the other?

Completely bias.

[rcbryant-54774 · 4/10 · 6 January 2023]

I found the whole series bias against Rome, but the Caesar one irritated me the most. She seems to misunderstand what the Roman Republic was: An oligarchy. The Senators weren't elected, they were pulled from the aristocracy. There was no representation of the people until the Senate was forced to give the plebs representation in the form of tribunes only because they needed the plebs help in a war. And the Senate literally lynched the first couple of tribunes who actually moved to really help the plebeians and heal some of the empires problems. So Caesar was fighting fire with fire only after many many popularii and tribunes were murdered by an aristocratic leader named Sulla. He literally marched an army in and killed every popularii he could which was the first time that was ever done. The show drastically mistakes the Republic and how they viewed common people and even their middle class. She also drastically misrepresents the Germanic and Celtic people of that time. They were brutal and frequently attacked Rome. The Cimbric War is a prime example of German civility. And the Celts invaded constantly and even managed to sack Rome once.

How to make important events boring.

[brianljohns7 · 4/10 · 25 March 2018]

A fairly superficial coverage of significant events in Roman history.. I don't think I learnt anything new at all, and I thought the dramatisations a bit simplistic, and quite unnecessary. I also though it a mistake to have the presenter dressed so as to emphasise her ample cleavage. Bring back Mary Beard - she makes the most mundane of Roman things interesting and exciting.

Shallow and patronizing denigration of ancient Rome

[vandylan92 · 1/10 · 27 August 2021]

If you want to learn about life in ancient Rome, then I recommend Mary Beard's two brilliant series, which are very exciting, interesting and inspiring. Mary Beard's passion and deep knowledge of the subject is truly contageous.

Here, instead, we get Bettany Hughes who spends eight episodes constantly expressing her personal feminist persuasions and attacking and denigrating the Roman civilization for not having suffiently lived up to those persuasions 2000 years ago. The fact that most viewers may not be at all interested in her political viewpoints and shallow rants is apparently not a thought that has struck her. Neither, apparently, has the futility in applying the morals and customs of England in 2017 on people who lived in an ancient society in a completely different time and world. As a sidepoint, I also don't understand why Hughes and her production team thought it was a good idea for her to show her cleavage in almost every single scene. Though I suppose that too could be yet another feminist statement of some sort.

So, if you want to watch a shallow and patronizing feminist rant, whine and moralize about the lack of modern day feminist values in ancient Rome, then this is the series for you. By contrast, if you want to learn things about ancient Rome and the Romans, then skip this and watch something else. For example by Mary Beard.

Neither fish nor flesh.

[HR27 · 5/10 · 18 January 2024]

It is-occasionally-a decent enough series, but Miss Hughes' constant moralizing is extremely tiresome. She makes the mistake way too many contemporary historians and commentators are prone to: applying rather decadent and degenerate "modern" Western standards to other societies, cultures, and time periods. At one point she even goes so far to say: "I know that we shouldn't judge ancient societies from a 21st century point of view." Apparently, she has little sense of irony or her own bigotry. Also, way too much time is spent with rather silly reenactments instead of actual scientific analysis and archeological evidence.

Eight ways To Denigrate Rome (or how I learned to stop worrying and love being wrong!)

[coe-06671 · 1/10 · 18 December 2020]

This British academic would actually be quite a titillating (pardon the pun) addition to any suburban community college. However, in the role in which she is cast as a scholarly purveyor of all things ancient roman, she fails, as does the network in its questionable choice of her employ. Case in point: never, never EVER compare social mores that were the norm 2000 years ago, to now. The public is unconcerned with your personal brand of angry feminist viewpoints. Further, to engage thusly is the mark of a rank amateur and blatantly offensive to the antiquarian purist. CEASE AND DESIST doing that, Madam!!! Still...the woman's got a good gig, and if having sex appeal sans talent and ability for bringing the viewer into history's days of yesteryear works, well then, work it, girl!

Full of mistakes

[todimp · 4/10 · 18 June 2019]

This woman describes Romans as misogynist, following the today's trend. This is false: Rome's women were, in a lot of cases, even more powerful than men.

The plot is clearly made just to catch the audience, sacrificing the truth.

Woke nonsense!

[jaykoochmeshgi · 1/10 · 5 October 2020]

Woke propaganda hell-bent on denigrating a great civilization.

Nowhere near her best work

[stevec-35 · 5/10 · 27 February 2018]

I've only seen three episodes of this series so far and Bettany Hughes has produced far better historical documentaries than this. The overall production is sloppy, one example being that Pompey, although six years older than Caesar is played by an actor that looks younger. The whole thing just seems to be dumbed down. The most recent episode that I saw dealt with the conflict between Mark Antony and Octavian. There is no mention of Lepidus (the third member of the second triumvirate) or Maecenas, one of Octavian's key allies. Antony's marriage to Octavian's sister and its subsequent dissolution is not even mentioned. Everything is just over simplified.

Overall this would rate as the worst Bettany Hughes documentary series that I've seen and I'm not sure if I will be watching the remaining episodes.

Superficial hyperbole

[jcholmy · 2/10 · 7 April 2024]

Did anyone fact check this chick? Her narrative style is all bombast and drama not letting facts or actual history get in the way of her story telling. They leap from the Punic Wars to Spartacus. She claims Crassus being made dictator to deal with Spartacus is a "precedent". Baloney! She skipped right over Marius and Sulla to Caesar. If I hear the phrase "gang of three" instead of Triumvirate again I'll gag. If you know nothing of Ancient Rome you might be entertained but certainly not educated by this pap. Important events are omitted. Shakespeare is both more entertaining and educational than this dumb downed waste of time.