Empires: The Roman Empire in the First Century (2001– ) User Reviews

A tale of the Roman Empire's rise and fall

[Ghydda · 6/10 · 14 February 2004]

This 3½ hour walk through the Roman Empire is surprisingly good. The storyline is kept interesting by shifting between narating events as they unfold, letting experts with special knowledge tell little interesting tidbits, and having actors put voices to the writings and stories left behind for later generations to find - thus shaping the characters and plotting the events - all adding to make the 1st century come to life once again.

I cannot tell whether this documentary is accurate in all aspects, but it tells an interesting and emotionally rich story of the Roman Empire. I liked it.

Not QUITE a century but surely an exceptional series.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 14 February 2013]

While the title refers to a 'First Century', the time period did not extend exactly from 1AD to 101AD but was APPROXIMATELY just before the first century AD--during the time of Julius Caesar's death. And, it ended about 80AD. This isn't really a grip--I just wanted to make it clear that the title was a wee tad deceiving.

The series mostly is concerned with both the early emperors of Rome as well as the eventual switch from the dynastic model (where successors are chosen simply because of their bloodlines) to one in which a man is chosen because of ability. Most of the show is about the Julian Emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero) but also covers two non-Julians (Vespasian and Trajan). In addition to discussing the merits and deficits of these men, the show chooses important non-royal Romans of the time to discuss as well, such as Seneca, Pliny the Elder and Younger, Josephus (a Roman citizen) and Ovid. The narration is very well done by Signorney Weaver and lots of smart professors and voice actors provide color. The overall experience watching it isn't quite as exciting as watching "I, Claudius" but is still very enlightening and enjoyable.

The only quibble I have, and this is true of most stories from the ancient world, is that it is never mentioned that the voracity of the historians is not 100%. In other words, they could have made mistakes OR drew conclusions or made omissions due to political motivations. In other words, a particular emperor might be vilified simply because surviving histories paint him as evil and we just assume this to be fact--which it may or may not be. I am not saying they should have changed what they said--just explained that the accounts in the documentary are based on these sometimes officially sanctioned accounts. Still, it's a remarkably good series and I would LOVE to see one about Rome in the second, third and fourth centuries, as they are MUCH less likely to be talked about in documentaries.

Respectful to a fault, with a concentration on emperors and poets

[Terrell-4 · 6/10 · 7 October 2009]

This PBS-produced documentary, which surveys Rome in the First Century, runs 219 minutes in four parts. It is so calm, so respectful, so stately and so dull that it made me wonder if they really were talking about Rome.

The tales of the emperors, of course, range from greatness to pederasty, from the building of an intercontinental transportation system to wretched excess, from mutual murder to becoming gods. Rome also is the story of great poets, writers, historians, and builders. The documentary spends a lot of time reminding us of this with quotes read by actors with generically well-bred voices.

Even more important and interesting is why the Romans were able to create such an empire. What was the force behind a crummy little village on the Tiber winding up owning everything from England to Egypt? And who was responsible for the most impressive set of officer's uniforms until the Nazis?

Rome is the story not just of emperors and poets, but also of engineers and soldiers, of a great civil service and a slave economy, of an empire-wide free-trade zone and a universal set of laws. Rome might nail you to a cross, but in general if you didn't say bad things about the emperor-god you could believe in any other gods that took your fancy. Said Edward Gibbon, "The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman World, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."

Little of this practical cynicism and do-the-job-right energy comes through in this documentary.

I have a great admiration for Sigourney Weaver as an actress, but her narration is simply too emotionless and too earnest. Does she have any more interest in first century Rome than most of us do? Probably not. She was hired to read the author's narration and she does with placid professionalism. The actors selected to voice the words of Ovid, Tacitus and the rest of the dead Romans bring even less moxie to the enterprise. Their voices are smooth, professional and uninteresting.

This documentary is well intentioned, probably more so than is good for it. If you must watch it for the facts, I'd advise that first you watch I, Claudius for the energy.

non-prudish look at early Rome

[roedyg · 6/10 · 3 December 2014]

This series is mostly about the Roman emperors, starting with Julius Caesar, giving the poet Ovid emperor-level-billing for some reason. It was surprisingly non-prudish, full of juicy gossip about sex lives and political intrigues. I learned quite a bit new. The video portion spends a lot of time showing you the same Roman statues and art work over and over, often out of focus. The interest comes mainly from the excellent narration. They had many commentators and narrators to hold your interest. There was quite a bit of hair-raising information about the lives of ordinary people as well.

The only part that made me gag was the section about the rise of Christianity. It was done in the turgid style of Charleton Heston in the Ten Commandments complete with 50-s style overblown epic music. They treated the bible as a literal historical document, and quoted from its errors reverently with the Hollywood "holy" accent, that conjures up an image of the narrator contending with a broom forced deeply into a body cavity. They completely ignored what we know about that period from archaeology, the Roman records and the study of other ancient documents. I think they must have had a completely different team doing that section. They may have subcontracted it to Ernest Angley's crew. It was done in a completely different style from the rest. That was too bad. An objective, non-judgemental look at that period, similar to the rest of the series, would have been fascinating.

Compare this with I Claudius where you see Derek Jacobi portraying Claudius. In this series, you hear only narrators talking about the emperors, showing you statues of them as background.