A review of “Great Epochs of European Art: Art of the Ancient Greeks & Romans”

The difficulties of learning about Greek and Roman art from textbooks

For many years now, I’ve been interested in Ancient Greece and Rome. I read some textbooks about their respective histories, and even learned the Ancient Greek language from some other textbooks. (More about that here.) From these endeavors, I learned some basic things about their culture. But there was one thing that was hard to get from books, which was proper visuals. Textbooks have only so much ability to include pictures, particularly when they’re trying to stay affordable for their readers. Color pictures in particular can be very expensive to produce for textbooks, and so some textbooks include very few of them. This meant that it was difficult (even if technically possible) to learn much about Greek and Roman art from textbooks. Thus, I felt like I needed something else to compensate for this.

A review of “The Germanic Tribes”

Warning: This blog post contains a picture of an actual human skull from centuries ago.

What is this film about, and why should I care about it?

In the fifth century AD, three Germanic tribes invaded the British Isles. They were called the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes. Two of them are sometimes lumped together into the term “Anglo-Saxons,” a major group for British history. It is from the word “Angles” that the word “England” itself comes – and, by extension, “English,” the name for the language in which I’m writing this. But this documentary doesn’t just cover the Early Middle Ages – it also covers the earlier “classical antiquity” period, focusing especially on the time of the Roman Empire. The first three episodes focus on the antagonistic relationship between the Romans and the Germanic tribes. Later on, they talk about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, and Europe’s resulting transition into its “Dark Ages” period. Thus, they talk about the bridge between the classical period and the medieval period in this film.

Latest reconstruction of the Sutton Hoo helmet, a famous Anglo-Saxon helmet

A review of Neil Oliver’s “Vikings: The Real Warriors” (BBC)

In the year 793, the Vikings attacked a monastery on the English island of Lindisfarne. It was the beginning of the Viking invasion of England – or, at least, the first Viking invasion. Thus, many historians mark this raid as the beginning of the “Viking Age.” It was then that they first became important players on the world stage. But who were the Vikings? Where did they come from? Why did they act as they did? Were they just a kind of “medieval terrorist,” or is there more to the story than that? And why, after all that they accomplished, did they suddenly disappear from the pages of history?

A review of “The Dark Ages: An Age of Light” (BBC)

The Early Middle Ages are today remembered as the “Dark Ages.” The art historian Kenneth Clark made this argument in his landmark documentary series “Civilisation.” His first episode is entirely focused on this period, and he concludes that this period was essentially uncivilized. The History Channel documentary entitled “The Dark Ages” also makes the case for these being “Dark Ages.” For example, they point to the lack of literacy and education in the Early Middle Ages. But there have been others, such as Waldemar Januszczak, who have argued that it is a much-maligned age. They point to the fantastic art of this period, as evidence that it is more sophisticated than people thought. This is the case that Waldemar Januszczak makes in this film.

Which interpretation is correct? To a large degree, they both are. I don’t believe that we have to choose between them. The fall of the Western Roman Empire left utter chaos in its wake, and this chaos does indeed define parts of the Early Middle Ages. But it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as they say. There were islands of civilization even in the Early Middle Ages. More to the point, Waldemar Januszczak seems to be correct that there was fantastic art in this period, which cast doubt upon the most extreme interpretations of the “Dark Ages.”

Waldemar Januszczak, the presenter of this series

A review of Bettany Hughes’ “The Spartans”

“Athens became the seat of politeness and taste, the country of orators and philosophers. The elegance of its buildings equalled that of its language; on every side might be seen marble and canvas, animated by the hands of the most skilful artists. From Athens we derive those astonishing performances, which will serve as models to every corrupt age. The picture of Lacedæmon [a. k. a. “Sparta”] is not so highly coloured. There, the neighbouring nations used to say, ‘men were born virtuous, their native air seeming to inspire them with virtue.’ But its inhabitants have left us nothing but the memory of their heroic actions: monuments that should not count for less in our eyes than the most curious relics of Athenian marble.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “A Discourse on the Arts and Sciences” (1750), First Part

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an eighteenth-century admirer of the Spartans

A number of people have praised the Spartans – including Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Hitler …

Many centuries after the Spartans, Jean-Jacques Rousseau once praised their culture in his “Discourse on the Arts and Sciences.” He said that the memory of Sparta's heroic actions “should not count for less in our eyes than the most curious relics of Athenian marble” (as cited above). Niccolò Machiavelli was another philosopher who praised the Spartans. (See the footnote to this blog post for the details of this.) American colonists and French revolutionaries have sometimes been among those who praised the Spartans. In modern times, some liberals have also praised Sparta for what they perceive as its “greater respect” for women’s rights. And, as the presenter of this documentary notes, Adolf Hitler also praised the Spartans, with Nazi Germany using them as a model of sorts – particularly in their use of eugenics. (See the Wikipedia page on “Laconophilia,” or the “love of Sparta,” for some of the details of this.)

Adolf Hitler, a twentieth-century admirer of the Spartans

… while Alexander Hamilton considered Sparta to be “little better than a wellregulated camp”

Ironically, Sparta was admired even by some from its arch-rival Athens, the other great superpower of Ancient Greece. The Spartans actually believed that they were creating a “utopia.” But if anything, it seems to have been closer to the other end of the spectrum – a dystopia. Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers that “Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.” (Source: Federalist No. 6) Thus, although he recognized Sparta as a “republic,” Hamilton considered Sparta to be “little better than a wellregulated camp” (an accurate summation). This documentary shows that the truth about Sparta is less romantic, and far less flattering, than the description offered by Rousseau. It acknowledges the rights of women in Sparta, even as it repeats tired old myths about how women actually had more rights in Sparta than they did in Athens (although I should acknowledge that they were still second-class citizens in both). But as this documentary notes, Sparta was “no feminist paradise.” It was a hellish dystopia (as mentioned earlier), with no real concept of human rights. It killed those boys that it deemed “weak,” denying them any future chance to redeem themselves for the unforgivable “crime” of weakness.

Jean-Pierre Saint-Ours’s “The Selection of Children in Sparta,” painted 1785

A review of “Byzantium: The Lost Empire” (The Learning Channel)

Also known as the “Eastern Roman Empire,” which lasted about a thousand years longer than the better-known “Western Roman Empire.”

The Roman Empire was divided into western and eastern halves more than once in its history. Sometimes, the halves reunited; but when they were divided again in 395, the separation became permanent. When Westerners discussing this period use the phrase “the Roman Empire,” they are usually talking about the western portion, which fell in the year 476. But the eastern portion didn't fall until the year 1453, and it is now known to us as the “Byzantine Empire.”

Map of the split of the Roman Empire into East and West, in AD 395

To the inhabitants of this empire, it was originally known as the “Eastern” Roman Empire. But when the Western Roman Empire fell in the fifth century, the eastern empire had now become the only “Roman Empire” still remaining. Thus, it became convenient for the people living under it to refer to these eastern territories as simply the “Roman Empire.” Why, then, do contemporary English speakers instead tend to refer to it as the “Byzantine Empire”?

A review of “Athens: The Dawn of Democracy”

“Sparta, Athens, Rome, and Carthage were all republics; two of them, Athens and Carthage, of the commercial kind. Yet were they as often engaged in wars, offensive and defensive, as the neighboring monarchies of the same times. Sparta was little better than a wellregulated camp; and Rome was never sated of carnage and conquest.”

– Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 6)

I have been learning the Ancient Greek language since 2013. The Athenian dialect of the language is the standard dialect taught in introductory classes about “Ancient Greek,” and the dialect that I’ve studied most. Thus, my education about Ancient Greece has been largely focused on Ancient Athens. But although I didn’t learn a lot of new content in this documentary, I enjoyed hearing what Bettany Hughes had to say about this familiar content. I am also a fan of her film about the Spartans, who are from a very different part of Ancient Greece. She portrays Athens more sympathetically than she does the Spartans, and this is as it should be. Nonetheless, this is a “warts and all” portrayal of Ancient Athens, which does not sugar-coat certain parts of the city’s legacy.

Athenian statesman Pericles

A review of “The Plague” (History Channel)

The greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history (the Black Death) …

It is still the greatest outbreak of disease in recorded human history. Some estimate that the plague killed 30 percent of the European population, but many others place it around 50 percent. To many Europeans of this time, the apocalyptic Plague seemed like “the end of the world,” and there may have been reason for them to see it this way. No war has ever killed as many people as the “Great Plague” did, and the death toll was easily numbered in the millions. Small wonder, then, that this massive outbreak of the fourteenth century is sometimes known simply as “the Plague,” as it is called in this documentary's title.

A review of “The Crusades: Crescent and the Cross” (History Channel)

To say that the relationship between Islam and the West is sometimes troubled would be something of an understatement. Since the rise of Islam in the seventh century, Christians and Muslims have often made war on each other. As it turns out, their sometime antagonism has roots going back deep into the Middle Ages; and some conflict between them still persists today. The most controversial episode in this long history may still be the medieval Crusades, where the Roman Catholic Church sent its soldiers into the Holy Land, ostensibly to help the Byzantine Empire to protect itself from the “Muslim invaders.” Their assistance had ironically been requested by the Byzantine emperor Alexios, whose empire had another form of Christianity – namely, the Eastern Orthodox Church. But despite their common ground, the relationship between the Orthodox Byzantines and the Catholic Crusaders was somewhat troubled at best, and not just because of their differing versions of Christianity. The Catholic Crusaders were, of course, arriving there more for their own benefit than for that of the Byzantines. Nonetheless, the Byzantines could not afford to offend their Catholic Crusader allies; and so they were unfortunately caught in this crossfire during much of the First Crusade (and afterwards, for that matter).

What does this documentary cover, and what does it not cover?

But after they conclude their discussion of the First Crusade in this documentary, there is virtually no further mention of the Byzantine Empire. After this, the story focuses mainly on the Crusaders and the Muslims – which are both good subjects, but nonetheless somewhat incomplete here. To be sure, this documentary is divided into two parts, and the first part is dedicated to the First Crusade. The second part covers both the Second Crusade and the Third Crusade, but does not really go into any of the others. After the Third Crusade, they mention that there were some campaigns on and off for the next century. However, they do not mention how many there were, by the time these campaigns ended in 1291. In all, there were nine crusades; and this documentary does not cover the last six of them. There is thus a lot of missing territory that I would have liked to see covered here. Nonetheless, I will acknowledge that the first three crusades were the most important ones, and thus (perhaps) the most worthy of being told for a television audience. Given that I know of few other documentaries covering any part of the Crusades (besides their bonus episode about the Knights Templar), it would thus seem that this documentary doesn't have a lot of competition from any others in this regard. Thus, I won't complain too much about this. Whatever its flaws, this documentary would seem to be a good starting point; and the information therein is also quite good. Thus, my overall assessment of it has tended to be positive; and I also found it to be quite entertaining as well.

Battle of Hattin, 1187 - the turning point of the Crusades

A review of Simon Schama's “The Story of the Jews”

“For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”

– The Hebrew Bible, “The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy,” Chapter 7, Verse 6 (as translated by the King James Version of the Bible)

This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history …

Before watching this series, I had watched another documentary by the same filmmaker, which was Simon Schama's “A History of Britain.” Since Mr. Schama is also British, this was a television history of his own country, and was an inside perspective. This film is similar, because Simon Schama is Jewish, and can thus give an inside perspective on his own ethnic group. He is clearly familiar with the Hebrew language, and he displays this fluency at a number of times throughout this series. But as it turns out, not all ethnic Jews are of the Jewish faith, so there is thus a difference between being ethnically Jewish, culturally Jewish, and religiously Jewish. Mr. Schama is clearly ethnically Jewish and culturally Jewish, but may not be religiously Jewish. Thus, he has struck some as an odd choice to make this series. But considering how many ethnic Jews would match this description, it seems like it works for me. If you want to learn more about their faith, this film will give you some useful background; but you might actually be better off turning to some other source, for this particular kind of information. This is more of an ethnic history than a religious history, and pays only minimal attention to the history of Judaism. Nonetheless, it is still quite good for what it does have to offer.

A review of “The Dark Ages” (History Channel)

The term “Dark Ages” usually refers to the Early Middle Ages, if it is used at all …

People once used the term “Dark Ages” to refer to the entire Middle Ages. But now, when the term is used at all, it usually refers to just the Early Middle Ages – that is to say, the centuries immediately after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West. A number of people today have actually objected to the use of the term “Dark Ages” itself. But although the History Channel acknowledges the prevalence of this objection, it obviously does not agree with it, as it seems to make clear in this documentary. Whatever you call this period, though, it is clear that the fall of what Westerners today call the “Roman Empire” left chaos in its immediate wake.

Reading about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek

“The unexamined life is not worth living.”

– Socrates at his trial, as recorded by Plato's “Apology”

Before beginning this project, I had just finished reading C. A. E. Luschnig's “An Introduction to Ancient Greek: A Literary Approach.” (More about that here.) I had earlier determined that after getting through this book, my first use of this (admittedly limited) proficiency would be to read all of the primary sources about the trial of Socrates in the original Greek. There aren't very many of them, I should add here, so I knew that this was a manageable task. Thus, I started doing so immediately after reading the introductory textbook about Greek.

Socrates

A review of PBS Empires “Martin Luther”

"Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen!"

- Martin Luther's "Speech at the Diet of Worms" (1521)

We take it for granted that the name “Protestant” comes from the word “protest.” But this name is a relic of a time when a “protest” against the establishment was more prominent. That establishment was then challenged by the distant thunder of revolution. It was just called the “Protestant Reformation” …

A review of “The Medici: Godfathers of the Renaissance” (PBS Empires)

“To the Magnificent Lorenzo Di Piero De' Medici:

Those who strive to obtain the good graces of a prince are accustomed to come before him with such things as they hold most precious, or in which they see him take most delight; whence one often sees horses, arms, cloth of gold, precious stones, and similar ornaments presented to princes, worthy of their greatness. Desiring therefore to present myself to your Magnificence with some testimony of my devotion towards you, I have not found among my possessions anything which I hold more dear than, or value so much as, the knowledge of the actions of great men, acquired by long experience in contemporary affairs, and a continual study of antiquity; which, having reflected upon it with great and prolonged diligence, I now send, digested into a little volume, to your Magnificence.”

– Dedication of Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” (1532)

When people today think of the “Italian Renaissance,” they usually think of accomplishments in the arts and sciences – or sometimes, philosophy. They would not often think of power politics, or the squabbling among the Italian city-states of the time. But this era was marked by ferocious power politics in Italy, which created great turmoil on the Italian peninsula. Niccolò Machiavelli's “The Prince” was the product of this time, and so was its disturbing view of ethics and politics. There was much to fear for Italians of this time.

The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained from banking

During this time, one family in particular rose to prominence in Italy – and more specifically, in Florence. In its heyday, this family produced kings, queens, and even three popes. That family was, of course, the Medici; but it did not start out as a royal family. Rather, it made its name through banking; and amassing wealth by means of the private sector. The rise of the Medici family owed much to the economic strength that they gained in this way. They actually started out their ascendancy as a family of Italian merchant-bankers, and continued to be such even during their political rule. They were among the earliest bankers in Europe, and were great pioneers in the banking industry. Their depositors stored their money in the “Medici Bank,” and the Medici then loaned out this money to people who needed it. The interest from these loans actually brought great wealth to the Medici family, and allowed them to pay some small interest to their depositors as well. It helped to create the family fortune, which brought them to political prominence in Italy. Money was often the greatest weapon in the Medici arsenal, and was a great driver of the politics of the Renaissance (as it was for every other era of human history).

Cosimo de Medici, the Italian banker who became the first of the Medici dynasty

A review of “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (History Channel)

Note: This is a different series from “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (which is made by the BBC).

There aren't too many documentaries out there about ancient history …

If you've ever looked online for movies about ancient history, you've probably had a hard time finding any. Ancient history isn't a popular subject for Hollywood movies (or even documentaries), and so very few programs about it have ever been made. I don't know why this has been the case, but I can probably make some guesses about it. If you make a documentary about World War II (a modern topic), you have access to actual archival footage from the period. You can get it at very low cost, and advertise its benefits to your viewers. Some of them will even prefer the gritty realism of the actual footage to re-enactments, which are just educated guesses (albeit good ones, if they're done right). Thus, you can sometimes get more effectiveness for less money, which is a real advantage in the world of documentaries. But if you depict the distant past, you are usually forced to rely on re-enactments, and the cost of these re-enactments can be steep. Consequently, many of these ancient history documentaries are never made in the first place.

This documentary is primarily a military history

An ancient history topic must thus be fairly popular before a for-profit network like the History Channel will decide to throw significant money at it. No matter how much the producers of these networks might like these topics, they usually can't justify the budget for these programs unless they think that they have a reasonable chance of recovering these expenses with some added cash flow. One presumes that the Roman Empire was considered popular enough to justify these budgets to investors at this time. If it had not been, after all, it's safe to assume that this series would never have been made. I imagine part of its appeal to the general public was its focus on military history (rather than other kinds of history). Military history has long been a popular topic with certain segments of the general population (perhaps especially the male population); and although political history is sometimes covered here, the primary focus of this series is military history. This may be the most comprehensive military history of Rome ever made for television. It has some weaknesses (which I will note later), but it's still a fine series despite these.

Relief scene of Roman legionaries marching, from the Column of Marcus Aurelius – Rome, Italy, 2nd century AD

A review of “Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” (BBC)

Not to be confused with “Rome: Rise and Fall of an Empire” (by the History Channel).

“Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an Empire” is neither a documentary nor a history. It uses too many re-enactments (and too little narration) to be considered a traditional documentary, and it is too sporadic and episodic to be considered a history. It does not observe the chronology well enough to be considered a true history of Ancient Rome. One episode in particular is out of chronological order, and even the others only cover brief episodes in Roman history. The gaps between them are measured in decades (and sometimes even centuries), so nothing like a comprehensive overview is even attempted. However, we should not conclude from these things that the BBC's efforts are without merit here. On the contrary, they have much to offer for the Roman Empire buff and the student of history. They even succeed in being entertaining, and bringing these events to life – which is not a small consideration, for a program on public television.

A review of David Starkey's “Elizabeth”

Queen Elizabeth the First

The most powerful queen in English history

Elizabeth the First may well be the most powerful queen in English history, because she held actual political power in a way that most later queens of England did not. Victoria and Elizabeth the Second had their power limited by the British Constitution to a degree that Elizabeth the First did not. All of them had to contend with Parliament, it is true; but the monarchy still had real power in the years that we today call the "Elizabethan Era." This power was all the greater when the state religion was still under royal control. Just years before this, you see, the church had actually been under the control of the Vatican in faraway Rome. But her father's divorce from his Catholic wife had brought him the ire of the Catholic Church, and led to England's conversion to the new Protestant faith - a faith led by the monarch personally during the lifetime of Elizabeth.

King Henry the Eighth, Elizabeth's father

A review of David Starkey's “The Six Wives of Henry VIII”

Warning: This post contains some mature themes in it. Although I have tried to discuss them tastefully, there's no way to take them out of this story - it's Henry the Eighth, after all.

The three things you're not supposed to talk about at a party (and they're all here)

It's been said that there are three things that one should not talk about at a party - sex, politics, and religion. The story of Henry the Eighth is, at once, about all of these things - a story that began as being about marriage and intimacy, but ended up as a story about state religion and world geopolitics. It changed England from a Catholic country to a Protestant country, and had massive repercussions for generations to come.

King Henry the Eighth

A review of “The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization” (PBS Empires)

"Had the Greeks, says the Abbe Milot, been as wise as they were courageous, they would have been admonished by experience of the necessity of a closer union, and would have availed themselves of the peace which followed their success against the Persian arms, to establish such a reformation. Instead of this obvious policy, Athens and Sparta, inflated with the victories and the glory they had acquired, became first rivals and then enemies; and did each other infinitely more mischief than they had suffered from Xerxes. Their mutual jealousies, fears, hatreds, and injuries ended in the celebrated Peloponnesian war; which itself ended in the ruin and slavery of the Athenians who had begun it."

- Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 18)

So I once read a book history of Ancient Greece, and I've even been learning the Ancient Greek language since 2013 (as some of you already know). I'm almost done reading my intro textbook on the subject, actually, and so I've spent many hours studying this topic over these past few years. (Update, 2017: I actually finished the intro textbook recently.) Nonetheless, I actually learned a lot from this three-hour TV program on this topic; since it is well-researched, well-presented, and it interviews the experts. I've gotten pretty deep into their culture already through these language exploits, but I nonetheless learned much from this documentary, and not just because it shows pictures of the actual places and artifacts from the time. (Although it does do plenty of that, and supplements my reading with the visuals.)

Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens

So how did I learn something from this, you might be asking? What was it that was so new to me that my textbooks hadn't shown me this information before? Why was it that I learned something from a medium that is usually brief, and occasionally superficial?

Greek statesman Cleisthenes

A review of Kenneth Clark's “Civilisation”

"Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others. But of the three, the only trustworthy one is the last."

- John Ruskin, a 19th-century art critic

Disclaimer: I know virtually nothing about the visual arts ...

So I recently finished watching Kenneth Clark's "Civilisation" (spelled the British way), a documentary series about the history of Western art. Before I begin my review of it, I should give a disclaimer that I know virtually nothing about visual art. I have never taken an art class, nor a photography class, nor an art history class. I play a little piano and do a little writing, so I have some experience with non-visual arts after a fashion; but I know next to nothing about the more visual arts. I don't even particularly like looking at most art, lacking an appreciation for it. In my adulthood, I found out the reason why: I have, quite simply, very little visual intelligence. When taking tests of my intelligence, I scored in the medium range for math and in somewhat higher ranges for language - scores which corresponded to my later scores on the GRE's. But I tested in the bottom 1 percent of the population for visual-spatial intelligence. This would explain why I've never been that interested in scenery, or why I didn't like my geometry class in high school - I am just not a visual person.

... but I am a history buff, which is what attracted me to this series

I am, however, a history buff; which is what attracted me to this series. I thought I'd shore up this intellectual weakness of mine by learning about art history, which is an excellent prism for talking about the history of mankind generally. Kenneth Clark opens this series with an interesting quote from John Ruskin, the 19th-century art critic, who said: "Great nations write their autobiographies in three manuscripts: the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art. Not one of these books can be understood unless we read the two others. But of the three, the only trustworthy one is the last." This may be overstating the case a little bit - I often find words a trustworthy way of understanding people, and deeds even moreso. (In the admittedly cliché words of an old saying: "Actions speak louder than words.") But nonetheless, you can find out a lot about a people by studying their art. It tells you a lot about their values, their ideas, and their culture; and art history is thus an excellent way to gain insight into a people.

Leonardo da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," from the sixteenth century