John Romer's Byzantium Series
Brett Todd
Razib Khan wrote:
>
> I'm very interested in Roman history, and therefore the Byzantines as an
> extension. I found there was a dearth of names & dates. He concentrated too
> much on art grand social concepts (and hyperbolized a bit here & there, but
> that's OK) and left out economics, military events, governmental changes,
> etc. etc. etc. I also noticed there were long periods of silence when they
> just focused on a mosaic or something. I found that tiring after a while.
>
> It was OK.
Excellent points. But I would go even further and judge the entire
thing, well, a mess. For me, Romer always goes too far and turns
interesting history into quaint little stories that he tells like he's
addressing little children or morons. Not that I want something highly
specialized (that would be nice, but it's unrealistic for a TV
audience), but this was just too much in the opposite direction. I
watched two episodes one night and that was enough for me.
I did like some of the pauses though. Gave me more of a sense of the
passage of time, especially when the camera lingered on a particular
ruin or what had replaced it today. But there was never enough history
to set these moments in their proper context.
Brett Todd
Scaramouche
On 30 Aug 1997 21:00:06 -0700, kh...@gladstone.uoregon.edu (Razib
Khan) wrote:
My dear Mr. Khan
I agree with you that there were places where a brief survey of events
would have set a much better context for his premise. I suppose my
surprise was his premise of how much we owe to Byzantium in many
areas. This was something of a shock, since I've heard that it is
notable that Byzantium made NO significant progress in science or
philosopy, and that its major contributions were in works of art and
in the singing of castrated males.
Best regards, J. B. Kraft
>
>I'm very interested in Roman history, and therefore the Byzantines as an
>extension. I found there was a dearth of names & dates. He concentrated too
>much on art grand social concepts (and hyperbolized a bit here & there, but
>that's OK) and left out economics, military events, governmental changes,
>etc. etc. etc. I also noticed there were long periods of silence when they
>just focused on a mosaic or something. I found that tiring after a while.
>
>It was OK.
>
>
>In article <5tnbbm$4...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, j2k...@flash.net says...
>>Has anyone seen the 4 part series on Byzantium by Archeologist John
>SNIP
>the interesting tie-ins from Byzantium to our modern culture, except
>>in the area of Church construction and laws.
>>I would be interested in hearing the opinions of some of you who are
>>"experts" or devotees of Byzantine history.
>>Best regards, Scaramouche
>>
>
Brett Todd
Razib Khan wrote:
>
> I'm very interested in Roman history, and therefore the Byzantines as an
> extension. I found there was a dearth of names & dates. He concentrated too
> much on art grand social concepts (and hyperbolized a bit here & there, but
> that's OK) and left out economics, military events, governmental changes,
> etc. etc. etc. I also noticed there were long periods of silence when they
> just focused on a mosaic or something. I found that tiring after a while.
>
> It was OK.
Excellent points. But I would go even further and judge the entire
Razib Khan
In article <5ucb25$4tr$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>, bt...@recorder.ca says...
<snip>
> Excellent points. But I would go even further and judge the entire thing,
> well, a mess. For me, Romer always goes too far and turns interesting
> history into quaint little stories that he tells like he's addressing
> little children or morons. Not that I want something highly specialized
> (that would be nice, but it's unrealistic for a TV audience), but this was
> just too much in the opposite direction. I watched two episodes one night
> and that was enough for me.
I noticed this too. I can only say that there was an *emptiness* to the
series (I watched 3 of the episodes) in that I left feeling as if I knew
very few facts (the meat of history so to speak) about Byzantium that I
did not already grasp. Romer also tended to concetrate on the art far too
much for my tastes. It seemed such a one-dimensional treatment. I simply
felt the whole series did not lead me anywhere
(I think part of it had to do with the fact that Romer was just too big
a part of the series, his body was in too many of the shots, and he would
stand and talk for 5 minutes at length about something which is [at least
to me] of only passing interest)
> I did like some of the pauses though. Gave me more of a sense of the
> passage of time, especially when the camera lingered on a particular ruin
> or what had replaced it today. But there was never enough history to set
> these moments in their proper context.
I agree totally. I think perhaps they should have perhaps made one episode
with their budget, they could have concentrated the history together instead
of diluting it and making the whole thing rather a snoozer.
Razib
James Gifford
I have just seen the first episode which was shown last night. Like
so many such programs it was very pretty, easily watched but
ultimately unsatisfactory. All that remains this morning are some
snippets about quarrying marble. The outstanding weakness was that it
was never explained why this city was so rich and why the centre of
gravity of the Empire should have shifted to it. There were also some
very odd assertions, eg ' that the Western Empire never fell'. Tell
that to Alaric the Goth. The view of the Greeks as an 'Eastern'
civilisation is a curious description of the cradle of classisism.
The career of Justinian and his attempt, ultimately unsuccessful, to
restore the Western Empire were so sketchily described that they
could make no sense in context. The other ommissiom, perhaps handled
in later episodes was any mention of the Persian Empire with which
Byzantium struggled for so long.
--
James Gifford
Banff
Scotland
E-Mail jam...@zetnet.co.uk
John-V Smith
ames Gifford wrote:
> I have just seen the first episode which was shown last night. Like so
> many such programs it was very pretty, easily watched but ultimately
> unsatisfactory.
I watched this entire series and the items you mentiond are never dealt
with in the other 3 episodes. I had a great feeling of dissatisfaction
with this series as well. The title "The Forgotten Empire" was intriging
and I was looking forward to learning more about Byzantium (altough it
seemed strange that this thing was only going to be a total of 4 hours
long. This country/empire was around nearly 1000 years or so (longer
if you count the Roman Empire connection), and had an immense impact
on how western civilization developed, or was allowed to develop
because Byzantium was holding back the Moslems, Mongols, etc. There was
very little history in this series. I mainly talked a few events, and even
then just gave enough history to place the events in time. This series had
the same feel (and dissatisfaction) as the "Seven Wonders" series which
Romer also did. I wish someone would a real historic series on Byzantium.
It would be facinateing.
--
--- John V. Smith
Now And Then
What Might Have Been
Interferes With What Might Be........
Razib Khan
In article <John-V.Smith.02047...@cpsidfw.flash.net>,
John-V.Smi...@nt.com says...
<snip>
>Romer also did. I wish someone would a real historic series on Byzantium.
>It would be facinateing.
<snip>
Michael Woods did a great job in IN SEARCH OF THE TROJAN WAR. I would like
to see him do something else that deals with the Bronze Age or Classical era.
In any case, I think we get the same feel for this series. It just didn't
deal with that much history.
On a scale of 1 to 10, I'd give it a 3