Customer Reviews

Battles B.C.: The Complete Season One

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

The attempt to make the recreations appear like the movie "300" was idiotic at best (the 300 was about as accurate in portraying the battle of Thermopylae as Zena the warrior Princess was an accurate portrayal of ancient times). None of the recreations for these episodes had much character (they all seemed strangely alike) and most were ridiculously inaccurate. For example, why didn't the Romans have the scutum shields in the Caesar episode; why was Caesar portrayed so young; why did Hannibal have to look so much like the Scorpion King that he even lacked adequate clothing while crossing the alps: why did every commander in the series need to behave like Conan the barbarian; why didn't the Romans actually fight like Romans; and what's with the fights with two swords (one in each hand) as the soldiers pirouette about looking more like ballet dancers than the way these ancient armies actually fought.

Please History Channel, stop trying to recreate ancient military history based upon hideously inaccurate films such as The 300!

No. No. HELL no.


The "History" Channel botches again, not in terms of style, for many people DO like "300", but "300" had the benefit of being an entertainment motion picture, purely fictional, based on real life events.

The "History" Channel basically takes the style of "300", and bastardizes history in these "documentaries" that are a huge phasing down of historical authenticity and magnificence compared to earlier series', and a huge phasing up of "BUY THIS! IT LOOKS LIKE A MOVIE YOU LIKE!"



Perhaps trying to upsell it's GORE! it's worth mentioning that its level of gore comes nowhere close even to that of "300". Splatters of blood appear on screen in a blatantly phony way, as though it was splashed ONTO the screen outside of the program itself. The battles are also nowhere near the level of appeal or excitement of "300".


History is horribly bastardized, perhaps no worse than in the episode on "Cannae":

- To start with, Hannibal Barca becomes BALD and BEARDLESS and with TWO EYES (which if you've seen ANY depiction of Hannibal EVER, as well as ancient busts, he was bearded, had hair, and lost one of his eyes BEFORE the Battle of Cannae). He actually looks to be intentionally ripping off Dhalsim (or as some people called him, "Xerxes") in Street Fighter II--- I mean, "300", with his being hairless all over except for his thick eyebrows, with a vaguely middle-eastern/Indian look to him, rather than the Semitic North African Hannibal truly was.

Worst of all is how Hannibal goes into battle: wearing only shorts and a brown cape, with his mouth as wide open as possible, as if saying "THROW A SPEAR IN HERE!"

In fact, battle scenes involving Hannibal could never be distinguished as anything specific---it could be Greeks fighting Barbarians, it could be late-Roman Barbarians fighting Huns, it could be Persians fighting Egyptians, it could be Knights Templar fighting the British Redcoats. Roman arms is in no way representative of Roman armor at any point in history except maybe the Roman Kingdom---all the Romans wear IDENTICAL breastplates, crest-less helmets, and generic round shields. For all intents and purposes, they look like Greek Hoplites. And Hannibal is bald and half-naked, a mishy-moo of "300"'s Spartans and Xerxes.



Worse still, the history is horribly battered in powerfully awful mispronounciation, distortion of events that seem less intentional and more "we didn't do the research/just didn't care").

Examples from Cannae include: Someone pronounces Cannae (accepted as "Can-Eye") as "Cay-nay". The announcer seriously says "Calvary". CALVARY IS THE PLACE JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED! "CAVALRY" IS HORSE-MOUNTED SOLDIERS!


As well, the depiction of the Battle of Cannae says that the Roman formations were so tight, soldiers could not raise their arms up to fight. What does the video show us? BIG. OPEN. SPACES. BIIIIIG. OPEEEEN. SPACEEEEES! Sure, it eventually starts to close in, but not only is it NOT from the sheer amount of Romans rushing forward, but from the Carthaginians rushing in, but there was STILL enough space for them to fight just fine!

Someone in the program also stupidly states that the Romans BANNED the word "Peace" after the battle of Cannae. I think that's largely a case of "speed-read through Wikipedia" type research, or just completely made up. I've studied this battle very intensely. I have heard of mothers using Hannibal Barca as a boogeyman to scare their children. I have heard of Romans fearing for their lives after Cannae, thinking he would sack the city, despite its garrison. I have heard of a great many things occurring after the battle. I have NEVER heard of them BANNING A GENERIC WORD. It would probably make sense if they said "Banned any mention of making peace with Carthage in public", but banning THE WORD ITSELF is something that sounds simply too ridiculous to be true.



And here's a big question I have for one of the speakers in the video: Exactly WHAT Roman army are you referring to when you say a Roman army could only move forward and back, and could not turn to its sides?

Because considering they even took the time to say Hannibal's AFRICAN PHALANX attacked them from their sides, I think they mixed up their Wikipedia printouts in thinking that the Roman Maniple was stiff and unwieldy (it wasn't) and the Phalanx was loose and flexible (it wasn't)---it's the MANIPLE that is flexible, and the PHALANX that is stiff!

Virtually any and every Roman army in the Republic/Empire can and was capable of turning on command in ANY direction, ESPECIALLY in cases of emergency! The Romans DID turn to their sides at Cannae, to fight in all directions! If they didn't, then Hannibal wouldn't have even needed to commit his cavalry in the rear: his forces from the flanks would simply seal shut the back end of the Roman army!



This isn't just a huge slap in the face of history and documentaries---there are plenty of other things that do that---this is something that is bad and wrong, and hate-inspiring, for two reasons: one subjective, one objective:


Subjective: It "300"izes history, ignoring a great many historical facts for the sake of who knows what, because the changes contribute nothing special to the storyline (as in, why did we need to see a Hannibal Barca who looks like Arnold Vooslo in "The Mummy"?), and only serve to make historians bang their heads on a wall in frustration, and make its target audience mock the program for ripping off "300"


Which segues into the Objective reason: It's a cheap ripoff of "300". Fans and haters alike will know it right away. It shamelessly rips off "300", like it did with "Last Stand of the 300", and it wouldn't even be the sort of ripoff that fans of "300" would enjoy! It's bogged down by loads of "boring documentary information stuff", and with a very strong lack of gore or coherent battle scenes. No one fights in any sort of formation, or even in a shooting style that the viewer can follow.

This show has good graphics, but is a little too violent for educational purposes. Furthermore, it is not completely historically correct. For example, the appearances of many of those featured were incorrect. Hannibal was not some gargantuan bald muscle-head. Still, it does have great entertainment value and decent commentary from experts. I like it, but just wish that they had paid more attention to details and historical accuracy. One last comment, the narrator kept using the word 'calvary' instead of 'cavalry' to describe the horse riding units of the armies depicted. That, to me, is inexcusable...

This series has a few things going for it but also lacks in some areas. The commentaries were informative, but the actual depictions of battles seemed flawed. Many times they would depict a single man running from an archer and being shot, but it would have almost nothing to do with the story. They would also depict armies in a seemingly inaccurate way, as if they did not want to spend the money to make accurate costumes and arms. I did enjoy this series simply because of the visuals and and larger battle scenes, and the gore made the show more entertaining.

Ultimately I felt that the idea for the show was great, but the presentation was lacking. They could have had the "300" style battle scenes work with well prepared commentaries, along with accurate costumes and actors. Sadly it seems they didn't quite live up to their potential. If they make a season 2, I really hope they improve on what they started. I also hope that they include battles that were more significant to ancient history than small scuffles in the middle east that take place in the Old Testament. There was Alecia in 52 BC, Pydna in 168 BC, Kai-Hsia in 203 BC, and many more. There were plenty of huge battles that they could choose from that were ten times more epic in scale than any of the Judaic battles such as David and Goliath, Joshua, or Moses. I'd like to see battles that were more important and had a larger effect than what some minor despot in the Levant did to some other minor despot in the Levant. There is so much more they could accomplish if they did.

This is the History Channel at its worst.
It's a great idea to provide a graphically interesting view of great ancient battles.
But these are tarted up videos for the gameing crowd.
The presentations of Hannibal and Caesar are especially offensive.
This is for those who think that 300 was an accurate presentation of that moment in history.
The commentaries are ok but not very informed and sometimes just downright wrong.
This could have been a great learning tool but instead is a monumental waste of time

OK so the biggest problem people seem to have with the series is 1 it was made to look like 300 and 2 it was not historically accurate? If you want ultra historically accurate good luck, the best we have is the ancient source material which SHOCK was usually written by the victor thus extremely biased. So, the producers took that material, diluted it a little more and made this series. I mean, c'mon people aren't you tired of the dry toast videos and productions usually made? It's what made this series great, some modern production, a little bit of flash to what can ultimately be dry material.

I thought the commentators were excellent, and while Hannibal may not have looked the way he did in that video does it really matter? This is not high brow material for historical re-enactors this is something fun to watch and get a little bit of info out of. for 11.00$ you can't beat it!

Overall, I like the show; however, I didn't like the choice of words that were given to Joshua and David saying that they were like Mafia Dons. You would have to applied those words to the various civil wars in Europe between the members of the royal families since many of them were killing each other and their followers to gain, keep and/or re-gain the throne. You could also say that with the civlil, religious wars in Europe where the Catholic Church was determine to keep its dominant position against both emerging Christian Demoninations and political leaders who wish to subject the Church their authority.

Just received this 2 DVD Battles B.C. set from Amazon, VERY disappointed in the actual video DVD format. This has been produced in the absolutely awful 4:3 fullscreen format with the artificial black bars added at top and bottom, NOT true 16 x 9 widescreen format!

This is unacceptable and really makes me angry, especially when the computer-generated 16 x 9 source material is readily available for the DVD transfer. This represents extremely CHEAP PRODUCTION VALUES on the part of the History Channel, and along with LACK of basic DVD extras like Closed Captioning/Subtitles, just appalls me to no end! DVD seems like it was just rushed out at minimal cost and effort by the producers to make a few extra bucks! Would give more stars if DVD was true 16 x 9 widescreen, same as source material, and if it had Closed Caption/Subtitles like almost every other current DVD available.

How cheap can History Channel BE?! Will definitely NOT be purchasing any future seasons of this series again!

When sitting down to an episode of Battles BC you know you are going to be in for a wild ride once the opening credits queue up. This isn't your ordinary historical show and it does take a little leeway when it comes to the history of battles; but makes for some good ol' entertainment!

Battles BC episodes play out like an episode of the Movie 300. It has that style and flair. However the implementation of this flair really falls short at times. It might look visually pleasing but often the commentary and explanation of the battle doesn't always jive with the on screen acting and scene. Also battles seem to be fought 1 v 1 or 1 v 2 with tons of extras in the background pre-filmed / digitally imprinted onto the film. It looks cool, yet awkward at the same time. So overall the visuals are nice but can be distracting sometimes and even lead to over acting / dramatizing the battle. It feels as if each battle was given a Hollywood twist on it to make it seem more entertaining.

As for the accuracy of the show, it is pretty good I'd say. Sometimes they do make small errors in explaining certain maneuvers and were a bit free with the use of words to describe some battles and leaders. While educational and accurate enough for what the show is, it really becomes hard to overlook the Hollywood/300 flair this show is given. It just comes across almost comical instead of a serious re-telling of famous ancient battles.

This isn't one of History Channel's finest moments with this show. While much of the commentary information is correct, the visual representations will tend to throw you for a loop if not confuse you outright as the portrayals of main characters tends to completely miss the mark.

Overall I would give the show 2 stars. It is entertaining and informative, but look elsewhere if you are attempting to find a serious look at ancient battles.

I love the movie 300; it is based on Frank Miller's graphic novel, which is a fantasy depiction of real events of the battle of Thermopylae. At least he actually got a few concepts right in regards to fighting styles, i.e. the Greek phalanx formation.
However, this show which is clearly cashing in on 300 is ridiculous. It has dialogue which is dumbed down so much that only the lowest common denominator amongst the human population would find it informative for one. Second was the incorrect information like the Maniple Roman legion wielding random equipment like round shields and Greek armour fighting like wild barbarians, and not the disciplined fighting force it was. And this was the tip of the iceberg.
I already mentioned the dialogue but I'll elaborate for you, every thing the narrator said had me rolling my eyes, I almost went cross eyed from it. Some examples for you include: Calvary? It's CAVALRY!! Apparently the Romans banned the word peace after they were decimated following the battle of Cannae. And my personal favourite, The Roman army could only move forward and back but not side ways, so they were easily flanked by the Carthaginians. Need I say more!
If you want to see a cool movie with some great fight scenes watch 300 or the Spartacus sand & blood series. If you want to learn anything about history, then bypass this.