TERRY JONES\' BARBARIANS

[jonwr]

During a recent hospial stay I got my hands on a copy of this book.
Anyone else read it and what did you think? I wont comment on it until a couple more people weight in. But I can say it did help make a pretty long stay feel a lot shorter.
Jon R.

[Praefectusclassis]

Is that book related to the tv series of the same name / by the same presenter? There's a long thread about that in Ref & Rev. We were not impressed, but the book may be better.

[Et tu brute]

I believe i've heard of it, I think I was actually looking at it in a bookshop one time, but i've never read it.

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

see also this thread. I myself also wasn't impressed (all lies, lies!)

"Decline and fall of the Roman myth"

[Memmia]

I saw the both series, Terry Jones only tells one side of the story. There was good and bad on both sides, but Jones seems to take sides with the 'Barbarians' and with the 'Saracens'. He also ommitted some very valuable truths, especially regarding who was responsible for the fate of the civilians trapped in no-man's land when Caesar invaded Gaul.
He was far too black and white in his potrayals.
If you read Terry Jone's publications debating modern politics you will quickly get a picture of his political orientations and mindset :roll: and although each to their own, unfortunately his own political agenda crawls all over these historical documentaries (well, hasn't that always been the case with historians ? :lol: )
I think he should stick with the Monty Python sketches.

Is the book the same ?- Romans- BAD, Barbarians- GOOD, Catholic church- BAD, Atilla the Hun- QUITE A NICE CHAP REALLY

P.S. Jon- Hope you're feeling better now!!

[jonwr]

Joanne starting to feel a lot better now thanks.
I read the other threads on this and the view is this is a one sided book. Very anti Roman and now a little anti Catholic. I'm no expert on the subject but looked at it as more entertaiment value than new information.
I just wish more history books were written in the same style. I could have done with a few one liners whilst wading through medeval Lit.
Jon R. (Cynric the not so barbarian )

[Senovara]

I'm no expert on the subject but looked at it as more entertaiment value than new information.

I agree Jon. I think what Terry Jones mainly aims for in his historical writings/films, is to make history more interesting and exciting for people who normally dont read or watch it. It's true he can get opinionated sometimes, but that just adds to me (a non-scholar and one who's never studied it past post-secondary school) wanting to read more about the subject. Oh. if you haven't seen it yet, watch Terry Jones' Crusades. It's a lot of fun.

IMHO

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

I wasn't aware of a book, but I enjoyed the series. I had no problem at all with his assertions that the barbarians were not all that,well, barbaric. Seeing them in a different light was interesting. To me, all he said was they weren't filthy,blood-thirsty savages but had families and cultures that were different from the popular writers of history. It didn't diminish my love of things Roman. You could look at the barbaric side of Roman culture,too, if you use modern esthetics. Personally, I learned something and was given food for thought.
Consider what the Pythons did for (to) King Arthur, Vikings, pirates(you'll never kill anyone if you go around thinking) and especially "Life of Brian". ("What did the Romans ever do for us?").

[Robert Vermaat]

I had no problem at all with his assertions that the barbarians were not all that,well, barbaric. Seeing them in a different light was interesting. To me, all he said was they weren't filthy,blood-thirsty savages but had families and cultures that were different from the popular writers of history.

Me neither. I had a problem with him first bashing historians for showing only the Roman side of things and painting them in a much too favarouble light (he was right there), but then he turned that around and did the very same thing from the opposite direction. Romans worse than bad, etc. And when he got to the vandals and there were no more Romans to blame, he made a light skip and happily declared the catholic Church about the same as the Romans, blaming them in turn for the bad press the Vandals had been given. And so forth and so on. It was full of very wrong claims, and very black and white.

I never altered my view of the Romans (I'm a historian), but it did not change my view of the barbarians much, either. He just did not impress me. His series about the Medieval world seemed to have been a lot better.

[jonwr]

Whoops! That should have read "medieval"
I think Sharon has the right idea. Anything that makes you read more on a subject can't really hurt.
I thought the treatment of the Huns was a little contrary to what the general view is. But !!!!
Robert makes a good point when he says Jones goes to the other side of the coin about the ,how shall I say. Non Roman cultures.
Perhaps its time for a more even handed look at the subject
I have never seen any of the TV series but will have to give them a look.
No doubt my friendly Barnes and Noble has them on their shelves.
Jon R.

[sonic]

Whoops! That should have read "medieval"
I think Sharon has the right idea. Anything that makes you read more on a subject can't really hurt.
I thought the treatment of the Huns was a little contrary to what the general view is. But !!!!
Robert makes a good point when he says Jones goes to the other side of the coin about the ,how shall I say. Non Roman cultures.
Perhaps its time for a more even handed look at the subject
I have never seen any of the TV series but will have to give them a look.
No doubt my friendly Barnes and Noble has them on their shelves.
Jon R.

Maybe he does go to the other extreme than that normally taken, but isn't that a good thing, in that it gives both extremes and allows a more realistic picture to emerge, somewhere between the two?

______________________________

Ian (Sonic) Hughes

[jonwr]

Spot on Ian.
Jon R.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I saw the both series, Terry Jones only tells one side of the story. There was good and bad on both sides, but Jones seems to take sides with the 'Barbarians' and with the 'Saracens'. He also ommitted some very valuable truths, especially regarding who was responsible for the fate of the civilians trapped in no-man's land when Caesar invaded Gaul.
.......................

Is the book the same ?- Romans- BAD, Barbarians- GOOD, Catholic church- BAD, Atilla the Hun- QUITE A NICE CHAP REALLY

P.S. Jon- Hope you're feeling better now!!

Well there are alway 2 sides to the story, but to say the Romans were bad? hock: Gee, go figure! :roll: :twisted:

[Memmia]

Well there are alway 2 sides to the story, but to say the Romans were bad? hock: Gee, go figure! :roll: :twisted:

I know, Byron, how very dare he! :lol: :twisted:


Robert- Spot on, I totally agree!

One thing I was very surprised at though, did anyone else notice the actors/ actresses playing the 'Barbarians' all had grubby faces, lank hair and drab clothes. I didn't get that at all, was he trying to show how Roman's were supposed to have viewed them ? Terry Jones was trying to explain how they weren't 'ignoble savages'- I agree, they weren't! Some of my best ancestors were 'Barbarians' Yet the visual portrayals showed them as a bunch of scuzzies. Even the Romans described them as clean- using lye soap, hair dye, and bedecked in bright colours, patterns and gold jewelry.

I really didn't understand what the point was there. Did I miss something ?

I still like Jones as an entertainer though.

[Zenodoros]

I'm actually reading the book now. I think I watched an episode of the series earlier this year, and wasn't impressed at all... but while a lot of the book can be hard to swallow if you've read more on the subject beforehand, I think it is still a very good little piece... and one with some very interesting information.

He certainly does get in the way of himself sometimes, and no matter how hard he tries, he still can't possibly convince me that all Celts just wanted nothing more than their tea and crumpets and weren't "brutal" like the Romans - but frankly, I do agree with him that the Romans were much, much more violent than any civilization of the time.

I sometimes get a little scared at the thought that there are people almost worshipping Caesar when he may have ordered the deaths of maybe 500,000-2,000,000 people over seven years. :? )

So while I find a lot of the book hard to swallow, he does bring up some interesting points, and as he does not exactly refer to himself as a 'historian' (so it's all just food for thought, really) it's a little easier to take.