Dinin Do Urden Ok... So... As other reviews pointed out, some facts are just plain wrong and important elements totally omitted.However, the worse thing about this documentary is the INSANE political position it takes... I mean... It is worse than Good US and Evil Russians or Germans. Each "Barbarian" (some of which not being Barbarians... Hannibal or Spartacus for instance) is depicted as a Freedom Fighter versus the Roman Empire, the most EEEEEVIIIIIIL empire exiting on Earth.I'm not saying Roman Empire was good and gentle and yes they oppressed various cultures, yes they had slaves (as everybody had during those times... Athens did, Sparta did, Persian Empire did and most of the Barbaric factions), and yes, like any army (even US one) they committed atrocities, but Goddammit! This is supposed to be a historical documentary not a Marvel movie...And Ok, it's focused on the Barbarians, not on the Roman Empire. So I can get there is no reason to mention the insane development the Roman Empire provided to the entire occidental Europe. No need to say that it took almost a millenia for Europe to recover from the fall and get back to the same levels of health, safety, stable governments etc. Ok. It's not the focus and it's not what is driving me insane. No, what drives me crazy is that you can be prepared to ear like 10000 times: "Romans oppressed and raped and killed and raped and oppressed, and raped". "In their arrogance, Roman Empire..." all this in a very dramatic way, always highlighting how bad and evil Romans were..And then: "Boudicca killed 10,000 Civilians". This is a f****g War Crime level of evilness. But no... They say this like just a simple normal fact.. Like, "but yeah. It's OK you know? It's normal, it's again the Roman Empire, so that's fine". No mention of torture for the Barbarians? No rape? No genocide?Give me a break.... Too cringy... Way too cringy...What's the ptoblem? Is the producer / director jealous his country never shine in such a way for so long or what?

sass_i_am I enjoy history, however, other than the Roman Gods all I know I learned from a 6th grade world history class, the Bible, Shakespeare, 'Gladiator' and 'Rome.' Yes, I am aware three out of five of those are fiction. Even if you don't believe in God, the book was written during the height of the Roman empire. My reasons for disagreeing with the negative reviews: *HISTORICAL ACCURACY-'Barbarians Rising' is clearly listed as a docudrama (a dramatized TV movie based on real events.) *HANNIBAL-The fact that a black man played Hannibal should matter just as much as the white Englishmen playing Romans, Barbarians and Attila the Hun. *BARBARIAN-The definition of a barbarian is a community of a tribe not belonging to the Greek, Roman, or Christian civilization. Unfortunately, no matter how great the might or how beautiful the civilization of Carthage might have been, they were still part of the Barbarian horde. WAR OVER TRADE OR SLAVERY?-One reviewer stated the Carthaginians owned slaves, but I don't believe that meant they were willing to become slaves, themselves. As to why Hannibal and the Carthaginians went to war with Rome (revenge, slavery, control over the Med, or because they were invaded) I would assume it was for multiple reasons as opposed to just one. *DEMONIZING ROME-History is never absolute. Most of the media we see is told from the side of the Roman point of view, thereby demonizing the 'others.'This story was told from the Barbarians side and doing so can only demonize Rome. Though, to be fair Rome fought to conquer, not defend themselves. *COMMENTATORS-I understand the selection they made. The Military leaders spoke of the battles and the strategy behind them; the CEO spoke about leadership, topics with which they were experienced. Though I often believe Jesse Jackson to be an opportunistic narcissist, he does have a tremendous way to make others see the oppression, and his area of expertise came into play because of what the barbarians were facing, I would like to point out that the inclusion of the other, more celebrated, commentators did not push out those to whom history is their expertise. And, if nothing else, watching Tom Hopper never hurt a soul. (Sigh)

esperancaed I just finished watching the this series and I enjoyed it very much!I cannot say how much I appreciated that people who were, historically, from the African continent, had dark skin. That was so lovely to see! I'd never seen a dark- skinned Hannibal before, even though it makes worlds of sense that he wasn't white. Some commentors are complaining about this and stating he shouldn't have been "African looking" because he was descendant from Phoenicians? Well, my mother and every single one of my ancestors from her side are white Germans, yet looking at me, you would not know. Human genetics sure are a thing of wonder! Trying to hide the fact that you do not want a great figure of history to look a certain way behind a pseudo-scientific comment on a TV series is a strange thing to do. Personally, I was so happy that it occurred to someone that Hannibal and his people, no matter what he looked like exactly, couldn't have been white and cast the actors accordingly because it's 2017 and it matters.Another thing I appreciated a great deal was the diversity in the historians and other experts that were consulted. It was so so refreshing and what they had to say was extremely interesting to me! There were many historians consulted, of course, but also other professionals with relevant input. A CEO speaks when it comes to explaining the mindset of an opportunistic ruler and actual Civil Rights fighters from the USA share what they know whenever the topic of slavery arises, which it often does, or when the psyche/actions of an oppressed group needs to be analysed and explained. Furthermore, I'd like to mention that for the first time in any historic documentary I've ever seen, not all of the historians are old white men! Young, accomplished historians of different ethnicities speak on several topics. There were a few interviews with an expert who was a woman, too, but not many. I like the idea that for the purpose of dealing with an empire that influenced so many different cultures and ways of life across such a large territory, people with different viewpoints and strengths came together. I liked that the documentary focused on a small number of female figures, too. I'd never dealt with Boudica before and now I know of her. I do not doubt that things were left out, as this series has four episodes, each of them being roughly the length of a movie. I do, however, feel that they did very well giving the layman an overview of what resistance to the Roman Empire looked like throughout the centuries. All four directions and the borders running along them are talked about and the maps, which are shown repeatedly, are extremely helpful and visualize the shifting of the borders well. I imagine that a selection for peoples to go into detail about had to be made and I like the results.As for the violence: Every episode starts with a warning about intense violence and there truly is a lot of fighting, killing, and a general realistic depiction of human suffering. However, unlike in many other series of this kind, there are no unrealistic amounts of blood spurting, there are no sex scenes, no zooming in on corpses with maggots everywhere and there is no nudity.

Guylasorsa56 I was very excited when I heard about this series,as there isn't much out there on Roman history. I enjoyed the 2 other documentaries on the rise and fall of the roman empire. I a big fan of the show Rome and spartacus,though they are not historically accurate ,but are TV series. A documentary should do its best to create an enjoyable story and be historically accurate. Barbarians rising did none of these. I totally agree with the above reviews on Hannibal. Scipios son not being mentioned is a huge blunder Heck how hard would it have been to give him his eye patch, from losing his eye in battle.I did enjoy the the second story on Veriatus. Perhaps because I don't know much about his story. Spartacus,they butchered as bad as they did Hannibals story. They had him winning at Vesuvius and one other small battle. He fought several battles and won. Spartacus was tricked by some pirates who were suppose to bring him across the waters to Sicily. There's nothing in history that says Marcus Crassus paid the pirates off,as they said in this episode. It didn't say how Spartacus had to battle uphill in their last attempt to escape the tip and defeat Crassus. Not a mention of right in the battle he killed his own horse,to rally his men