Barbarians Season 1 Review. Who is the bad guy?

[@Lodov]

From the rockstar barbarian look and the imposition of the authors cultural beliefs on the protagonist It seems to me that they wanted to copy the success of the series "Vikings". The second season was even more "fantasy" than the first one and that's a real shame. We could have had a cinematographic adaptation of Germanicus' campaigns and instead we got a trite modern interpretation of the noble savage myth.

[@LukeRanieri]

I agree with you

[@letsunnahgoforth]

Alright just discovered this channel been subscribed to your main channel for a while immediately subscribed to this one will you make a video on season 2 once it comes out

[@LukeRanieri]

I will indeed! Thanks for subscribing

[@romanusinvictusaeternus3144]

Caesar Auguste Aurelii ? Salve domine! Non te hic invenire expectabam !

[@AlexAre0]

This is a great video and reminds me of the discussions I had with my friend about the show. We both are history buffs and he loves Rome and cheered for them despite knowing the history of Teutoburg. I found your channels through this show, so I am grateful for that too. It's interesting that you talked about how the show is making some clear moral statements on the factions. It's a German show and historically Arminius is viewed as a favorable figure by some. So, Germans good Rome bad doesn't surprise me. This is what I felt like the show was pushing me to think. However, I kept seeing Arminius as not likeable and Rome as victims which is super interesting. My friend was also pro-Roman perspective for bias reasons. Anyways, for me, it helps if you think his motivations are self-serving. This inference can be gleamed by how he reacts to being snubbed by Varus and in extension Rome. But in the end, Arminius talks about Roman oppression which feels awkward and inconsistent with how he admonishes his friends for resisting Rome earlier in the show. It seems the shift happens after being told he couldn't be "Roman". Which like you point out doesn't seem to make historic sense as Rome integrated cultures as much as they wanted them to assimilate. Rome is shown as having a lot of hubris which is accurate to me. But, they didn't do anything unexpected to me in treating the tribes as tributaries and brutally cracking down on dissent. Like you said, Rome did plenty of horrible things, but their actions in the show didn't surprise me or speak to me as pure evil so I was more sympathetic towards them. Part of me wants to view the speech in the end against Roman rule as just a political move by Arminius instead of a 4th wall statement. I think Arminius is being disingenuous. It is possible that the 2 dimensionality of Rome in the show is just to serve a bigger subversion explored later on. But, maybe the show IS saying Arminius is good. I may be making stuff up. I am not sure, but maybe seeing how they write the next season can make the themes clearer. I hope they go in a directions similar to what you said about looking at the cost of Teutoburg. It's easy for me to see how Teutoburg historically was just a moment of opportunity too tempting to pass up, but in the end, it can be argued that it wasn't worth the destruction brought by the Roman response. Maybe the show will say Arminius had a little hubris himself. This is a tragic story after all. Anyways, sorry for the ramble. I appreciate your work. This video in particular brought back a lot of thoughts I had about history and the show. I hope the show goes in the direction you stated because that would be such a cool thing to see, and it would resolve the oddities of the first season you mention. It would also make my interpretation more reasonable. I love the show overall nevertheless. Part of the thrill is to see how they handle the history as history nerds like me know where this story is heading. Thanks for making history and language fun! I'm grateful for your content, and I'll be cheering as your channels continue grow.

[@LukeRanieri]

That was a great ramble! Indeed, it was a well composed stream of consciousness, and I enjoyed reading it, thanks. I resonate with what you wrote. Let's hope for the best! We'll find out in just a few hours. Thanks so much also for your kind words!

[@hi23nutzer21]

Actually it´s pretty funny because germany is really diveded in two part the part who is proud to never gotten councured by the romans and the other who are proud about that fact and are proud to have the oldest citys in the entire country😂

[@ioannescontramundum]

Thanks for the vid, Luke! I have a slightly different take on Arminius’ speech. He’s not making a contrast between the Romans and the Germans in the different ideals that they hold. All the ideals that he lists are specifically referring to the Germans. The Germans fight for what used to be, for what is to come, for love etc. The contrast comes at the very end, when he asks Varus: “What did you fight for?”, as to say, you had no valid ideals, in contrast to all the various ideals of the Germans that Arminius regards as valid.

[@Reziac]

I admit to cheering for Rome, but I had not expected this show to leave me with a hatred of the barbarians, mostly because of their casual perfidy.

[@LukeRanieri]

Yes, isn’t that interesting? I find them very unlikable for this reason, among others. Thanks for the comment. Stay tuned for my review of season 2

[@Reziac]

@@LukeRanieri While you were speaking of their vaunted 'honor' I found myself thinking, 'just like Klingons'. Looking forward to Season 2 review!

[@weloveTM123]

I also want to point out that Thusnelda's "dominance" and role is over emphasized. I know Germanic tribes had female warriors and that they were fierce fighters, but some of the things she does is inauthentic and takes away from the main premise of the show. Too much time was spent on how badass she is and less on the actual protagonist: Arminius. She was more pro-active and boss-like, Ari just followed her after. It was really odd. The new season also seems to highlight that, by adding of the "black woman" and it's such a "woke" Netflix thing to do. I hope they have a good explanation for that. P.S: I find it hilarious how hard they tried to make Romans the bad guys, but most people still watch the show for them.

[@LukeRanieri]

Hi Anne, thanks for the comment. Yeah, I remember being irritated by that as well when I watched season 1 from start to finish. As I recall, she did morally questionable or dispicable things, but the writers seem to want us to think her actions were just, and for us to identify with her. A more extreme version of this may be seen, I believe, in how Galadriel is portrayed in the Rings of Power. I definitely resonate with the frustration so many consumers of entertainment have these days with the nearly universal emphasis of representation over good story, what is often called "woke," as you point out. Having grown up with Star Trek, I highly favor diverse casting and recognise the incredible benefits this can have in society - I think of how much Uhura inspired millions of women to pursue science, and even Mae Jemison to become an astronaut. But as you mention, historical dramas may not be the best place to focus on diversity, or to have female characters of antiquity act the way we know the famous men did (at least when it comes to leadership and authority). Those kinds of things can take us out of the story, and feel like we are interfacing directly with the political views of the writers - which may be good or not; I don't seek to judge them outright for their politics - rather than immerse ourselves in the realism of the world depicted.

[@TheseH0esLoveChiefS0sa]

Looking forward to seeing your thoughts on season two when it's out.

[@LukeRanieri]

Thanks! Season 2 is out. Yeah, its problems are not resolved.

[@TheseH0esLoveChiefS0sa]

@@LukeRanieri That's a shame to hear. It would be great to get another show like HBO Rome, which, as you say, is more nuanced with the characters and their motivations. HBO's Rome, despite some inaccuracies and creative liberties taken, did a good job at portraying aspects of the Late Republic/Early Principate. Imagine a show with the intrigue of HBO Rome, and the Latin from Barbarians.

[@potman4581]

@@TheseH0esLoveChiefS0sa HBO's Rome was a once in a lifetime show, kind of like Peter Jackson's LotR adaptation. I do not believe we will see movies or TV shows like that again, maybe not in our lifetimes -- barring some huge paradigm shift in the priorities of filmmakers and showrunners. Personally, I don't see that happening with how things currently are.

[@Thelaretus]

9:35 But the actual historical record does state that the Romans, being proficient social engineers, repeatedly made used of children from the local nobility, forcibly raised and educated in a Rome, as tokens for pacifying and romanising the conquered peoples throughout the Empire, and there arr many examples from several stages of the Cheruscan nobility later on. 18:00 The latter outcome you mentioned is to be expected from Arminius' position as 'Hermann', Germany's nationalistic hero. This series is basically just nationalism so far, under the guise of 'progressiveness' -- a widespread problem in Europe actually; as a Brazilian I'm often called 'backwards' by Europeans because I reduse to accept their ideas on progress -- and they fail to realise how Eurocentricly their attitude is.

[@18Krieger]

Im really interested in season 2. I assume there was a bit of lack of direction based of the wish to be a big popular Tv Show and the rather meager historical records. Also the topic of Arminius is a quite "problematic" topic for german national identity, something difficult to navigate in modern german media. Loved the Latin but as a native german speaker the german gave me the feeling of watching a documentary which was a bit off putting. I really wished they had started with Arminius early career, his service in the roman army, just to build up a connection with Rome and make his decision to go against Rome more impactful. That scene where he talks to the Centurio about the Battle against the Thraker was really good because of this. Quite interested to see Germanicus and his story. Roman accounts and archaeological evidence do not line up that well. Its quite unlikely that the Romans were able to kill that many germanic people and plunder and loot that much. Just because of how poor people were and how low the population density was. Not that the Romans didnt kill plenty of people.

[@LukeRanieri]

Thanks for the comment. Indeed, I find the lionizing of Arminius by the writers, particularly in his final speech, to make me wonder if the writers actually want us to feel what early 20th century Germans were saying about Arminius, the great hero of Ancient Germany. It seems unlikely, and perhaps they're not aware of his status as a fascist idol. If they were, I would have expected them to have given us a more balanced perspective of Varus and Arminius.

[@velvetcroc9827]

I agree that the show, especially season 2 is ridiculous but what nobody seems to understand is why the Romans went into remote backwaters like Germany in the first place. The chief purpose was to furnish entire Latin communities of colonists with land to settle as a reward for serving the Roman state. The Roman elite avoided settling colonists in richer areas like Syria because they didn't want to share the best spoils with their lower class counterparts. Instead they sent them to places like Germany. But German land is very poor (a big reason why its inhabitants have been perennial raiders and troublemakers) and simply couldn't sustain both the tribes and the newcomers. So evicting the colonists was a matter of survival on the part of the tribes. It's no coincidence that in Illyria and Britain similar massive revolts took place around the same time period.

[@letsunnahgoforth]

I think in many ways the relationship between arminius and Varus was so romanticized and over dramatized than it would have been in reality but it makes sense for the show because it adds a sense of pathos and rhetoric appeal and also adds meaning to the show itself

[@LukeRanieri]

Oh yeah I think that’s fine too. But Varus is depicted as essentially pure evil, and Arminius is depicted as making the only possible moral choice. And I don’t think the story or the facts on the ground support that. In any case, it removes the pathos and intrigue, I feel Thanks for the comment.

[@hi23nutzer21]

I think your comment on how HBO handeld it really interesting. Yes it´s more balaced bur because of this heavy focus on Pullo and Vorenus who I think or it felt to me as this show also had an more pro Caesar focus. All the historc events are all only sorounding this two like in Ep. 2 when Pullo accidentally started the civile war, and Pullo is one of the most carismatic charakters in the show and he is pro Caesar. Also what is your opinion on the portrait of the female charakters in ROME? Because Thusnelda is in my opinion in Barbarian an extremly satirc version of an woman but at least so far I remember Tacitus wrote about her as a woman with an strong charakter. But in Rome I felt like they really missed by all woman to match them a little bit with there historic counterparts. In particular Servilia and Atia are completley out of there counterparts.

[@potman4581]

There is an unfortunate tendency in a lot of mainstream storytellers these days, especially in TV and film, to let nothing be subtle. The audience has to absolutely be beaten over the head with every point of view the writers hold and/or are trying to convey. Nothing can be allowed to exist between the lines. There are great stories that portray an underlying moral philosophy. They're not my favorite thing, but they do exist. The difference between those and a show like Barbarians is the writers of those stories do not view their own philosophies as so flimsy and fragile that they can't be allowed to emerge organically. But with shows like this -- God forbid something be left implicit. You must know, at all times, the position you're supposed to hold. It's less of a story and more of a poorly formulated first-year ethics lecture. Also, I find this whole discourse of which characters you are "supposed" or "meant" to like so distasteful. Great writers don't tell you which of their characters you're supposed to like. They build fully realized characters and allow you to gravitate toward whichever ones line up more closely with your own values, or which ones you find more interesting. George Martin does not tell you whether you're "supposed" to like Ned Stark or not. I find it extremely overbearing when entertainment and quality are sacrificed on the altar of moral grandstanding.

[@paulmiler7139]

Personally I liked the first season I think the big battle and the more solid history worked well for them in regards to there was a buildup to the battle. The second series really started reminding me of a serious version of Asterix the Gaul. Some spoilers here for S2 The Romans were just there to be slaughtered with ease. Major failing in bringing his brother and instead of comparing and contrasting to show the differences he was more shunted into beings pals with Marbod. A major missed opportunity. His son was even more boring. And as u say yourself the point about the Romans being ‘baddies’ and more 19th century Imperialists with similar ideas about blood leads them to be really boring and a poor villain that isn’t really true to who the Romans are. It does somewhat come off as a 19th century nationalist romance.

[@bendthebow]

I've only seen 1 ep. I think they should have thrown in a few proto-germanic lines in there. Even gladiator did that

[@LukeRanieri]

Definitely not. The audience is Germans, who speak Modern German. I explain how this works in the latest review on polýMATHY, which will be published later today.

[@bendthebow]

@@LukeRanieri but I mean like a battle cry, that sort of thing. Vikings did that a lot with old Norse.

[@mercianthane2503]

@@bendthebow I don't think the vikings did any sort of battle cry in Old Norse. Not saying it never happened, but we have no evidence, and feels more like romantization.

[@LukeRanieri]

To pepper a few words of the ancient language into the dialogue would have been a bad cinematic choice in my opinion, as it would be just like what occurred jn HBO Rome: occasionally the characters would say full sentences in Latin instead of English. It was pretty rare, but the reason this is a bad idea is that it’s jarring and doesn’t make sense: in HBO Rome it’s well established that Latin is represented by English, as in Amadeus German is represented by English, so throwing in bits of Latin immediately reminds us we’re watching a show rather than having an immersive experience.

[@peterstern1375]

@@LukeRanieri agree, it's OK the way it is. Watched it in German and perhaps a solution to make the thing more interesting, from a linguistic stand point (since they took the effort to include classical Latin), could have been to get the Germanic tribes to speak various dialects of modern German, even if that is not authentic. Perhaps something more Austrian, Bavarian or Swabian for the Marcomanni for instance, have some other characters speak Frisian or with a regional accent from the north west. Certainly difficult to do with actors speaking with their own voice, easier to do in the old "spaghetti western" style where all actors were dubbed, even Bud Spencer and Terence Hill in the Italian versions of their movies. Would be fun to do a new audio version of Barbarians in that "spaghetti western" style and while doing so the Latin pronunciation could also be corrected using your suggestions.

[@peterstern1375]

Finished watching season two, not very impressed. But it's kinda what was expected after season one, at least it's true that Thusnelda got to Rome, though differently. To get a better product it would take someone like Stanley Kubrick, Werner Herzog, David Lynch or at least Scott Frank. The subject would have potential for a thought provoking story, also including aspects of the current period of history with the conflict between east and west. Instead the way it is made makes one think it is mainly focused on a German nationalistic audience: Germans good, empire/EU bad, without being too explicit about it (stretching it even further beyond problematic Pangermanic tones, one might even go as far as to see the attempt to construct a narrative where Germans=Ukraine and Empire=Russia). Taking a more "what if" approach might have provoked more interesting thoughts. If the Arminius betrayal would not have happened then potentially many things would be different now, for instance from a linguistic point of view even central Europe just like western Europe might use a romance language and Germanic languages might be limited to Scandinavia. If the Saxons, Jutes and Angles would have been romanized even English would have happened in a different way, or not at all. This might have even had effects to the USA and Africa. Sticking to languages there might be no Germanicisms in languages like Italian such as guerra, crusca, scherzo, guercio, schermo, rubare etc. and similarly in French and Spanish. But also from a political point of view the impact could have been very important since the struggle and eventual separation of powers between kings/emperor and church/pope might not have happened in the west, just as it did not in the east. In this case even the renaissance, the enlightenment and industrial revolution would not have happened, just like it did not in China, or perhaps much later or somewhere else in the world. In this way it was crucial for the modern world that the Roman Empire never established itself in modern day eastern Germany, opening up for the potential migrations of Germanic tribes into southern and western Europe (to establish a multitude of countries and political fragmentation i.e. progress as a consequence of conflict and war, but also commerce), and later Slavic migrations into the areas that are now eastern Germany. Even if there was trade with Germanic tribes beyond the limes and Roman soldiers went on with punishing military campaigns (well into the second century) beyond the Elbe river reaching the Vistula, the main reason why the Roman Empire stopped at Rhine and Danube might be that there simply was not enough wealth for Roman legions to plunder on the other side of those rivers, not enough roads or big enough settlements to make it convenient to occupy those lands. However if the facts of 9 AD would not have happened a Roman expansion of some kind into the North East might eventually have taken place, perhaps through client kingdoms reaching even into the Sarmatic plain with its fertile lands and timber resources that could have played a role in a later period. Unlikely, but actually the Romans ended up also in Crimea and on the rest of the Black Sea shores. Without Arminius switching sides our world might be very different or at a later moment in history a similar personality might have taken actions leading to similar consequences, perhaps there's still time to add some of these aspects in season three of Barbarians, doubt it. (BTW the period where the events take place roughly overlaps with an other possible "point of divergence" in history, the origins of Christianity, e.g. Marbod dies in 37 AD)