Terry Jones' Barbarians

Terry Jones’ Barbarians is the title of a documentary film presented by Terry Jones and first broadcast on BBC2 in 2006. It is also the title of a book written by Terry Jones and Alan Ereira (published by BBC Books in 2006 and 2007).

Terry Jones is probably best known as a member of Monty Python’s Comedy Team (which was active 1969-1983), but he is also the author of several books about history and the presenter of several television programs about history, including The Hidden History of Rome (2003) and The Hidden History of Egypt (2003).

Alan Ereira has worked with Terry Jones on several projects, including Crusades (1996) and Terry Jones’ Medieval Lives (2005).

 

The book is a companion to the film. They have the same structure. The film is divided into four episodes; therefore the book is divided into four parts. Here is the table of contents:

PART ONE – THE CELTS

Chapter I – Unearthing the Celts

Chapter II – The Looting of Gaul
Chapter III – Celtic Women and the Great British Revolt
Chapter IV – Romans on Top

PART TWO – BARBARIANS FROM THE NORTH

Chapter V – The Germans

Chapter VI – Dacia and the Vanished World
Chapter VII – The Goths

PART THREE – BARBARIANS FROM THE EAST

Chapter VIII – Hellenes

Chapter IX – Persia – the Early Dynasties
Chapter X – Sassanians

PART FOUR – VANDALS AND HUNS

Chapter XI – Behind the Myths

Chapter XII – The Christianization of the Empire
Chapter XIII – Vandals
Chapter XIV – Nemesis

The book begins with a preface and a timeline. It concludes with an epilogue followed by four items: Notes – Bibliography – Picture Credits – Index.

The book is illustrated by more than forty black-and-white pictures. The first batch is placed after page 96; the second after page 176; the third after page 224. Each picture is accompanied by a caption and a cross-reference to the main text.

Egyptians, Phoenicians and Carthaginians are mentioned in passing, but there is no chapter about any of them, although these peoples are an important element of the ancient Mediterranean World. This curious omission is not explained anywhere.

The authors are openly biased against the Romans. When they want to portray the Romans as the bad guys, they are too negative; when they want to portray the Barbarians as the good guys, they are too positive.

They claim the positive achievements of the Romans have been overrated, while the Barbarians have been ignored or misunderstood. They also claim modern scholars and modern public opinion love everything about the Romans and blame the Barbarians for all the problems of the Roman Empire.

When they compare Romans and Barbarians, the topic as well as the Barbarian people is carefully chosen in order to “prove” that the Barbarians are better and/or more talented than the Romans.

One example is the question of women’s rights, which is discussed in chapter III about the Celtic tribes in Britain. First the authors claim Roman women did not have any rights at all. Then they tell us about Boudica, Queen of the Iceni, and Cartimandua, Queen of the Brigantes. This is how they “prove” that Barbarians had more respect for women than the Romans had. But this argument is flawed for several reasons:

(A) Roman women did not have public rights. They could not vote, not hold public office and not serve in the army. But they did have private rights. They could buy and sell property, make a will, be the beneficiary of a will, and divorce their husband. These rights are not insignificant. Moreover, if a husband divorced his wife, he had to return the dowry he had received when the marriage began.

(B) Boudica and Cartimandua were members of the local elite. They ruled their tribes as queens, but this does not prove that ordinary women had the same rights as ordinary men in ancient Britain.

(C) The question is not raised in chapters about other Barbarians. It is easy to understand why. If you study the question of women’s rights among the Huns or the Vandals, you will not find any “ammunition” you can use against the Romans.

Another example is the question of technology and inventions which is discussed in chapter VIII about the Greeks. The authors present the Antikythera mechanism, which is a unique product from the ancient world. They imply that this device is ignored by modern scholars, which is not true. It is discussed in the Oxford Handbook of Engineering and Technology in the Classical World (2008, 2010) pp. 744-746.

Jones and Ereira also mention Archimedes and the story of his burning mirrors, i.e. the idea that he was able to set fire to Roman ships using mirrors to reflect the rays of the sun. Three pages are devoted to their attempt to demonstrate that this story is credible. The story is mentioned and rejected in the Oxford Handbook (page 138), and in my opinion with good reason.

[See the Archimedes Home Page established by Chris Rorres. One section of his website - Burning Mirrors - explains why this story is not credible.]

Not everything is this book is bad, though. There are some good points as well:

In chapter VI they demonstrate that the main motive for Trajan’s wars against Dacia was economic. The Roman Empire needed more money:

 

“And in Dacia, Decebalus was sitting on a gold mine – literally.”

The claim is correct. However, they are not the first ones to make this claim. See for instance The Dacian Stones Speak by Paul MacKendrick (1975, 2000). This important book about the history of ancient Romania is not listed in the bibliography of Jones and Ereira.

In chapter X they tell us about the Roman Emperor Valerian, who was captured alive by the Persian king Shapur I in 260. This story is not well-known and deserves to be told.

But they also make mistakes. Here are two examples:

(1) A passage on page 117 about Dacia reads:

 

“It is said that the great Emperor Augustus betrothed his five-year-old daughter to one Dacian chief, and was himself supposed to be interested in marrying the man’s daughter.”

They do not provide any source for this anecdote. But they add the following words:

 

“Whether the story is true or not, it gives some indication of the equality that was then perceived to exist between the societies of Rome and Dacia.”

The source is Svetonius, Divus Augustus, chapter 63. When you check the source, you will discover the context: this anecdote is part of the smear campaign Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius) conducted against Octavian (the future Augustus) during their civil war. The story is not true and does not show any “equality” between Rome and Dacia: in fact, quite the opposite. Mark Antony circulated this rumour in order to show how low Octavian was ready to go. Because Jones and Ereira fail to provide the source and the context of this anecdote, they completely misunderstand it.

(2) A passage on page 126 about the images on Trajan’s Column says:

 

“there is no viewpoint from where you can observe them with the naked eye (and as far as we know never has been)…”

In antiquity the column was flanked by two libraries (one Greek, one Latin). The carvings on the column could be observed from balconies mounted on these buildings. It seems Jones and Ereira are not aware of this fact.

Minor flaws are found elsewhere in the book:
 

** The timeline on page 12 says Theodosius I becomes emperor in 378. But this does not happen until the following year (379). And the Byzantine conquest of Ravenna is placed in 535. But this event does not take place until 540.

** On page 241 they mention a Roman military commander (magister militum) called Constantius: “By 413 he had established himself as the sole emperor of the West.” This is not true. The emperor at the time was Honorius, who ruled 395-423. Three pages later (on page 244) the authors suddenly remember Honorius and say: “In 421 Constantius finally became co-emperor with Honorius.”

** In a passage on page 300 the authors define “the time of Antoninus Pius” as ca. AD 100. This is unfortunate, because this emperor ruled 138-161.

In some ways this book is a breath of fresh air; it provides an interesting perspective. It is a good idea to describe the history of the Roman Empire from the Barbarian point of view instead of the traditional Roman point of view. But the authors go completely overboard; they overstate their case.

For them the Romans represent only death and destruction, while the Barbarians stand for freedom and creativity, but this black-and-white image of the ancient world is not true. It is an oversimplified version of the facts as we know them.

If you read this book, you may like it, and you may enjoy the strictly un-academic style. But please be careful. Do not believe everything they tell you. Caveat lector!

PS. The British historian Philip Matyszak attempted a somewhat similar project with his book The Enemies of Rome: From Hannibal to Attila the Hun (hardcover 2004, paperback 2008). For more information about this volume, see my blog: The Enemies of Rome.

* * *

Terry Jones and Alan Ereira,

Terry Jones’ Barbarians:

An Alternative Roman History,

BBC Books, hardcover 2006, paperback 2007, 320 pages

* * *

Below: the cover of the DVD



* * *