busi-08898
I almost abandoned this series in the first ten minutes as Donovan Leitch's flower power anthem opened the credits and left me wondering where we were headed from the hurdy gurdy man's songs of love. There are any number of brit folkies who would have been more appropriate. Pentangle or Fairport, for instance. Anyway, l just took another peek and am entertained - especially since l can skip the intro.
Jeffrey Young
First of all, I look for great entertainment. I'm not looking for a movie with mystical, metaphysical, existential, deep, artsy fartsy meaning. In other words I'm not a wannabe, pretentious Hollywood movie reviewer who will only give high reviews to those kinds of artsy fartsy movies that may be dramatic and cerebral but few people want to watch. My standard is, am I greatly entertained, yes or no?A lot of people who like BRITANNIA compare it to Game Of Thrones, and while they intended a compliment, it's not accurate nor fair. This kind of genre, sword and sorcery, or, sword and sandals, existed in Hollywood dating back to the mid-20th century. BRITANNIA never aspired to be the next Game Of Thrones and nor should it be. It stands on its own as a thoroughly entertaining historical fiction/magic/sorcery hybrid, in essence, another sword and sorcery film, albeit on a more advanced level just as, yes, Game Of Thrones was. Yet you could say the same for the British 1980 fantasy film, "Hawk The Slayer", which closely followed the board game, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. BRITANNIA differentiates itself from Game Of Thrones because it is historical fiction. GOT is sword and sorcery fantasy. Based on the historical Roman invasion of Britannia in 43 A.D., Britannia loosely follows the path of the Roman invasion as seen mostly through the eyes of the British tribes heavily influenced by the mysticism and sorcery of the DruidsI'm an avid reader of ancient Roman military history. The minor drawback is that I can detect inaccuracies but I don't let it spoil my enjoyment because in BRITANNI it is minor. The mini-series' director made some notable effort for Roman military accuracy, and it would be so, for 80 A.D. The Roman helmets are accurate but more from around 80 A.D. The nice-looking throwing pilums are accurate, for around 80 A.D. Around that time, someone in the Roman military top brass got the smart idea to shorten the length of the throwing pilum javelin to a handier length. But in order to retain the armor-piercing characteristics of the heavy pilum, a round lead or bronze weight was added to it, just above the wood shaft and below the metal shank. Around 43 A.D. the pilum would have been longer and without the weight. Many of the legionnaires are depicted accurately wearing chain mail, yet I recall a number are wearing the newer segmented cuirass, the lorica segmentata, which again, came out around 80 A.D. Therefore the legionnaires depicted in BRITANNIA are somewhat anachronistic, from 40 years into the future. If you want to be super accurate according to the very latest British research on the Roman legions stationed in Northwest Europe around 43 A.D. the soldiers would not quite have the uniform appearance depicted in BRITANNIA because it is a historical fact that the Roman Army did not recognize the concept of obsolescence. If military gear was serviceable, it was still used until it completely wore out and could not be repaired. Hence, in a Roman legion formation you notice helmets of different styles, metal, and preceding time periods. A legionnaire might be wearing an old bronze Coolus-style helmet that dated to 50 B.C. The clothing would be roughly the same given contemporary fashion but again might differ in color and cut because legionnaires were issued different clothing and in different colors depending upon where they were previously stationed and what military clothing factory supplied them. The shields are admirably accurate but are seen as totally uniform throughout the legion. Legionnaires took their equipment and kit with them wherever they were transferred. You would see different patterns on the shield faces and some might be a different shield style, meaning, rounded curves instead of straight. More, you don't see the ROMAN AUXILIA. This was a parallel Roman Army, the auxiliaries, trained in the same as the citizen army. The auxilia contained only non-Roman citizens although it was not against the law for a Roman citizen to enlist in an auxiliary legion. Roman general Claudus would have had several auxiliary legions with him. But in the grand scheme of things, this is minor to the mini-series as only individuals like myself would notice the anachronisms and still I don't let it detract from my enjoyment.If you know Western civilization history then you can pretty much predict the path of the second season. The Roman invasion of 43 A.D. is a spectacular Roman success and that cannot be changed. Briton kings and queens who submit to Roman rule can expect more benefits than costs although misrule and abuse will lead to a serious Iceni rebellion over twenty years into the future. Those who intrigue with the Romans over their tribes can expect to be handsomely rewarded as we saw in the last episode of season one.I'm totally surprised that the show's producers, SKY and AMAZON, didn't prepare for a second season. They waited to assess the public reception of the first season. Upon seeing its big success, the screenwriter received the green light for the second season scripts and he was told that the show needed it all written like, yesterday so the writer had to scramble. If you're like me, you can't wait for the second season. I binge-watched the first season in two nights.
