BBC changing history

1720s were mostly hell for the vast majority of the people, though.
Yeah, no social forums with mods to harass you around. Pretty bleak...
 
There most probably were people of color in Roman Britain, so the BBC isn't exactly revisionist, just exaggerating for the sake of political correctness.
 
There most probably were people of color in Roman Britain, so the BBC isn't exactly revisionist, just exaggerating for the sake of political correctness.
The could as well say that the Romans have conquered the world with power of love and we could be living happily ever after...
 
Honestly I think history is a to me uncomfortable choice to push an agenda like that.

If the context provided in the OP is correct, this was bound to backfire. If they want to show black people, show parts of history where were black people actually featured.
 
Now I am all in favor for making that dude as Arabic as possible.
Applies to most religious fanatics these days anyway :mischief:
Though not entirely sure if Jews were that Arabic looking? I suspect at least some did.

If you try to make a cartoon character look as "Jewish" or "Arabic" as possible it won't end well either I bet.
 
1720s were mostly hell for the vast majority of the people, though.

I think the mini ice age peaked ~1640-1720, there were European priests and their villages holding prayer rituals at glaciers advancing on their towns and the harsh climate later contributed to the French Revolution. I'd say that scene might be common in Roman or Greek Egypt, not in Britain. But I dont know how common mixed families were even in countries closer to the tropics, social pressures were to marry within the clan or tribe...and still is in most of the world.
 
Having now watched the video in question, at no point is the family ever described as "typical". In fact, they're explicitly mentioned as being wealthy.

The video is not entirely accurate though, because Hadrian came to the throne 1,900 years ago, not merely 1,800 years. Also, payter? The Latin word for 'father' would be much closer to patter in Classical Latin.
 
Fun fact: the Emperor Hadrian was ethnically Hispanic and, as I recall, I believe he was also noted for making use of lots of "new men", i.e. those who were not members of the Italian nobility.
 
Yeah, there are plenty of things besides race to criticize about this turd of a video. That said, it would be a little strange to see an African family this far north, given the relatively sparse number of Africans outside the African provinces and some major economic centers like Rome.
 
A North African commander posted to northern Britain for a good many years might easily decide to settle down and have little ethnically-dubious Roman children, though the name-checking of Sulis would suggest that his family villa is actually much closer to Bath. The hypocaust needed for the under-floor heating would only have been found in the homes of the wealthy, so it's unlikely that Dad was merely a centurion and perhaps a military tribune, which would indicate that he was of equestrian rank.
 
I can't seem to find a lot relating to interracial marriage in the Roman Empire. Generally speaking, what I can find seems to suggest that race (as in skin tone) was less of a problem then ethnic/cultural background, not to mention the usual socioeconomic divisions.
 
I believe that Septimus Severus, who was emperor a mere 60 years later, was reportedly 'black', but quite how dark his skin colour was, I have no idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom