Rome: A History of the Eternal City

Rome: A History of the Eternal City (2012) Seen on April 3rd 2026, 3 episodes. Programme: Rome: A History of the Eternal City Broadcaster: BBC Format: 3-part documentary series Year: 2012 Date watched: April 2026 Status: Completed Overall reaction This was a very good documentary. I liked the way it tried to tell the story of Rome as a narrative rather than as a pile of disconnected periods. It is obviously very difficult to cover everything Rome means in only three episodes, but I thought the structure worked well. By the end, I felt I could almost divide a future visit to Rome into three great historical-spiritual layers corresponding to the series itself: ancient sacred/pagan Rome, Christian Rome, and papal/Renaissance/modern Rome. That broad tripartite arc matches the programme’s own framing around Rome’s power being shaped and maintained by religion over time.  Episode 1 — Ancient Rome My reaction The first episode deals with ancient Rome, from the founding story of Romulus and Remus, through kingship, republic, and emperors, all the way to the arrival of Christianity as a disruptive eastern cult within the Roman world. What I liked is that the episode makes clear that religion was not just decoration in ancient Rome; it was part of the machinery of power. Public episode guides describe this first instalment, “City of the Sacred,” as covering Rome from its foundation myth and pagan gods to the moment when Christianity began to threaten the old order.  I also liked the way the episode connected Roman expansion, Jerusalem, and the entry of Christianity into the imperial story. That gave the episode a wider Mediterranean sense, not just a city-only perspective. Your phrasing that Rome begins as a political and military power but is already also a sacred city is very much in line with the programme’s angle.  What stayed with me The sense that Rome’s sacred identity was there from the beginning. Whether one treats Romulus and Remus as myth, memory, political invention, or some combination, the key point is that Rome was imagined as a city with divinely sanctioned boundaries and destiny. That idea stayed alive long after pagan Rome itself changed.  Episode 2 — Christian Rome My reaction The second episode worked for me as the making of Rome into a Christian center. It shows how saints, martyrs, bishops, emperors, and pilgrims gradually transformed Rome from an imperial power center into the symbolic heart of Latin Christianity. I liked this very much because it helped me see continuity rather than rupture: Rome does not cease to be Rome when it becomes Christian; it changes the form of its authority. The series overview itself says it traces how religion maintained Rome’s power from foundation to the modern era, which fits your reading of this middle movement very well.  What stayed with me What stayed with me is the idea that the Christianization of Rome did not erase its old instinct for centrality. It translated it. Rome moved from a city of raw force to a city of spiritual force, but the ambition to be the center remained. Episode 3 — Papal, Renaissance, Baroque, Modern Rome My reaction The third episode, in your summary, runs from the papacy’s move to France through its return to Rome, then the artistic magnificence and political excesses of the Renaissance papacy, the split of the Reformation, the Baroque response, and eventually the modern settlement that produced Vatican City. That broad late-medieval-to-modern progression fits the series’ overall scope, even if it has to move quickly. The saint you were reaching for is almost certainly Catherine of Siena, who is famous for urging the papacy to return from Avignon to Rome.  What I especially liked in your reaction is the sense that Rome becomes a powerhouse again not only through power politics, but through art. That is right at the heart of how many people experience Rome: not just as doctrine or statecraft, but as a city where authority becomes visible in buildings, painting, sculpture, ritual, and urban spectacle. What stayed with me Rome survives by changing medium. First sacred kingship, then republic and emperors, then saints and popes, then Renaissance magnificence, then Baroque theatre, then modern Vatican sovereignty. It keeps reinventing the form of its centrality. Personal reflection This series seems to have worked for you because it gave you a narrative map of Rome. Not total mastery, because Rome is too large for that, but enough structure to feel that the city is intelligible. That is a real achievement in a three-part history documentary. It also clearly resonated with the way you already think about sacred geography. You held onto the idea of Rome’s original sacred limits, and then watched that echo through Christian and papal Rome. That is a very Roman way of understanding the city: not just as buildings and events, but as a place whose identity is repeatedly re-consecrated. Main themes I took from the series Rome’s story can be told as a history of sacred power changing form.  Ancient Rome’s religion was integral to politics, not separate from it.  Christian Rome inherited the centralizing impulse of pagan Rome and transformed it. The later city became powerful again through papacy, pilgrimage, art, and spectacle. The series succeeds as a narrative framework even though three episodes cannot capture all of Rome. My verdict A very good BBC documentary. Ambitious, compressed, and narratively effective. It made Rome feel more graspable without flattening its grandeur. Personal rating: 9/10