hannibalcarthage88
Unregistered
Did a search here but didn't find this topic so I will start one. Has anyone else seen this show on the History Channel? Normally, the History Channel is okay with most of their shows on ancient history- bit off on dates at times but not bad. I came across this show "Ancients Behaving Badly" and gave it a chance. I have never seen such a pathetic show in my life! Biased, incorrect, and Hollywood are a few words that come to mind when describing this show. Taking the story of Hannibal and sensationalizing with "superweapons", cartoons, elephants and "snakes in baskets" along with tales of his cruelty was really ridiculous. They had "experts" including a few professors and a psychiatrist to analyze Hannibal's actions and his mental state on a scale of cruelty. I was very surprised to see a noted author on the show- I have a few of his books- going along with the tar and feathering of Hannibal. One professor even had the audacity to claim it was all a scam by the Scipio clan to make Hannibal look better than he was- Polybius was just writing propaganda to improve the status of Scipio. I think the term "colossal failure" was used to describe Hannibal's career. They also made quite a few mistakes with even simple dates and wars- guess they never heard of research or checking sources???
I have been studying ancient military history for close to 40 years, worked on a Master's in the subject, and been to Italy a few times to see the battlefields so I know a bit about the guy. I have never heard anyone else do such an assassination job on a figure from the past. How can they get away with this pathetic attempt to rewrite history? Why the hell would the History Channel put out such a doss bunch of shite? It's pretty sad when a bunch of rank amateurs tries to explain away events that took place over 2200 years ago using voodoo psychiatry, pots of sausages dropped from a crane, and an estimate of the gallons of blood spilt on the battlefield of Cannae- 32,000?
Han
Posts: 15,116
Threads: 415
Joined: Mar 2002
Reputation:
78
Han, please write your real (first) name in your signature (profile). Forum rules.
Posts: 1,513
Threads: 210
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
1
I haven't seen the show, but I just wanted to throw in a quick word of defence for the professors and authors they interviewed. These academics may have had no idea what the finished program would be like and may have only been told that the History Channel was doing a documentary on Hannibal. Maybe out of 6 hours of taped interviews the producers snatched 30 seconds of sound bites that fit what they wanted to portray. I'm not saying this is what happened, but it is possible.
I first realised how interviews could be manipulated when I was a student and saw a politicial candidate give a speech in person. That night I was stunned to watch the news and see how they snatched little 6-second sound bites and completely changed what the speech and message had been about. It was a real wake-up call.
Anyway, I guess my message is don't change your opinion of these specific academics based on this one show. They probably had no input on what portions of their interviews made the final cut. Instead base your opinion on these academics on the work they had control over. :wink:
Edit: Cambridge's Mary Beard often blogs about her adventures with the media. There was one post I remember about being interviewed regarding Roman jokes that fit this topic, but I can't seem to find it now. If I remember correctly she complained about being quoted out of context and described how the media worked in matters like this.
Posts: 13,279
Threads: 102
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
It's always the same. The difference between watching a live interview, the listening to the media 'analysis', 2 minutes after it finishes,
blows the mind sometimes.
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Posts: 2,730
Threads: 20
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
33
"I run an entertainment channel first and foremost, which happens to be based on history."
-- Richard Melman of the History Channel UK
There is no point complaining since we are not its target audience. The History Channnel is about making money, not education.
Posts: 1,470
Threads: 253
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
3
Is this the series that has nearly every major historical figure thrashing about the battlefield with TWO swords one in each in hand or is that another show?
Just can't wait for the ones with George Washington or Robert E. Lee doing the same! :roll:
Posts: 315
Threads: 20
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation:
0
Yeah the two swords syndrom and 300 cartoonish blood can also be found in the "Battles BC" series on history.
But after noticing that in almost every show about Romans from the Republic to the late Empire they have Legionairs running arround in 1st C. A gear and preferably leather lorica, I dont excpect anything accurate from them any more.
Olaf Küppers - Histotainment, Event und Promotion - Germany
Posts: 204
Threads: 23
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
Quote:Yeah the two swords syndrom and 300 cartoonish blood can also be found in the "Battles BC" series on history.
But after noticing that in almost every show about Romans from the Republic to the late Empire they have Legionairs running arround in 1st C. A gear and preferably leather lorica, I dont excpect anything accurate from them any more.
I also noticed that in the "Battles BC" on Julius Caesar, the narrator said that Brennus and the Gauls sacked Rome in the 3rd century BC. Hey, it's only a century off... that's close enough for something called "the History Channel," right?
Also that Hasdrubal Barca was Hannibal's older brother.
And they cited Polybius to claim that Hannibal Barca tried to persuade his soldiers to eat human flesh, even though anyone who has read his book knows Polybius clearly stated that this was a rumor about a different person who also happened to be named Hannibal. Those annoying little things called facts, always getting in the way of a sensational narrative.
Finding the correct date for Brennus' sack of Rome for example is not a difficult task, and if they were interested in actually educating people they'd do a quick Google search and get such a simple fact right. But as Dan Howard noted, it's not about education.
Posts: 60
Threads: 6
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
Battles BC also says Commius' name different too. I could swear they kept referring to him as Commodus or Commonus. In all my references, I've only heard it mentioned as Commius or Commios myself. Am I wrong here?
Todd Franks
"The whole race is madly fond of war, high spirited and quick to battle, but otherwise straightforward and not of evil character." - Strabo on the Celts
Posts: 255
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Quote:"I run an entertainment channel first and foremost, which happens to be based on history."
-- Richard Melman of the History Channel UK
There is no point complaining since we are not its target audience. The History Channnel is about making money, not education.
sad but true Dan , the Chap quoted in my signature sadly has a point aswell 
Hannibal ad portas ! Dave Bartlett . " War produces many stories of fiction , some of which are told until they are believed to be true." U S Grant
Posts: 126
Threads: 5
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
Yeah, I could never decide if those shows on the History Channel were getting progressively worse, or I was just learning more myself in the meantime, and realizing how consistently "off" they were. Sadly though, I too think Dan is right; the network isn't aimed at scholars of history, it's aimed at getting people who might not read a book to learn about something to sit down and watch if there are enough CGI buckets of blood thrown at the screen every few minutes :lol:
"...atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant."
????? ???? ?\' ?????...(J. Feicht)
Posts: 1,470
Threads: 253
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation:
3
How about a Hysterical Channel parody with a bare chested two swords in hand Washington facing off against a nose ringed and bejeweled King George at Yorktown?
And lets not forget the Rhinos!
Posts: 255
Threads: 4
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation:
0
Quote:How about a Hysterical Channel parody with a bare chested two swords in hand Washington facing off against a nose ringed and bejeweled King George at Yorktown?
And lets not forget the Rhinos!
I think the history Channel has already run that doco John :lol: :lol:
Hannibal ad portas ! Dave Bartlett . " War produces many stories of fiction , some of which are told until they are believed to be true." U S Grant
Posts: 7,668
Threads: 117
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
Yes they have, and the Rhinos were defeated soundly by Babar the Elephant and his sidekick Celeste.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)
Saepe veritas est dura.
Posts: 723
Threads: 15
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
1
Most History Channel stuff is superficial, sensational or just plain wrong.--just like CNN and FoxNews.
"Fugit irreparabile tempus" (Irrecoverable time glides away) Virgil
Ron Andrea
|
