I detest the History Channel and all the "historical" documentaries

[bleedingheart]

I have yet to see a historical piece that is worth watching.

Take the latest "Dark Ages" series on the History Channel.

They spend more money and time on ridiculous battle scenes and on pathetic exotica than they do on the history.

The average person can learn more about history from one National Geographic article than one of those dumb shows.

Is it me?

The Nefertiti series (the supposed tomb discovered)...was bad also...more time spent watching the dipshit archeaologist flit about worrying about whether or not it was really "her"...than enough historical content.

I guess it is me, but I expect more because I am somewhat of a history buff and to see this drivel on TV...it is just infuriating.

For example...they are filming these stupid fake battles in Lithuania (by the way I am half lithuanian)..because apparently there are enough places that "look dark ages enough" in Lithuania..

However if you are going to talk about Charlemagne...why not show footage of Aachen cathedral?

I haven't taken an official history course in well over 15 years, however as I recall...historians have refrained from calling that period the Dark Ages for some time. They break it up into Early, Middle and Late Middle Ages.

[madinmaryland]

1. That's part of the problem.

They seem to show the same battle scenes over and over, without really saying anything new. There maybe 15 minutes of actual information in the show. It would seem to be more of a docu-drama.

[bleedingheart]

2. actually a docu-drama would be more entertaining

the series Rome on HBO is more historical and far more entertaining to watch.

These shows assume that viewers have the attention span of a rodent based on how they are put together and while there are some hamster-like intellects out there, most people do enjoy learning something and can handle more than 15 minutes of content in a two hour presentation.

[Lisa]

3. I'm braced for another wave of shoddy Roman/Arthurian stuff

It seems to come each year, around Easter. There's plenty of archaeological evidence out there, about what Roman forts, soldiers, weapons, etc. looked like -- heck, there are even commercially-made items which are pretty decent replicas of the real stuff.
http://www.larp.com/legioxx/

And yet there are still "historical" documentaries being churned out with what looks like leftover stage props from the 1950s -- legionaries in black-painted armour, or ring-topped helmets that had been discredited by the 1970s, everywhere but in the "Asterix" comic books.

Then there are the folks who put King Arthur (or the Saxons, or Vikings) in plate armour that's 500 years out of period. Maybe there's some excuse for this happening in B-grade movies (I'd heard that the costume guy for "The 13th Warrior" was at Rob Valentine's shop in Calgary, to pick up some ridged helms, when he got distracted by shiny stuff ... so some of the "Vikings" are wearing peascod breastplates and such). But supposedly-educational programs?

[Lithos]

4. My wife and I call it the Hitler channel

it's nothing more than visual pablum designed to appeal to the same people who buy coffee table books on history.

L-

[pscot]

5. Watching TV makes you dumber

True fact. Television prevents one from seeing the world as it is. It fills one's head with propaganda, speculation, half-truths, distortions, fantasies and outright lies.

[Kaleva]

6. Isn't that what much of history is?

"propaganda, speculation, half-truths, distortions, fantasies and outright lies."

[frogmarch]

7. Agreed. Sometimes I feel a little

smug when I see it: