Ancients Behaving Badly

[StreamOfTheSky]

Newish show on the History Channel friday nights I just discovered. I'm mostly looking forward to 12-11-09, when my hero and role model, Genghis Khan, is featured. Though, the next week Alexander the Great is up, which will be interesting. In school I only learned about how genius he was and all his accomplishments and spreading of Greek culture. Since then, I've learned he was actually quite the sick , crazily killing his best friend in a dispute, and allegedly even enjoyed hunting down and killing defenseless enemies like they were game animals, so...I'm curious to see how they portray him.

Oh, right...about the show. Seems the schtick of the series is evaluating if a demonized historical figure was truly evil, and if so...grading him, utilitarian style! I like ancient/medieval history, I like evil, and I like hedonic calculus exercises to over-simplify morality, so it's a triple win in my book!

Tonight was Attila the Hun, and he wound up (spoiler!) being rated fairly evil due to no real goal or plan other than plundering and killing as its own end. Which led me to believe that in the creators' eyes, killing "for a purpose" makes you slightly less evil. These guys are Machievelli fans, too? This show must've been MADE for me!

If you've watched the more recent ancient history series on the channel, you're probably familiar with the CGI renderings of the people being covered, often portrayed as ridiculously muscular and badass. Well, in this series it looks like they went for a more cartoony, simplistic art style which I actually enjoyed much more than the Battles B.C. alternative. Then again, I like anime and am comfortable with cell-shaded graphics, as well as old-school 2D video games. The visuals weren't quite like any of those per say...but they were...similar. Hard to describe. In any case, the show was fairly informative and entertaining, I recommend checking it out. Anyone else seen it so far?

 

[Orius]

I'm mostly looking forward to 12-11-09, when my hero and role model, Genghis Khan, is featured.

I think I'll invite you onto my friend list for that comment. heh.

Though, the next week Alexander the Great is up, which will be interesting. In school I only learned about how genius he was and all his accomplishments and spreading of Greek culture. Since then, I've learned he was actually quite the sick , crazily killing his best friend in a dispute, and allegedly even enjoyed hunting down and killing defenseless enemies like they were game animals, so...I'm curious to see how they portray him.

He was a nut. Instead of going to the far end of the Earth just for the hell of it, he should have been busy making sure his empire had an heir. But when you're crazy enough to think you're the son of Zeus, that happens.

And it don't take genius to undo a knot by chopping it up.

Tonight was Attila the Hun, and he wound up (spoiler!) being rated fairly evil due to no real goal or plan other than plundering and killing as its own end.

How is Attila the Hun being rated evil a spoiler exactly? You don't get called the "Scourge of God" through Lawful Good behavior you know.

Which led me to believe that in the creators' eyes, killing "for a purpose" makes you slightly less evil. These guys are Machievelli fans, too? This show must've been MADE for me!

Yup. Here's your invite.

In any case, the show was fairly informative and entertaining, I recommend checking it out. Anyone else seen it so far?

No cable. *shrug*

Though really, Ancients Behaving Badly isn't much of a name. The ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD behaved badly from the moment the first Sumerian started jotting stuff down and probably before that as well.

Also, Ancients behaving badly made me think this was going to be somehow related to Stargate at first.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think I'll invite you onto my friend list for that comment. heh.

Accepted!

And it don't take genius to undo a knot by chopping it up.

Yeah, in high school my teacher spoke of that like he was clever. I never understood that.

How is Attila the Hun being rated evil a spoiler exactly? You don't get called the "Scourge of God" through Lawful Good behavior you know.

It was sarcasm. Note I did nothing to actually protect people from accidentally reading the "spoiler" like black text or spoiler blocks.

No cable. *shrug*

Though really, Ancients Behaving Badly isn't much of a name. The ENTIRE ANCIENT WORLD behaved badly from the moment the first Sumerian started jotting stuff down and probably before that as well.

Also, Ancients behaving badly made me think this was going to be somehow related to Stargate at first.

It first made me think of Men Behaving badly, even though I never watched that show. By the title, I would have assumed it would be like the Sex in the Ancient World series, oh well. I'm just happy GK is getting some more coverage on the WWII channel.

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

Yeah, in high school my teacher spoke of that like he was clever. I never understood that.

The clever part was that he was presented with a pre-defined solution to the problem (untie it), and he chose an alternate approach that was much more effective. It is somewhat of a questionable assessment, as it can be seen as a metaphor for either thinking outside of the box or for brute force as a solution to any problem.

It first made me think of Men Behaving badly, even though I never watched that show. By the title, I would have assumed it would be like the Sex in the Ancient World series, oh well. I'm just happy GK is getting some more coverage on the WWII channel.

I thought of Stargate...and then seeing "Sex in the Ancient World" made me think of Sarah Jessica Parker and friends in togas.

As for the show, do they define what they consider to be "evil?" In a lot of ancient societies, the definition of evil would not have lined up perfectly with modern, Western ideals of good and evil.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

As for the show, do they define what they consider to be "evil?" In a lot of ancient societies, the definition of evil would not have lined up perfectly with modern, Western ideals of good and evil.

They try...

First off, they have a scale that they use for the grading. All the typical things you would consider evil work against (or for?) the person, while they also try to find redeeming qualities or historical bias. In Attila's case, redeeming qualities included being a caring family man apprently, and historical bias in the sense that only Romans -- his sworn enemy -- have written contemporary accounts of him, so it is quite reasonable to question if he was given fair treatment.

They also have a separate metric called "creativity." Without definition, I thought creativity in the sense of "new and uniquely cruel actions done," but they defined it as what the person created, legacy left behind, etc... Since Attila left...nothing, that probably hurt his score a lot. The show may have been most harsh on his impaling of traitors and a few cases where he massacred innocent women and children. I don't think that's terribly fair for as you said, the historical context. Romans killed innocent people all the time. They destroyed my peoples' great temple and scattered us across the known world in a little thing known as the "Diaspora." After fighting Carthage, they were quite spiteful in how they ravaged the land. They watched human slaves fight and die and called it amusement. And Attila's largest slaughter of innocents was under Rome's payroll, and they were pleased with his work. So yeah, they do seem to have problems occasionally with taking the times into account. Attila seemed barely worse if at all worse than the Romans to me.

The clever part was that he was presented with a pre-defined solution to the problem (untie it), and he chose an alternate approach that was much more effective. It is somewhat of a questionable assessment, as it can be seen as a metaphor for either thinking outside of the box or for brute force as a solution to any problem.

Yeah, I get that. But over the years, I've kind of shifted more to the perspective that the story is much about overcoming a challenge with brute force than it is thinking outside the box. But I understand the argument.

To compare, I watched the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon as a kid. One of the only parts I distinctly remember to this day was one episode where their sensei was having them practice fighting against some mechanical enemy, trying to defeat it. They were doing badly. Then, Raphael (my favorite turtle) coems in, calmly walks around it to the power outlet it's attached to, and unplugs it.
That's a better example of thinking outside of the box, IMHO.

 

[Orius]

The clever part was that he was presented with a pre-defined solution to the problem (untie it), and he chose an alternate approach that was much more effective. It is somewhat of a questionable assessment, as it can be seen as a metaphor for either thinking outside of the box or for brute force as a solution to any problem.

I get the whole thinking outside the box bit. But if it's a case where he lost his patience, then chopped it up, then it's simply brute force and nothing clever about it at all.

And it's always fun to sit back some 23 centuries later and snark the hell out of it.

As for the show, do they define what they consider to be "evil?" In a lot of ancient societies, the definition of evil would not have lined up perfectly with modern, Western ideals of good and evil.

Possibly they examine all the known records of the men in question, not just the ones written by his enemies as a way of vilifying him. To impose order on the ancient world and even not so ancient world, one often had to be ruthless. Is there a definite element of deliberate cruelty here, or simply expedience for the welfare of society?

 

[shilsen]

In any case, the show was fairly informative and entertaining, I recommend checking it out. Anyone else seen it so far?

I've seen a couple of the Ancients Behaving Badly episodes and I'm thoroughly disappointed in their quality, or more precisely, would have been disappointed if my expectations for the History Channel weren't fairly low at this point.

The coverage and use of the available historical material on the individuals chosen is very mediocre, with the History Channel generally picking one source and making it sound as if that's the only or definitive one on the subject. Continuing on that trend, they also have this really bad habit of trying to present one story/interpretation about the individuals without ever even mentioning that there are a ton of divergent possibilities and material they aren't touching on. I get that it's an entertainment channel and it's trying to present an interesting story, but that still makes for pretty poor historical coverage of the subjects. And things like the arbitrary rating system and pop-psych profiling of the subjects in this series makes it look and sound even worse to me.

Still, at least this one is better than the Clash of the Gods series, where they do really narrow, simplistic (and often weirdly ethnocentric) treatments of the subject, totally ignoring the fact that there are essentially always multiple variations of the myths and often competing ideas about the same subjects.

In short, I think claiming that it's history is false advertising

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Hmm...I actually didn't kow too much about Attila, so if what you say is true, then that sucks. When they cover figures I know in more depth, like GK, I'll have a better idea just how accurate they are and if they're only using one viewpoint.

Still, at least this one is better than the Clash of the Gods series, where they do really narrow, simplistic (and often weirdly ethnocentric) treatments of the subject, totally ignoring the fact that there are essentially always multiple variations of the myths and often competing ideas about the same subjects.

Oh, don't get me started! I love mythology, and Clash of the Gods made me want to vomit. Not only did they portray only one version of a story, and often a fringe, strange one...they also had an annoying habit of dwelling on something of minor importance for 1/3 the episode and then fast forwarding through more substantial parts.

The most annoying thing, though, was them finding some way to tie Christianity into EVERY freaking episode. The minotaur represents the birth of jesus because there were cows/bulls in the manger? Are you ing serious?! The only episode that really should have been attached is the Norse one on Thor, since Ragnarok was written by / influenced by christians trying to convert them. Hercules was not anything like jesus, Zeus was not an all-powerful monotheistic god who could do whatever he wanted even if the other gods didn't like it.... .....ARGH! I HATE that show!

 

[DreadPirateMurphy]

I've seen a couple of the Ancients Behaving Badly episodes and I'm thoroughly disappointed in their quality, or more precisely, would have been disappointed if my expectations for the History Channel weren't fairly low at this point.

The coverage and use of the available historical material on the individuals chosen is very mediocre, with the History Channel generally picking one source and making it sound as if that's the only or definitive one on the subject. Continuing on that trend, they also have this really bad habit of trying to present one story/interpretation about the individuals without ever even mentioning that there are a ton of divergent possibilities and material they aren't touching on. I get that it's an entertainment channel and it's trying to present an interesting story, but that still makes for pretty poor historical coverage of the subjects. And things like the arbitrary rating system and pop-psych profiling of the subjects in this series makes it look and sound even worse to me.

Still, at least this one is better than the Clash of the Gods series, where they do really narrow, simplistic (and often weirdly ethnocentric) treatments of the subject, totally ignoring the fact that there are essentially always multiple variations of the myths and often competing ideas about the same subjects.

In short, I think claiming that it's history is false advertising

I haven't watched anything on the History Channel in a while, and I'm sorry to hear that they're so focused on the -tainment rather than the info-. Folks already get too many instances of made-up history from films like Pearl Harbor, The Patriot, and Braveheart.

 

[Orius]

The most annoying thing, though, was them finding some way to tie Christianity into EVERY freaking episode. The minotaur represents the birth of jesus because there were cows/bulls in the manger? Are you ing serious?! The only episode that really should have been attached is the Norse one on Thor, since Ragnarok was written by / influenced by christians trying to convert them.

That is pretty stupid, given that the whole story of Theseus and the minotaur predates any Christian theology by several centuries. Unless they're trying to claim that it's some kind of weird mucked-up revelation from God to the pagans or something which needlessly and absurdly complicates things and which starts to delve into topics which are against forum rules to discuss.

Honestly, I think a lot of historical shows and stuff like that are still done pretty well by PBS. They've really stepped up to the competion from cable and when they air a historical program, they do it very well.