New history documentary on BBC4 on ancient civilisations

Liberalbrehon

don't forget to catch the new documentary on ancient civilisations on BBC2/4 on Wednesday nights.

Denerick

Oooh! Sounds interesting. Anymore details?

Will it clash with the Apprentice?

Curse you Lord Sugar!

Liberalbrehon

BBC2 9pm, appendice on after it. Just sorted your Wednesday viewing

Just says about ancient civilisations. 6 part series..

Einhard

Well, what did you lot think? I was really looking forward to this programme, and while I thought it was interesting, I thought there was something lacking. It seemed very rushed. The next episode is on the Dark Ages, and I'd say it's safe to say, Greece, Rome,probably Alexandria thereafter. Which is all well and good, but they all receive extensive (well, relatively) coverage as it is. The period that saw the growth of the first cities, and the spread and growth of the empires that developed from them, is both fascinating, and unknown to the general public. They could easily have devoted the whole series to that era, but instead they get it out of the way in the first 60 minutes before hurrying along to the "sexy" stuff. Oh well. Maybe it's just me. I will enjoy the rest of the programmes; I just feel there's an opportunity missed.

Incidentally, anyone have any idea what the average cost of that kind of programme is? Just wondering if RTE might have the resources for one, and don't bother, or is it just outside of their range? I think RTE do a good job in their histort, but it seems very narrow in its focus.

Liberalbrehon

yeah, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. The historian is very English public schoolish speaking down to the ignorant? Maybe we are. It doesn't have much insight from the historian adding his own take. I don't know maybe others will be better. I think the highlight was the piece on the discovery of the merchant boat. Shows how much trade and travel was going on in bronze age Mediterranean. He also didn't mention the Creten Minoans who had alot of influence around 1500 b.c.
There was another ancient history programme by a woman historian, who went into alot of detail on it. I think that was a better programme.

Actually, there was a funny part in the programme when he read out the letter 1500bc from the wife to her husband the merchant complaining the neighbours had built a bigger house than them. somethings never change, even keeping up with the Jones's

Einhard

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

yeah, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be. The historian is very English public schoolish speaking down to the ignorant? Maybe we are. It doesn't have much insight from the historian adding his own take. I don't know maybe others will be better. I think the highlight was the piece on the discovery of the merchant boat. Shows how much trade and travel was going on in bronze age Mediterranean. He also didn't mention the Creten Minoans who had alot of influence around 1500 b.c.
There was another ancient history programme by a woman historian, who went into alot of detail on it. I think that was a better programme.

Actually, there was a funny part in the programme when he read out the letter 1500bc from the wife to her husband the merchant complaining the neighbours had built a bigger house than them. somethings never change, even keeping up with the Jones's

I think you're thinking of Bethany Hughes, the thinking man's crumpet, the historian's Nigella Lawson! She done a a series recently on the ancient world, and another on Crete which were both excellent. Whereas the programme last night compressed 3000 years into an unsatisfactory 60 minutes, she dealt with one specific period/city/civilisation per episode, and was thus able to delve far deeper into things. I think the one Wednesday barely brushed the surface of a fascinating era, and that was a disappointment.

Liberalbrehon

Einhard wrote: »

I think you're thinking of Bethany Hughes, the thinking man's crumpet, the historian's Nigella Lawson! She done a a series recently on the ancient world, and another on Crete which were both excellent. Whereas the programme last night compressed 3000 years into an unsatisfactory 60 minutes, she dealt with one specific period/city/civilisation per episode, and was thus able to delve far deeper into things. I think the one Wednesday barely brushed the surface of a fascinating era, and that was a disappointment.

yes indeed, bethany hughes, that was a very good series, in more ways than one...

Denerick

Pretty mediocre and pedestrian to be honest, this is certainly no groundbreaking documentary series the same vein as historians like Starkey, Schama or that guy who made the history of christianity series.

Liberalbrehon

Episode 2: Why does he have to keep tilting his head to speak to camera?
Didn't know about the mysterious sea peoples and the dark age between bronze and iron age.
The Phoenicians were an interesting bunch and deserve a programme on them alone.
He went forward for most of program to 800bc then near the end back to Trojan war in 1200bc?

He is totally lost in his objective to understand or educate about early civilization.

Denerick

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

He is totally lost in his objective to understand or educate about early civilization.

The more I see of this the more rubbish it gets. Its absolutely useless. It takes a grand narrative form but so completely loses touch of the incidental and commonplace that is almost completely inapplicable. Schama is the master of this documentary style. (ie, drawing attention on the incidental and commonplace, not at being rubbish and useless )

He makes no sweeping statements that might suggest some kind of 'personal thesis' - something that makes David Starkey such a compelling documentary maker.

And neither does he even approach the level of gravitas someone like Niall Ferguson can bring to something as dreary and dull as credit default swaps.

In short, this has to be one of the worst documentary series in recent years.

Liberalbrehon

Did anyone see this documentary? I thought it was a good insight into the reasons why Europe developed faster than other areas or peoples around the world. Basically down to luck of having a temperate climate, wheat, and farm animals.

Einhard

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

Did anyone see this documentary? I thought it was a good insight into the reasons why Europe developed faster than other areas or peoples around the world. Basically down to luck of having a temperate climate, wheat, and farm animals.

I think it wa smore to do with ease of communication than anythign else. That's my theory anyway, but I think if one looks at the history of Europe, and the world, the areas which developed earliest and most rapidly were always those with the best links to the outside world. And I wouldn't, by a long shot, say that Europe orand Europeans developed faster than other areas or peoples.

Liberalbrehon

yes but communication was a by-product of the latitude that middle east, Mediterranean area shared, the horse of course, the sea also made travel easier, americas, asia didn't have the easy waters of the Med, they had the Pacific. The question is why didn't American Indians develop in the same fashion, was it the size of the continent, the weather, hunting was easier, so farming wasn't as necessary? or culture?

Balmed Out

Not having seen bc4 i didnt get to see it. Ive allways thought that Europe developed as fast or often faster then most other places because the conditions were difficult enough that people had to struggle but not so difficult that they failed. I remember being in Venezuela and at first thinking how on earth the locals hadnt formed a great civilization in the past but then i decided it was just too easy there. Lots of hunting, so much fruit etc growing naturally ever, reat fising, every natural resource under the sun and a year long warm but not too hot climate. The thing is there why would you bother even building a building? When you get every last thing on a plate your less likely to strive for betterment.

Liberalbrehon

so necessity is the mother of invention. What struck me was this village they found near the dead sea. It's like 13,000 years old.9that's one for the creationists!) When they started sowing for wheat, and they started to get bumper crops, they must have been over-awed at their achievement. But they had no where to store the excess wheat. While they would have been happy living in very simple huts, they needed a really good dry place to store the wheat, so they had to experiment with building materials to build a granary. Once they did that, they realised they could build better homes for themselves, and they did. When travelers saw villages made with bricks, plastered walls, word probably traveled fast.
What guns, germs and steel programme didn't or couldn't get into was the development of civilisations that developed around the world and disappeared. This has nearly always been because of the over-exploitation of the resources the civilisation was founded on. Even though this lesson is clear to see it won't stop our modern world following the same course of over exploitation of natural resources.
Also, I guess if the last ice age had receded earlier, human development would have happened even earlier.

fontanalis

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

Did anyone see this documentary? I thought it was a good insight into the reasons why Europe developed faster than other areas or peoples around the world. Basically down to luck of having a temperate climate, wheat, and farm animals.

The book is very interesting too. Domesticated animals seemed to play a big role. For example in Mexico they had wheels for use in chidrens toys but no animals large enough to use carts etc

Wibbs

Not true. They had llamas. It wasn't just in Mexico they didn't make the leap to full sized wheels. They had a road network, were incredible engineers, had llamas and alpacas, understood the wheel but never scaled up. Then again that kinda thing happened before. The Greeks had complex gearing, the steam engine and may even have had primitive batteries(as maybe did the Iraqi's). They and the Romans who followed were quite close to having an industrial revolution 1000's of years before but it never happened. The Chinese had Gunpowder but didn't utilise it the way the europeans and middle easterners did later on. Ditto for printing. They had printing(though AFAIR the Koreans invented movable type) a couple of 100 years before Europe, but the complexity of their language may have limited them by comparison.

Liberalbrehon

illmas aren't horses. I don't think they are as easy to use for ploughing or riding.
The Roman's didn't have the industrial revolution because of slavery. There are documented inventions that would have probably brought about steam power if the slave and landowners hadn't forced those inventions to be destroyed because it would have removed the need for slaves. they might still be running Europe if they had taken on those productivity gains!

Wibbs

Liberalbrehon wrote: »

illmas aren't horses. I don't think they are as easy to use for ploughing or riding.

They were already used as pack animals. They're tough buggers. Certainly up to pulling a cart. South american donkeys basically.

The Roman's didn't have the industrial revolution because of slavery.

True and it's quite arguable the american liberation of the slaves in the 19th century only happened as cheap steam power came on stream. That said....

There are documented inventions that would have probably brought about steam power if the slave and landowners hadn't forced those inventions to be destroyed because it would have removed the need for slaves.

... I do think this explanation is overblown. For a start slaves contrary to popular belief are damned expensive. We think of slavery and our first thought is of african slaves in the new world. Roman(and Greek) slavery was a bit different. Yes there was the stereotypical slave, but more often than not a slave was more like an employee that you didn't pay(though they would often get allowances), but had to sort out room and board and medical care for them and any family they may have. It was a bloody costly business. If you had shown up to a Roman farm with a tractor the owner would have been a very happy little Italian as far as saving money is concerned. So I think the slavery stopped the technology is too easy an answer. It had some part to play, but other factors like culture, economics, materials and them simply missing the importance of the inventions had soooo much more of an effect.

So the Greeks had a primitive steam engine. Thought invented by a certain chap by the name of Heron, a right clever bastid(though something similar is mentioned even earlier). It was based on escaping steam spinning the motor, rather than by piston action, though you could see how it might have been harnessed, but like the kids toys with wheels in mesoamerica they never scaled it up and saw its potential. Materials were another problem. While they were serious metalworkers, the tolerences they could achieve tended to be low. Though again something like the antikythera mechanism shows pretty high skill in that area.

they might still be running Europe if they had taken on those productivity gains!

Yea, by say the 3rd century AD they had all the building blocks to start the guts of the european industrial revolution. What a different world that would have been today.