When I was younger I was addicted to the History Channel. My dad and I used to stay up (insomniacs us) into the wee hours of the morning talking about history and watching the History Channel. This was around about the time that they were showing a lot of World War II shows, so I got a decent education about World War II and related matters. It was no substitute for a good history book or history class, but it was nice and serves me well in Trivial Pursuit to this day. (At least, the old Trivial Pursuit where the history questions were about history and not about arts and entertainment, but I digress.)
Sadly, I must report that the History Channel is not what it used to be. I was pretty sure that things were going downhill when the history shows with prunish professors began to be replaced with shows about the histories of certain football teams, but when they got Jenny McCarthy to be spokeschest for a show called “Boy Toys” I knew the belovéd channel of my youth had perished.
Just now I was flipping through the channels and came across an ad for a series on the History Channel called The Barbarians. I’m not sure what the other episodes were about, but they were advertising a set of episodes about barbaric leaders from history. The examples of barbarians they mention in the ad were as follows: Attila the Hun, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Osama bin Ladin, and Saddam Hussein.
I’ll go ahead and post my warblogger disclaimer: Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are bad people. But, really, how is it that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Ladin are equivalent to Hitler, Stalin, and Attila the Hun? I’ll grant that maybe Osama bin Ladin should be on a list of barbarian invaders (even though that distinction smacks of something it shouldn’t) because of al-Qaeda’s targetting of Europe and the United States, but Saddam Hussein?.
Better stay away from the Discovery Channel (with their phoney “Nefertiti” show and the like), The Learning Channel, and pretty much any science channel that shows up. The BS has won.
Actually the first 4 episodes (Monday & Tuesday) were quite good. It was Vikings, Goths, Mongols & Huns. Well, I missed the Huns. But it’s the first real history of the other 3 that I’ve gotten. And it was really interesting. I’d had no idea that the Goths did anything other than plow into the Romans. As for Hussein & Bin-Laden…..sensationalism, taking advantage of the moment. The first 3 ended with valid statements about how those groups had influenced & changed the course of northern hemisphere history. I recommend ’em. I am avoiding the rest like the plague.
I saw the first segment, too. It was quite good. Vikings (Eric the Red and Leif Erikson), the Goths v. the Romans, the Mongols and the Huns (as Jake said). I didn’t pay much attention last night. It didn’t seem as interesting.
I’m not ready to give up on these channels yet. I figure they have to make money somehow. I like History Explorer and Mythbusters when I can catch them. What ticked me off is that my local cable “provider” (“monopoly” is more apropos) took away my free access to the Do It Yourself channel. I had that on almost 24/7 in the spring and summer when I was working in my garden. Now, if I want DIY, I have to pay for it. Have to pay for Independent Film Channel now, too, but I never cared much for what was on there.
Well, you could arguably make a comparison between Hussein’s treatment of the Kurds and Hitler’s treatment of the Jews…
Nice looking bloggy. But I was going to say that: History Channel was never any good. In the sense that – though you could in fact get some incredible archive footage from time to time (and in that sense things *have* gone down quite a bit), the *view* of history you were getting was always the same – and that’s a very narrow view, to say the least. So before it was all Stalin and Hitler, and now they also have Hussein and Bin-Laden – but it’s the same “typification” of history.
What I am trying to say is that good history is always somewhat at odds with official history – it takes un-television-like courage to attempt such an array of views. Television, by its very nature, is a propaganda tool. It’s kind of hard to remember that sometimes.
Hey the HC is better now, IMO, than ever before. Used to be it was all WWII, all the time. Ooooh, look another show about planes and boats and explody things! Hurrah! In the past couple of years they have broadened their scope. Terry Jones’ Medieval Life, like all his other European history shows, is excellent. I’m just glad to watch something other than WWII footage. I had enough of that growing up. I had very little medieval, Asian & African history – so any little bit helps.
I agree with the above poster who says that the HC was never that good, but it’s still sad to hear it got even worse. But, I must say, the darkest saddest crass capitalistic gutting of something-that-used-to-be-good happened in the print medium: the gutting of Scientific American magazine. Given that magazine’s history — it’s one of the oldest, if not the oldest magazine in America that’s still in print with a history of great contributions from great writers, full of expositions of history making scientific breakthroughs by their discoverers … etc. As of today, it’s of the same caliber as Discover or some other pop crap and the old SciAm exists in name only.
Actually the Hitler/Staling Osama/Hussein stuff were previously-aired shows. The History Channel has a tendency to do that. They have a new program about barbarians (which was quite good, by the way), but they want to make it a week-long thing, so they re-air whatever they’ve got that fits the bill. I’m not sure if that changes anything for you. The Hitler/Stalin one is actually a good show as well. They take a look at similarities in the childhoods and early life of both men. It originally aired along with a show on Pol Pot and some other stuff as a war crimes special, if I recall correctly.
But “Boys’ Toys” was just disgraceful. Marketing toward middle-aged former frat boys who, for some reason, actually have fond memories of drinking keg beer out of solo cups.
I agree that the History Channel still has some shows worth watching, but I can’t help but think of when they were new on the scene, and whenever you’d tune in, you got educated, in some way. They got a few of us hooked, took advantage of that with some ad-savvy, gained more viewers, and, inevitably, dumbed down.
Remember when Biography was new? I learned about ancient Greece, the Bronte sisters, Nero….
I quit watching that show, permanently, when gameshow hosts week came up.
Ummm, “Biography” was on the History Channel? I’ve only ever known it to be on A&E. Did I miss something?
Not that anyone cares, but the accent on “beloved” should go the other way.
I still like the history channel.
yes, they did run fluff of various dictators during the “barbarians week” because they’d been promoting the new miniseries feircely. it was, in fact, a very GOOD miniseries, but since they’d done all that promotion, and they DO have 24 hours to fill…
now, in my opinion, one of the best shows still to be found on the channel is Conquest. it’s a fun show that does alot for the general dismissing of romaticism of the past. case in point. “pirates weren’t fun or heroic. you CAN’T cut nautical rope with a saber, no matter how cool it looks in movies, and your pirate raid would be more likely to net jars of molasses than gold chests”
it’s a really great show, and deals more with anthropological history than anything else.
of course, that’s when it’s ON. it has an extremely irregular broadcast schedule.
I agree that the History Channel has gone to the dogs. Before, they at least made the attempt to be SOMEWHAT objective about what they presented, but not anymore. Like all the other networks, they have become little more than administration mouthpieces.
“At least, the old Trivial Pursuit where the history questions were about history and not about arts and entertainment, but I digress.”
I’m not sure I agree that battles and generals are legitmate “history” in a sense that the arts and entertainment are not.
When I said “arts and entertainment” I meant that the questions have devolved into things like, “What American Idol contestant became famous for shooting soda out of her nose in an interview with David Letterman?” So, basically, pop culture trivia which, incidentally, they already have a category for.
They also have a category for art and literature, which is where the questions about painters, writers, poets, and musicians goes. The history section, while it had a fair number of questions about “battles and generals” also had a great number of questions along the lines of “Name three of the Supreme Court Justices responsible for deciding Brown v.s the Board of Education.
My complaint doesn’t have to do with battles and generals being slighted so much as it does with current movie-star events being used as a replacement for questions about–if I can say this without being decried as some sort of liberal elitist–actual history.
Great minds think alike, PDP. See my comments on the HC’s Barbarian Week ads here.
Thanks for the clarification, PDP. I withdraw my nit-pick. :-)
As I watched the History Channel (HC) version of the Goths I tried to piece together a book I read in 95 or 96: GERMANY From the Earliest Period by Wolfgang Menzel, book is dated 1899. After dusting the book off, I reread the chapters about the Goths (after the HC version) and either this book is fiction or the History Channel is fiction. I only watched the first Goth part and not the one after the fall of Rome.
The HC stated that the Goths came from their ancestral homeland (North of the Black Sea), the Goths came from an area known as Gothland, Sweden; went across the Baltic (date is debated, 3BC to 100AD) and landed on what is Danzig. They defeated the present Vandals and Ulmerugi and faced resistance from the Saxons (west) so they migrated more to the South and either made other tribes run out of the way or they were absorbed into the Goths until they reached (toward the close of the 2nd century) the north Black Sea area where a tribe called Splany inhabited. What tribes joined them? Gepidae, Longobardi (Denmark area), Heruli (Scandia origins also), Vandali, Rugii, Burgundians from the Oder, Jazyges, Roxoalni. The majority of Goths never did even go across the Baltic in this venture; the majority of Goths never faced the Huns, or the Roman, they weren’t defeated by any of these because they were in Sweden or stayed in various parts of Europe were the migration crossed.
HC stated that the Huns drove them (Goths) to seek Roman protection. First off in 270 (Rome fell in 409) a split happened among the Goths which one was either a Visigoth(west) or OstroGoth (east) in which they had their separate leaders/kings. The Visigoth tribe (not all of them) mostly took this condition (of encampment) as Visi/Ostro Goths were all over the Region and not just in this “Roman protection camp.” In fact many Ostrogoths allied with the Huns. The HC kept on using the term “Goths” during the show and I don’t recall hearing any Visigoth or Ostrogoth classifications. . Again, I repeat, the majority of Goths (in Greece, Asia Minor, Southern Europe, etc.,) of either division were not in this encampment or were mercenaries (for Rome or enemies of Rome, or independent).
HC also stated that Marcinople was looted by “Goths” because they needed food and weren’t allowed in the gates. Fridigern was invited into Marcainople by the governor Lupicinus for a banquet as well as other Visigoth chiefs, when a long period of time passed, the Visigothic encampment nearby wanted in the walls to check on the safety of kin. Lupicinus ordered his “guests to be killed, Fridigern said if they are freed the Visigoth horde wouldn’t attack the walls. Fridigern left and was true to his word. HC presented the Visigoths as food beggars, they may have looted Marcinople latter, but it was no food riot that motivated them.
Another problem after reading this book versus the HC is the account where Fridigern was motivated by the Roman treatment of his people at the “protection camp.” First off, the goal of the Goths was to attack the Roman empire as they had warred mostly in the east with Romans for 20 years before even becoming mercs for Rome; in 192 AD at such a meeting three of their chiefs were struck by lightning at such a meeting on how to defeat the empire and it was considered a bad omen at the time to ensue. In the commencement of the third century, they were strong enough to get emperor Caracalla to give tribute, and tribute followed many other times before the Fall of Rome. Secondly, when Valens (8-9-378) was killed in battle the Visigoths mostly remained in Greece in mercenary status again under the Roman Emperor Theodosisu. It seems that the “protection camp” really didn’t offend that much, or was HC trying to spin something else? Why would they go back to Romans if they were so mistreated? Or was it a different batch of Visigoths?
Alaric, HC said he didn’t like his fellow Goths being destroyed or used for cannon fodder, I cannot find any info in this. Can anyone other quote me a source on this matter?
Alaric came in the time where Goths came into the highest offices of state in the Roman empereor. The Roman historians of that time even acknowledged that the Germans were deemed men, and the Romans women. The style of the Gothic furs was in style among the Roman Senators in place of the toga. At this time a split in the empire of Rome had already happened the East (Constantinople) West (Rome), Alaric fought in the imperial army for the west and took advantage of this split. Alaric was a descendant of the Balti, who when nominated Visigoth king invaded Greece in 396, sparing Athens alone, because he said he saw Pallas standing at the gates, the city patron (a superstition notion).
HC said Alaric was mad at the 10,000 loss of Goth life the Romans lossed in battle in 394; and that motivated him for revenge. HC didn’t mention that Visigoths would do battle with Alaric in the short future. Yes, Goth vs. Goth in Pollentia and Verona (two battles). Stilico (West Roman General leading these Visigoth mercs) was accused of treason to the Western Roman Empire and was killed, together with the wives and children of 30,000 Germans. A payment of tribute wasn’t paid to Alaric also. This was the last straw? Which one? Non-payment or the 30 grand, 10 Grand or all? Here is the Good Part that HC didn’t tell you when Alaric went unopposed to Rome: “What will be left of us?” asked the Romans. “Life” was the answer. “We are still numerous” they threatened. “Then come out, the thicker the hay the easier it is to mow.” Alaric said. Simply Beautiful. The tribute to the Visigoths were 5000 lbs. Of gold, 30,000 pounds of silver and other commerce quality items. Alaric didn’t sack Rome until later (guessing 3-10 years after the stated tribute) after the last Roman army was destroyed, Brennus (Celt Gaul) first sacked Rome in 391BC.
Remember, I’m not an expert on Goth history but a lot of stuff HC didn’t bother to even say in which they should‘ve. They had enough time to get things right in the basic sense; after reading I didn’t get any feeling of poor, starving, hungry Goths who had to fight because he had no other option–what HC tried to instill in the viewer. Remember, this is a general account (some detail) of the Gothic History I have told, read the book as I have stated above, though this book may be a hard find as I cannot find it on a search engine or a online book seller; many things (majority) that I read I didn’t even type and there is some gaps of information the author doesn’t know or isn’t telling. And I didn’t really even mention the Ostrogoth history or the numerous other Germanic tribe involvement. Some time frame info: 250AD Gothic army under Cniva defeated the Romans at Beraea where 100,000 men were put to the sword. During the March toward Greece, the emperor Decius and son were drowned in a lake by Goths when defeated. 269: Asia minor, cyprus, and the temple of Diana were destroyed by Goths.
Other tidbits found:
Odin performed his nine mortal places of wounding to make Valhalla in front of the Swedes and Goths.
Goths and Swedes were two distinct members of the same monarchy
Goths didn’t originally come from Sweden (took it from the Macromanni)
Some contend Goths came from Asia before history can record as their language resembles Persian and Sanscrit
Those who came from Mecklenburgh and Pomerania were called Visigoths; those from S.Prussia, NW Poland were Ostrogoths–this split wouldn’t happen until later 270AD, obviously a specific family allegiance to a Chieftain line
It is supposed that Odin was the chief of a tribe of barbarians which dwelt on the banks of the Lake Maeotis, till the fall of the Mithridates and the arms of Pompey menaced the North with servitude. From the frontiers of the Asiatic Sarmatia into Sweden with design of having freedom of religion and a people, which in some remote age, might be subservient to his immortal revenge; when his invincible Goths armed to chastise the oppressors of mankind.
When the Goths reached the north Black Sea area, they discovered great fertile ground, rivers to travel, plenty of game and fish, good weather for most types of grains and produce…But the Goths withstood all these temptations and still adhered to a life of idleness, poverty and rapine.
Well, one should expect that a century-old book on a subject that will be affected by progresses in archeological and other research should be a wee bit out of date. And one would hope that the people who made that History Channel feature read more and more recent books. (However, as I live in Germany, I didn’t see the feature and won’t comment on it).
From what I recall from my college days, one of the big problems with the migrations of the various Germanic tribes is that a lot of the tribes that played a major part in the wars during the end of the (Western) Roman empire had not been mentioned a hundred or two hundred years before, while tribes that had been well-known in the early days of the Roman Empire had seemingly vanished. Historians then had to try to find out if the old tribes had had changed their names or if they had formed fairly recently through a merging/confederation of old tribes. If I remember correctly, specifically re. the Goths there was/is a controversy whether they were related/identical to a tribe called the Geti mentioned by earlier Roman authors or to the Gutones (who lived on the lower Vistula in the first century BC).
Some of the migrations as per Menzel seem to have been revised by later historians, at least they look different in the historical atlases I checked. For instance, as far as I can see Goths and Saxons could not really have come into serious a conflict as the Saxons lived on the North Sea coast, so there were a number of other tribes between them and the Goths (on the Vistula), notably the Langobardi on the lower Elbe (not Denmark, until after 400 AD), Semnones in Mecklenburg (until ca. 200 AD), and Burgundians on the Oder (until ca. 400 AD). As far as I can see Goths never settled in Mecklenburg, and since the Ostrogoth/Visigoth split only occurred ca. 270 AD, it is probably impossible to decide conclusively whether this was a pre-existing subdivision.
Don’t know if the Marcomanni ever lived in Sweden – they lived on the lower Elbe when they were first noted and migrated to Bohemia (now the Czech Republic) ca 10 BC. (If they had lived in Sweden they probably had a different name – “Marcomanni” means “border-men”, the border in question presumably being the Danube, where they were up against the Romans). They apparently were part of the Suebian tribal confederation at the time.
Whether the Gauti (who appear in “Beowulf” under in the Old English version “Geatas”), who later provided a large part of what became the population of medieval Sweden, are related to the Goths seems doubtful. They were not mentioned before the 6th century AD, and Swedish and Gothic are only distantly related – they are both Germanic languages, of which linguists distinguish three main groups – northern (the Scandinavian languages), western (German, Dutch, English etc.), and eastern (Gothic being the only one handed down in written texts).
That Gothic resembles Persian and Sanskrit is not surprising, all Indo-European languages do (although of course Gothic as a Germanic language is closer to other “centum” languages (e.g. Latin, Greek and the Celtic languages) than “satem” languages like Sanskrit and Persian).
I know this is trivial to many, but I was especially disappointed at the physical portrayal of the Mongols and the Huns. Couldn’t the History Channel find any Asians to portray them? Or at least half-Asians? Past Discover Channel shows on the Mongols and the Huns were far superior. Watching this was like that horrible Van Damme flick (where he goes to Tibet or Nepal to fight in a tournament) where an Arab portrays a Mongolian or one of those old Charlie Chan movies where a White man is transformed into an Oriental with a bad makeup job and a paste-on mustache.
Gothic is a Germanic language, and resembles German and the Scandinavian languages, but not as closely as they resemble each other.
The only known poem in Gothic is in a modern reconstruction of the language by J.R.R. Tolkien, and may be found in the appendix to “The Road to Middle-earth” by Tom Shippey.
THC went sour when the WWII flood began. In my mind this flood was almost preperatory for what followed it. I’ll leave that alone.
Before about 6 months prior to “9/11”, “911” or whatever, THC ran histories of EVERYTHING. Ancient war was always fascinating, of course, but they took it further to discuss things such as battlefield medicine and “the history of roman battlefield surgical implements”. I remember that one.
Now it’s entirely propagandist trash and I’m not able to find the History of Drugs In America anymore. Where’d that go? It was a week-long series. Hmm.