Knights & Knaves Alehouse

(note: stop video at 11:25)

Matthew wrote: What an odd thing to say.

I'm an odd duck. I apologize, it was a broad tongue-in-cheek statement meant to include such academics like Jonathan Riley-Smith, possibly the loudest voice against the documentary. He's a Hospitaller in his spare time. You know, like LARPing... but worse, because I'm sure he thinks it's fo' realz.

josh wrote: I'm an odd duck. I apologize, it was a broad tongue-in-cheek statement meant to include such academics like Jonathan Riley-Smith, possibly the loudest voice against the documentary. He's a Hospitaller in his spare time. You know, like LARPing... but worse, because I'm sure he thinks it's fo' realz.

Curiouser and curiouser. Sure, I have met him. What exactly do you mean by pro-crusade?

I'll PM you.

Matthew wrote:Generally speaking, though, television history focuses on entertainment and sensationalism over fact and sober analysis, to the detriment of the subject. Viewer beware, and all that.

I certainly agree with this.

In my personal view, TV programmes about history that fall into the category of Not Completely Shit include BBC 2's The Vikings (2012) presented by Neil Oliver, and BBC 2's The Normans (2010) presented by Robert Bartlett. Neil Oliver is proper archaeologist and Robert Bartlett is a proper historian. I wish BBC 2 would make the counterpart series (The Vikings by a historian and The Normans by an archaeologist) but this is almost certainly too much to hope for.

There is a forthcoming TV programme about Must Farm which will be released around August, presented by Professor Alice Roberts. I've met the archaeologists who are digging the site and they confirm that it is Completely Shit. Alice Roberts is articulate and photogenic and has serious scholarly credentials, but she is neither a historian nor an archaeologist. She's an anatomist and osteologist. You can believe her when she's talking about muscles and bones.

sepulchre wrote: Matthew, you have mentioned this before and I thought it rather sobering. However, I wonder if you would feel the same about this one? The description of the burial customs and presence of nature in the life of the Celts I thought nothing short of brilliant. If you have an hour to retread some territory with which you're probably familiar, but possibly with an insight and nuance not common to the typically sensational framing of documentaries, you might enjoy this.

If I find a spare hour I will take a look.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote: In my personal view, TV programmes about history that fall into the category of Not Completely Shit include BBC 2's The Vikings (2012) presented by Neil Oliver, and BBC 2's The Normans (2010) presented by Robert Bartlett. Neil Oliver is proper archaeologist and Robert Bartlett is a proper historian. I wish BBC 2 would make the counterpart series (The Vikings by a historian and The Normans by an archaeologist) but this is almost certainly too much to hope for.

Bartlett is probably one my favourite historians, and I was really looking forward to this series on the Normans, but it was far too short and shallow. Worst of all was the moment he declared that Odo of Bayeux used a mace to avoid shedding blood ... showing that even great historians can make mistakes, especially when outside of their field of speciality. Here he writes the same thing: The Bayeux Tapestry. Honestly makes you wonder if he is looking at the same image ...

I wouldn't agree with Professor Bartlett's view there either, but the series is still head and shoulders above most history programmes. I wholeheartedly agree that the series was too short. I wish BBC 2 had the funding to run thirteen-episode series about history instead of releasing three episodes every couple of years.