"The end is nigh! A History Channel show about history" Topic

A three part biography of George Washington on HC? Who'd a thunk it?

link

I'm looking forward to it and the trailers/previews look pretty good.

Washington was one of the two indispensable men of the Revolution-Franklin was the other.

Yes I have been looking forward to it, too. I agree that Washington was indispensable in the AWI.

Will wonders never cease.

Don't get too excited- in episode 3 he drives a truck through Akaska looking for flea market bargains to sell in his pawn shop back in Vegas.

I've been looking forward to watching it also.

Saltflats1929 – that made my day:)

Slatflats, LOL!!!

The historian/author Dolores Kearns Goodwin is involved in the project.

She was interviewed last evening on the subject. She is an excellent historian and author.

Just finished watching first episode…let me say any serious history would not include Bill Clinton as a subject matter expert. Colin Powell is also suspect.

They were giving their opinions on Washington. Why Clinton was there, I have no idea. Powell was a professional soldier, so his opinions on Washington have value.

Yet, there were 'serious' historians among the talking heads.

The others were mostly historians, I think. Lengel has done extensive research on Washington and has written about him. John Avlon, is a journalist, but has also written on Washington.

Overall, it was a pretty good program. I'll continue to watch it and see how it goes.

Yes, I'll continue watching too – oh, and I believe Bill Clinton was a two-term US President like George Washington if my historical recollection is correct.

One of the worst things about History channel is the commercials every few minutes. I'd rather watch documentaries on PBS, no ads.

They certainly put some time and money into the re-enactments though.

Let's disabuse ourselves of the notion that just because someone served in the military, even someone as high ranking as Powell, that automatically gives them any credibility with regard to any military or historical topic. Now Powell might have an interest in the Revolution but I've never seen him connected to Revolutionary history. I'll grant him the benefit of the doubt.

As far as Clinton goes, so what if he served two terms…so did Bush and Obama but I don't see them appearing. Silly argument.

Other than Lengel the others are minor actors and some are just professors who have never written anything that I know of.

General Powell can certainly judge military service and generalship.

Lengel and Ellis are both published historians, although if I recall correctly, Ellis had some problems years ago.

History professors have creds because they are history professors and have advanced history degrees.

Whether or not they are credible has yet to be seen. However, they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

All credible points Brechtel, but let's keep the old silly north stater in the dark for a bit longer, he's about ready to spew…..

"History professors have creds because they are history professors and have advanced history degrees."

Ohhh, I am so impressed…I have an advanced degree and am a published historican…when do I get an invite to sit next to Bill Clinton.

Clinton and Powell were merely talking heads. Clinton was a president so most likely will have more anecdotes about Washington's presidency. Powell of course was a general. I doubt very much they had much to do with the show other then having tidbits of interviews that were shown.

Otherwise the first episode was pretty good. A couple items of it I was not aware of but the rest I was. The upcoming miniseries on Grant I am looking forward to and I hope these do well enough for them to continue on with other historical figures. I would love to see an hour long show on every president for example.

Clinton is also from the south. Maybe they thought the accent provided colour. That and the halo of powdered hair.

I have an advanced degree and am a published historican…

What have you done that is published?

>"History professors have creds because they are history professors and have advanced history degrees."

That said, you can't assume they have a clue. Look at the "historians" who are pushing Plan 1619 from Outer Space.

Having gone through the mill and gotten a PhD, I can tell you they are not all equal.

oldnorthstate has a point about Prez. Clinton The man is both controversial and a huge celebrity and therefore a distraction for history buffs.

I think Ive seen Colin Powell guest comment in other History programs.

Saw the 2nd episode last night, and enjoyed it.

Like USAFpilot wrote, so many frequent commercials, and these unfortunately break up much of the recounting and generated drama.

The CGI views of New York, the 3D city/town imagery, plus overhead map views are well done.

Look at the "historians" who are pushing Plan 1619 from Outer Space.

Who are they and what is that?

That said, you can't assume they have a clue. Having gone through the mill and gotten a PhD, I can tell you they are not all equal.

Assumption has nothing to do with it. Listening to them gives a 'clue.' And, yes, they are not all equal, but that is in every profession. At least three of them have written books, and Lengel's and Philbrick's volumes are excellent.

And for what it's worth, a couple of the talking heads have won the Pulitzer Prize.

I believe they are worth listening to.

…some are just professors who have never written anything that I know of.

Do a little research on the talking heads and you might just be surprised.

What have you written and have had published?

It appears that I must again advise all TMPers to never, ever, watch anything on TV or in movies. It will just sour your stomachs.
To think that the show's producers went to history professors and well known history authors instead of TMPers!

:)))

Actually, the plot is much more sinister so beware TMPers – there are propaganda bots amongst us, who constantly pa-troll their daily assignments.

Perhaps domestic, but more than likely out of some ole north state agency (he's just off duty right now). ;)

Oh wait, different movie…..maybe……

> so many frequent commercials, and these unfortunately break up much of the recounting and generated drama.

Indeed – the worst part of this(*) is the not only the commercials but the padding of the running time but restating what was said before the commercial. Roughly 5 minutes of every 15 is new material. This is one spot where public TV really shines since they do not have to do this.

(*) – The same problem was also evident in the dogfights and tank battles TV shows when they were on (and others I am sure). Maybe 15 minutes of a half hour episode is commercials or repeating what was shown before the commercial.

Couldn't find a link to the programme you all appear to be discussing but the introductory text to this one for obvious reasons made me very happy:

link

[1776]

'For the next year, Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights, and the Deep South are the places of American defeats. Then, in June 1777, British General Burgoyne, encounters and loses to a revolutionary new form of American fighting.

GUERILLA FIGHTING

Burgoyne, one of Britain's best cavalry officers, sets off from loyalist Canada intending to join forces with the victorious British forces in New York, split the Americans, and end the rebellion. He leaves with an 8,000 strong army, accompanied by a caravan of 2,000 servants, women and wives, and 200 supply wagons, carrying 84 tonnes of powder and shot. The British need this cumbersome caravan because they're essentially fighting counter-insurgency and cannot rely on food supplies from local farmers. But the route is 270km long, and as they push south following the Hudson River, the unfamiliar dense forest terrain, slows their progress.

Burgoyne is dependent on his Native American guides.
So the Americans kill them first.
Trees are felled to create road-blocks.
The British advance slows to just a km and a half a day.
The forest rings out with shots, and each time, the British numbers decline.

The Americans use new long rifles with a slender barrel at least 40 inches long and packing a 50 calibre shot (the calibre favoured by today's snipers, and now capable of cutting a man in half.)

These rifles have a unique innovation. Grooves inside the barrel, spin and stabilise the shot, giving accuracy up to 250 yards, twice the range of the British muskets.

The 8,000 British are being beaten by just 500 Americans. But the British are trained to fight on open battlefields. These Americans know the woods. They're frontiersmen, woodsmen, and sharp shooters. Their leader, appointed by Washington, is Colonel Daniel Morgan, With the Native American scouts dead or deserted, Morgan now targets the British leaders, their officers. All but one of the 11 officers are killed or wounded. The British foot-soldiers are lost, and now leaderless. The British regroup under Brigadier-General Simon Fraser….'

First, there was no battle of Saratoga-there were battles of Saratoga, but no one battle and they weren't named as 'Saratoga.'

The American Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifles were not 'new' and they did not win the campaign.

The Continental forces in the Saratoga campaign were just a 'little' more numerous that 500.

In short, the link is nonsense. I would like to know what the 'revolutionary new form of American fighting' was.

Dynaman, I can recall in the not too distant past, promoters and fans of the new-coming age of cable TV touting the impeding commercial-free content….of course, because we would be paying directly for our own access.

So ripe for the plucking…..

"we now return you to the regularly scheduled program"

Oh btw, much enjoyed this Washington series, and maybe I'll get the VCR tape of it when that becomes available. ;)

Finished watching and the last two episodes seemed to be much better about not repeating information after commercial breaks. Overall an entertaining show with the actors doing a reasonable job. I'm looking forward to the next one on Grant.

A minority view ?

Kabinettskriege Live Reacts to the History Channel's "Washington"

link

I didn't watch the entire thing. Might circle back to try. Just found it weird that a show about America was filmed in Romania. The uniforms were a hot mess, and there is no excuse for that these days. The parts I did watch didn't see to reveal anything new.

'For the next year, Bunker Hill, Brooklyn Heights, Harlem Heights, and the Deep South are the places of American defeats. Then, in June 1777

That the Deep South was a place of American defeats before June 1777 may come as a surprise to the Virginians who chased Dunmore out of the colony…or to the North Carolinians who defeated Loyalist forces at Moore's Creek…or to the southerners who beat off the British attack on Charleston…or to the South Carolinians who defeated the Cherokees…or to the Georgians who secured their colony from British control. Sure the Americans failed in their effort to take East Florida. Still they were secure enough to send the Virginia and North Carolina continental lines to reinforce Washington's army in later 1776 and 1777.

Harlem Heights, also known as the Hollow Way, was an American success…

And Greene's later campaign in the Carolinas would be the decisive campaign of the war. The British costly victory at Guilford Courthouse would lead to Cornwallis going to Virginia and Yorktown.