Steven Pressfield on the History Channel

[xxx]

That means I agree with you Dean. I cut myself off this time.I think Pressfield's analysis might make interesting TV fodder. Gates of Fire was pretty good although I'm not entirely wild about some of the elements he seems to have chosen in his Alexander excerpts though, but one must allow some leeway for fiction. My biggest concern with Pressfield's upcoming Alexander novel is so far he doesn't seem to be able to do complicated characters well and to do Alexander first person, err, I'm not expecting much (and he's not the first to do this). Commenting on a battle for TV is quite another matter.Although I doubt he's going to be able to top a famous British historian's comment on a similar show regarding Caesar "He was a Maaaafiiiaaa thug" :-)Regards,Tre

[marcus]

Oh, which historian was that, Tre?Sounds like a very non-dry academic :-)All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

"...and features expert commentary from the world's foremost historians."And this is my point. Pressfield is a good novelist, and doubtless he's studied a lot about Alexander if his book is to be any good - but one of the world's foremost historians he ain't. *That's* what I dislike about novelists appearing on programmes like this, if they are to be puffed up in such a way.End of rant.All the bestMarcus

[amyntoros]

Well, to be fair to the History Channel, there are thirteen episodes in the series, so there *might* be real historians commentating on some of the episodes. :-)On the other hand, just because a show is made for a "reputable" station (by American standards) doesn't mean it is always good, or even accurate. I was mindlessly watching a show on the History Channel recently called The Quest for King Arthur. It was about the possible historical roots of the legend. They mentioned a historical figure with a really strange name - I wish I had written it down - and as usual they showed an old illustration while talking. The problem was, every time they mentioned this character they used a shot of King Darius from the Battle of Issus Mosaic! One time they even panned into the frame for a close-up. I couldn't stop laughing!All the best,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Well, you're not wrong there. But programmes made for reputable UK channels can be rubbish, too - did anyone see the tripe that was "Pagans" last night on Channel 4?All the bestMarcus

[xxx]

My memory is not that good Marcus, but it was an old show they occasionally dig up for a biography on A&E of Caesar. I had heard the name and he was quite elderly - my guess is he is no longer with us, but I loved the comment.Regards,Tre

[ruthaki]

The part about the Battle of Guagamela in his book was breathtaking, simply gripping. I get the impression this man knows a great deal about army strategies and has studied it thoroughly. I don't think you need to be a "historian" to be an expert on this.

[marcus]

Hi Ruth,Well, I can't comment on what Pressfield's done with Gaugamela, as I haven't read it. On the other hand, the fact that it's "breathtaking" doesn't mean that it's accurate or that he knows one jot about military strategy.(Before anyone leaps in, I'm *not* accusing Pressfield of being inaccurate or ignorant, I'm just pointing out that those are not bars to writing "breathtaking" accounts of battles! Heck, I'm sure I could write a breathtaking account of Gettysburg, but I'm happy to admit that I know nothing more about it than I learned from some TV movie a few years ago, and I've forgotten most of that.)There's a difference in being a "novelist" and a "foremost historian". Of course it's possible to be both; but (as I said before) my 'dislike' of parading novelists in these situations is probably more down to snobbishness than anything else.All the bestMarcus

[beausefaless]

Dear Linda Ann,I don't think anything much can be derived from a thirty minute program diluted with computer gaming. If Pressfield uses the same calvary excerpts as he did with "The Virtues Of War" it will be worse than a one legged man in a ass kicking contest, I guaranty! But on the other hand, this will not effect the star struck or maybe I should say, *The Inspired Ones*, not!All the best,Andrew

[amyntoros]

Hello Andrew:Well, I watched the first episode of the series tonight on Hannibal, and I wasn't particularly impressed with the computer-gaming graphics or the show itself. Actually, I thought the whole thing was rather dull, as if they were so impressed with their computerized effects (which weren't that good) that they forgot how to tell a good story. As for Pressfield's contribution to next week's episode - well I hope it is better than the excerpts from his book. I do hate to be negative, but I found them so unbelievably boring that I couldn't be bothered to finish reading. Honestly, if Alexander ponced around with the thoughts in his head that Pressfield gives him, he would be about as interesting as a sink full of dirty dishes. Where is Alexander's fire? His passion? His thirst for glory? His personality? I am significantly unimpressed.I *may* be offline for a few days - computer upgrade. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[marcus]

Hi Tre,Not that I think it really matters, but I am aware of only *one* non-fiction book that Mary Renault wrote (about ancient Greece, anyway), and that was "The Nature of Alexander". You're right, though, in that it still appears in the bibliographies of 'professional' historians.All the bestMarcus