The series "Empires: Egypt's Golden Empire" is interesting. It also has great looking visuals, nice locations shooting and lots of experts on ancient Egypt. So, it is a quality show. However, as a retired history teacher, I also noticed that the academic rigor of the show was often suspect. In other words, the show never really admitted that many of their conclusions were educated guesses--theories designed to try to explain gaps in information. Again and again, this episode talked as if it was all factual--which is a problem for history of times as old as 4000 to 5000 years ago. I really wish that the show had used words like 'perhaps', 'possibly' or 'it would seem'--and had been much more truthful in the process. So, when the film talks about Hatshepsut, it doesn't mention that there are other viable interpretations of her rule--many of which are much more benign or less sensational.
The show, oddly, begins well into the early Egyptian dynasties--around the 12th or 13th--about the time of the Nubian and Hyksos invasions. Why didn't it talk about the first pharaohs? Perhaps there is scant information--but the show didn't even address the earliest days of Egypt. It would seem that perhaps this is an omission or it just didn't fit the overall focus of this first show--which was about the formation of a strong Egypt and ends with Egypt as an empire. Some of the important leaders discussed were Ahmose, Hatshepsut (mentioned above) and Tutmose (the IV most likely). Oddly, the show never differentiated WHICH Ahmose or Tutmose they were talking of--and there were many pharaohs by the same names. It's like talking about Edward of England--and there have been eight.
It sounds like I am full of complaints--and to a certain extent this really is true. It sure could have been better and more academically rigorous. But, if you are NOT a retired history teacher, then you probably won't care about all this. Because of this, I still recommend the show--episodes 1-3 alike.
The show, oddly, begins well into the early Egyptian dynasties--around the 12th or 13th--about the time of the Nubian and Hyksos invasions. Why didn't it talk about the first pharaohs? Perhaps there is scant information--but the show didn't even address the earliest days of Egypt. It would seem that perhaps this is an omission or it just didn't fit the overall focus of this first show--which was about the formation of a strong Egypt and ends with Egypt as an empire. Some of the important leaders discussed were Ahmose, Hatshepsut (mentioned above) and Tutmose (the IV most likely). Oddly, the show never differentiated WHICH Ahmose or Tutmose they were talking of--and there were many pharaohs by the same names. It's like talking about Edward of England--and there have been eight.
It sounds like I am full of complaints--and to a certain extent this really is true. It sure could have been better and more academically rigorous. But, if you are NOT a retired history teacher, then you probably won't care about all this. Because of this, I still recommend the show--episodes 1-3 alike.
