I've got no problem generally with popularizing ancient history.
I've also no problem with revisionism. Back when I was in grad school 10 years ago there was a new school of academically lightweight but popular work asserting that slavery was not a major factor in Egypt, which was revision of long held views. Yet today that has reversed again, and a mountain of evidence has once again turned to an understanding of Egypt as a virtual total slave society and slave economy.
That said, this pair of programs is profoundly idiotic. The language used to describe the Egyptian rulers is just childish. There was a recent study on psychopathy and sociopathy rates in US states, and the top jurisdiction was Washington DC, with eleven times times the rate of any other jurisdiction. This corresponds with several other studies that show people in politics especially successful politicians, generally exhibit such higher rates psychopathy. We are learning it is not that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," but rather the other way around -- that the corrupt are drawn to and succeed in gaining power -- be it in authoritarian systems OR in democracies.
Was Egypt more violent than Assyria? Did it have more slaves than the Persian empire which was a slave state (made more ironic with completely invented interpretations of the 'Cyrus cylinder" as being some kind of "human rights declaration" when Cyrus was a mass murderer and genocidaire). Were the Ptolemies any different than the Romans? Are we really to go backwards and swallow Octavian's propaganda against Anthony and Cleopatra as dissolute?
Even if you have a high tolerance for junk mixed in with popular history this is beyond the pale and excruciating to watch.
