Ancient Top 10

Very informative and illuminating. However, it misses out the top one in most categories.

This series fails to reckon with many crucial historical facts. It seems somewhat biased as the civilizations and locations discussed are limited to Egypt, Mayan, Chinese, Macedonian, Greek, Arab and African. I am surprised that makers of the series did not do their homework.

Let me shed some light on this missing account of one of the richest, most sophisticated and advanced civilization of all times that happened not some 3000- 4000 years ago but 7000 years ago. Indus civilization.

Ramayana happened 7000 years ago and was composed in Sanskrit in 5th century BC. Mahabharata happened 5000 years ago.

Bridge - Ramsetu 5075 BCE - A light weight limestones shoal chain bridge that was built between India and Srilanka 7000 years ago which can still be seen from space.

Aircraft - Pushpak 5075 BCE - an aircraft that brought Rama and Sita back to Ayodhya from current days Srilanka has been mentioned in Ramayana agaib was written in 5th century BC.

Remote sensing or drones 3000 BCE - Sanjay reports the war live to the king Dhrutrashtra (who is blind) sitting next to the king in the palace. And this war is being fought some 50-60 miles away from the palace.

Missiles - Astra 3000 BCE - Astra (weapons) used during Mahabharata war used Gamma rays. They were GPS guided and password controlled (Mantra). They were used both for defensive and offensive battles. Some of them were also reusable such as Sudarshan Chakra that would return back to dock.

And further into this list, the state-of-art modern architectures that included under ground tunnels, fire escapes, photorealistic 3D illusions, Human Cloning, Cosmetic Surgeries many more that flourished during Mahabharata times..

Informative but potentially damaging. While much of what is said on the show is factual, the blanks are filled in with a lot of hearsay, he said she had, conjecture, and misinformation. Additionally, like most of the history "documentaries" the specialists, and professionals in their fields actually become actors speaking outside of the earth specific field of expertise. More of a show to grab audiences and entertain them then to actually teach them factual information, it's really not much of a documentary at all. Watch with a grain of salt, there's some good stuff, but there's a lot of bad stuff too.

This is the monster truck rally of history shows complete with a "MONDAY! MONDAY! MONDAY!" style announcer and a lot of over the top dramatic sound bites. There is some real history, along with a lot of conjecture and "_some_ historians believe..." Given a choice between the most accepted history and the most sensational, the show goes with the most sensational.

On a regular station it would rate a 5. On the History channel it gets a 3 for being barely passable as history.

Two of the ships on the top 10 probably never even existed. They even made the ludicrous claim that one was so big it could possibly smash down stone coastal walls.

I like the concept but it was terribly executed. I am no historian but even as someone who is naturally inquisitive and competent, you start noticing a lack of objective facts. The show seems very biased towards the Roman, Egyptian & Greek empires (I sometimes heard about Asian & Middle East empires), almost to the point where you feel as if there was no other cultures in the world at those times. I get that much of Europe and Egypt were amazing empires back then but it seems the series strategically picked certain categories so they could place only the above empires within those categories and limit others. I'm at episode 10 of season one and it all now just sounds very redundant of the same facts - I think I've relearned the same thing 10 times now. Also, the historians, archaeologists and other tv personas, while nice to look at, are overdramatizing, to the point where it's almost comical. I did at first think it was interesting to see younger, more diverse people reporting the facts, which made it relatable to my generation (I'm 28) but instead it was an awkward group of people that you start wondering about their credentials. It would've been great to see the same age group of people that really knew their stuff but presented it in a more well mannered way, so the audience can take them serious. Instead, I felt I was watching an episode of Mythbusters. Another reason the show felt so biased and comical was they kept saying "Our top 10" or "This is why it need to be on my top 10" - like what!?!? I'm watching THE HISTORY CHANNEL, not tuning into someone's live on YouTube or TikTok. Lastly, the show has a logo of what resembles a Trojan warrior helmet, like seriously? I'll leave it at that.

I love the idea, but not the way it was implemented. The narration is almost hysterical, sounds like the guy from honest trailers. There is no reason to be so dramatic! The show has a lack of detail, inaccuracies, lack of objectivity.... but it offers a lot of special effects and over simplistic comparisons They also chose the best looking historians in archaeologists they could find. Because looks so. This is intended to keep the interest of people who are not really into history. If you are really interested in history and facts, skip this show. I spent way too much time trying to fact check.