>>83267
>believe
Are you incapable of forming opinions of your own?

He broadcasts *his* take on history based on the works of professional historians. It's up to you to decide whether portions of his rhetoric, if any, are acceptable.

>>83267
Never watched him, hearing people gloat about how great he is and spouting his shit like the bible is annoying as fuck though

Why not just read a book?

>>83317
>Never watched him

It's a podcast. You should at least check something out before spouting a stupid opinion like that.

>>83317
>Why not just read a book?
But I do. Dan Carlin's podcasts are so long nowadays that they basically comprise audiobooks anyway. I have a 40 min commute to school so I listen to them on the way.

>>83317
He tends to quote the most compelling and representative bits of the material he reads. If anything, his show is a good source of which books are worth reading.

>>83315
My question was more or less if he was relatively accurate. Sorry I triggered you.

he's got some entertaining ideas, and likes to focus on humanizing events instead of just looking at them statistically. He generally qualifies source reliability, but it's all hist opinion (so don't take everything he says as gospel). Ghosts of the Ostfront is GOAT.

>>83387
>Ghosts of the Ostfront is GOAT.
I'm actually sad it wasn't even longer. I just felt like one more episode between Stalingrad and Berlin would have been fitting.

>>83343
I'm never even judged his thing, I just said people who parade him around as some kind of king of history are annoying as fuck
>>83365
I guess I can see the use, but I'd imagine a proper audiobook would be a bit better but thats my opinion
>>83367
probably just me but I always loved those useless little details you get from reading a niche book, but that's just me desu

>>83387
I was really hoping he'd do something on pre-Roman African history, but we got Persian Empire instead.

Not that I mind, though. Everyone's got a boner for the Greeks and not enough attention is given to the actual cradle of civilization.

>>83267
No. His incredibly narrow source basis, obviously fictive bias, lack of disciplinary credentials and obvious LCD popularism mean that you shouldn't believe him.