What do you guys think of Hardcore History? I've listening to a lot of it the past few months and it seems really well researched and presented.
I like it. Pop History without the negative connotation. This is what should be thought of with the term.
I really like dan.
>>957961
I have learned so much about history from it. After plowing through so many I feel like an expert and am always talking my friends ears off about all the cool history stuff I know.
I first starting listening to it after seeing him discussed on 4chan
I started with Prophets of Doom, then went on to American Peril, then the first two episodes of King of Kings and now im on Wrath of the Khans ep 2
its pretty good desu
>It's a Dan makes a boxing analogy episode
>>957961
I'm puzzled as to why he claims he's not a historian. Doesn't he have a history degree and writes material relating to history? Sounds like an historian to me.
>>958769
He claims that in regards to the nature of his podcasts. He's not lecturing formally to an exact standard, he's telling a story.
Sometimes his analogies are overly done (really another boxing and hitler reference?)
But I can overlook that because I like that he brings time period context to the things that was done, looking at it from a less morally judgmental manner. Plus it seems to have generated a huge interest in history and in well researched history.
>It's a Dan does a funny voice when quoting someone episode
>>958769
- It's said mainly in jest
- Allows himself more creative licence
- Because actual historians exist and he probably thinks it would seem abrasive to label himself as such
- Meme phrases are staple Carlisms
- He's a Martian
>>958769
-he only has a BA and isn't inside the academic system
-his podcasts are entertainment, not a rigorous academic discourse
-he loves to say things ageen and ageen
-like "I'm not a racist, but" he thinks it gives him a free pass to say stupid shit following, of course he gets away with it and most just take his at times highly conjectural horse shit at face value
Any other good /his/-related podcasts out there?
This one seems pretty good, but they're still not even out of the Medieval period yet.
http://historyofphilosophy.net/
>>958769
Its a get out of jail free card for his supporters whenever he gets anything wrong.
Like Joe Rogan who whenever he said something stupid he'd add the "im just a comedian" line.
>>958841
The Ancient World is pretty good.
>>958790
That's a huge improvement from early episodes
I love Hardcore History. Elitist academics may dislike it, but it makes history fun and appealing to people who may not enjoy it otherwise. It's a springboard to do your own research and more reading. He's funny and entertaining, and much easier to listen to because of the narrative structure he uses. Great voice too.
>>958874
I hated the atmospheric sound effects in the early/mid episodes.
Its honestly best to pretend the early episodes dont exist.
>>958905
That guy going "Don't you feel guilty yet. A dollllaaaarr alll weee asssskk." Got annoying real quick. Glad I pirated them.
I have listened to Wrath of the Khans (all parts)
What are the best episodes to listen to next?
It's good, entertaining, pop history. Just don't feel like you have some deep understanding of the msterial aftet listening, or that you can repeat everything as fact.
If you want the historical meat, you should pick up a book or two (I think the podcast itself will recommend some).
I enjoy it for what it is, an amazing story, one that is just long enough to get me through my semi-regular long weekend drives.
>Not listening to a cozy relaxed show with actual academics on the subject being discussed as guests
>>959788
Ghosts of the Osfront
>>959841
>BBC
>>959876
Rasheed.
>>958841
I've heard good things about In Our Time. Also, Carlin's other podcast about politics/current events also seems pretty good.
>>958823
A BA is the same, if not better than most people writing the history books you see on the shelves of any book shop and they're usually just as much entertainment as education.
I'm leaning more towards "being able to get away with saying stupid shit" angle. "Sorry I said Ghenghis Khan did nothing wrong, I'm not a historian".
>>959841
too many women for diversity, which in turn leads to the guests being underqualified. wtf is a reader of history lmao.
I cringe when he shuts them down and they try to argue back.
>>959788
Blueprint for Armageddon is excellent as well
>>959923
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reader_(academic_rank)
>>958823
Also looking at his notes, it seems like he only reads a couple of books to prepare for an episode.
>>959841
I had to stop listening to this episode halfway through, I got really annoyed because of the female.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042ldyq
She sounds terrified, you can hear her voice trembling and begins every sentence with UMMM.
>>959923
fuck off retard
>>959914
>Sorry I said Ghenghis Khan did nothing wrong
He was basically attacking his apologists.
>>958841
Mike Duncan's "The History of Rome" and "Revolutions"
>>959788
Death Throes of the Republic
>>959841
too short
i listen every week, stiĺl, too short
>>958769
In his Common Sense podcast (which everyone should try) he claims it's so he can play around more with alternative history and so he can say "i'd like to imagine" based on nothing, IE "I like to imagine the Romans saw the Carthage elephants as a sign from Hell." He also points out that hes a lifelong journalist and broadcaster and he applies that to the history trade so he doesn't see himself as a historian, he sees himself as a reporter who's finding the most palatable way to share a story with the necessary information.
>>958703
Don't be a dick
>>958726
>it's a dan makes a sport analogy episode
ITS LIKE THEY CAME DOWN FROM A HIGHER LEAGUE
>>961814
THESE GUYS HAVE A HISTORY OF PUNCHING ABOVE THEIR WEIGHT CLASS
>Americsns lap up this shit
Jesus Christ, it's as bad as those overdramatic documentaries, the covers and even Carlin himself look like they're trying way too hard to be cool and hardcore; rather than give a shit about history
>>961914
I like the covers. Any issues with the historicity of the podcast? It's a good primer for deeper study.
Great stuff, shame it takes so long for each episode to be released.
>>961914
Complain about anything
A lot of people here are simple-minded idiots who would rather be told stuff in a ridiculous way than to simply read the books or sources themselves.
Seriously read, you troglodytes.
>>958769
It's basically an excuse clause he can use to get away with being wrong
>>961914
>actual history with actual historian
>information said dryly for every audience to listen to calmly and to gain information from that they can put to good use for themselves or others
>"pop" """""""""""""""""""""""""history"""""""""""""""""""
>"SOME SAY THAT ALEXANDER WAS GOOD!"
>SWORD SHING AND CLANG NOISES WITH MUFFLED ARRRGHS AND URRRGHS OF DYING MEN
>"BUT WAS HE TRULY GREAT?!!?!?!?!?!?!"
>LARPERS STANDING AROUND WAVING SWORDS AT EACH OTHER WHILST THE CAMERA SHAKES AS IF MICHAEL J FOX IS HOLDING IT
>"FIND OUT HERE"
>SHING!
>"NOW"
>CLANG!
>information that no one completely comprehends that cannot be taken that seriously because it's said in order to attract a retarded audience that doesn't even watch it or care
Get it through your stupid skulls; if someone doesn't care about it they won't care about it because the presentation was "catering" to them. Make it for the people actually interested in it, and others will come for that if they really want to know about it.
>>962056
kool job finding a way to feel superior to everyone bro. I like reading the sources and scholarly works, so that means no listening to anything formatted into a narrative!
>>962071
The salt is real.
>>961914
He's just a modern day Hellenistic style orator, anon. He likes adding pomp to the pudding
Fun things are fun sometimes
>>961050
kys
>>962989
>which in turn leads to the guests being underqualified. wtf is a reader of history lmao
It's not terribly well researched at all but it's entertaining
Just please don't think you know anything about the more recent time periods he covers based on having listened to the podcast (I can't speak to his knowledge of the more ancient stuff)
>>963286
>Just please don't think you know anything about the more recent time periods he covers based on having listened to the podcast
Were there any glaring issues with his American Peril or WWI shows aside from an incomplete picture of Theodore Roosevelt i picked up?
>>963303
Complete whitewash of American involvement in Philippines is probably the biggest thing off the top of my head
His WW1 stuff is more subtle but basically like, watering down issues for the sake of giving countries anthropomorphic traits
Like, anybody who listened to it would think that the Kaiser had a much bigger role than he actually did, or that Rasputin played a major part in the downfall of the Tsarist regime
>>963344
>Complete whitewash of American involvement in Philippines
>whitewash
Unless i'm misunderstanding your meaning, he was clear about american actions (war crimes if they were a thing back then) actions in the region. Remember the dead civvies in the volcano?
>for the sake of giving countries anthropomorphic traits
I thought he handled this in a manner conducive to story telling but not oversimplifying anyone and qualifying his words. By the end, the Germans certainly weren't left with the image a propagandist would give them. He humanized every side.
>or that Rasputin played a major part in the downfall of the Tsarist regime
from what I understood it was bound to happen, but he did nothing but hurried the inevitable along.
>Kaiser
the societal forces at the time were made clear, no? focusing on a character to take an audience through it doesn't sound so bad.
>>963370
He constantly equivocates or excuses American actions with qualifying words, however. Especially with how he frames it as counter-insurgency tactics. I'd give more specific examples but it's been about six months since I listened to it.
Rasputin is a sideshow but one that he spent a large part of the time on. He doesn't mention the 1905 revolution, or the motivations between the different groups struggling for power after the fall of the Tsar. It's a terrible rendering of the Revolution and I was given a better (and arguably more interesting) one by a high school textbook
He overplays the influence of the Kaiser significantly. He doesn't mention the Telegraph interview at all
>>959904
In Our Time is good but the episodes are too short
>>963389
>Rasputin...
He's got the "i'm not a historian" out for a reason I guess. It made for good listening, I believe, but I guess I never listened for more. I'm noticing I'm only annoyed when I understand the subject as well as he does or better, and I'm lapsed on my Russian history.
>He constantly equivocates or excuses American actions...
He approached it from a clear American perspective yes, but with those qualifiers it sounded clear that the Filipinos were more than engaged in "insurgency", but fighting against the yoke of imperialism. With his reference to tactics, well, that's how the methods were referred to and developed right? When he drew similarities between the Cuban and Philippine situations he was saying how similar the play books would look sometimes, and I think that was more sufficiently damning to America and further, his sources were probably overtly bias and from them, I found in him a balanced but American retelling.
If you like Carlin then listen to this guy he's great
http://www.martyrmade.com
>>962056
So, you somehow believe that people who enjoy listening to an entertaining podcast (I'm my case during long commutes while driving where I can't read) don't also enjoy reading history? You shouldn't be posting on 4chan, you should be reading a book, since apparently people are only allowed to consume one type of media in their entire lives.
If you haven't y'all should check out Common Sense.
I never thought I'd be able to stomach an opinionated political show, but Dan is SO FUCKING REASONABLE I can't help but agree with him. I find he really brings out my 'better angels' even when I thought otherwise beforehand; e.g. I went into Carlin v. Sam Harris expecting to agree 100% with Harris; by the end Carlin has me won over. He legit changed my mind through banter. Fucking impressive stuff.
>>963391
I've listened to every episode, and look forward to them, but HOLY FUCK are these obvious 1/2 the length they need to be. Is the BBC running out of reel to reel tape or something?? Melvyn is amazing at managing time, but he's obviously RUSHING everyone through everything... WHY??? Even with the podcast extras, it's like he can't get to that tea and biscuits soon enough.
In Our Time would be a GOAT 2 hour show.
>>964081
No, I am saying get your "educational" information from a reputable source and not one made for "entertainment."
>>961914
It's called marketing. If it looks cool, more people will give it chance
>>962071
>if someone doesn't care about it they won't care about it because the presentation was "catering" to them.
So that is why people like Crash Course and Extra Credits don't make history videos?
>>958769
>americans
>>958905
>I hated the atmospheric sound effects in the early/mid episodes.
>be listening to the Black Plague episode before going to bed
>fall asleep
>suddenly the nightmarish voice effect when he's quoting the monk comes on
>mfw
Glad that's the only time he ever used that cheesy effect.
>>961890
THEY JUST REALLY DIDN'T HAVE THE ENDURANCE TO KEEP WITH THIS KIND OF STUFF
>>964193
>e.g. I went into Carlin v. Sam Harris expecting to agree 100% with Harris; by the end Carlin has me won over. He legit changed my mind through banter.
Well, thank god he saved you from autism.
>>965018
I mean, there's worse people you could be listening to than Sam Harris. The whole "science of morality" thing is decent. Kinda reminds me of how people talk about democracy being more about being able to discuss your ideas than about specific ideas.
>>965040
No, newfriend. Sam Harris is autistic, and doesn't understand anything about philosophy. You'd be better off with Barney as a role model.
