It serves two excellent purposes: firstly, to offer an accessible digest of historical consensus on major historical events, and secondly, to provide a hate-totem for desperately insecure history students (and presumably the occasional autodidact).
>>539302 I like the dude, he's up front about being an amateur historian and does take some leaps for the benefit of good storytelling. Truth be told a lot of "professional" historians do this too (Ambrose).
Some of the anecdotes he used in 'Ghosts of the Ostfront' aren't very credible, but it's still entertaining. I have a bunch of his older ones saved.
I honestly think there's some kind of tracker on my computer that puts podcasts behind a paywall shortly after I find them. Partially Examined Life, Bret Easton Ellis and then HH. Thrice is enemy action.
>>539425 >People always recommend 'History of Rome' in these threads
Been listening to that the last week or so on /his/ recommendation. It's good if a little bit skimpy on details. I prefer the Carlin eight 5-hour episodes, and the last episode I'll just talk until I'm hoarse and call it a day approach.
The more I learn about Rome, the more fascinated I am by Romans, while at the same time my respect them for plummets.
>>539396 >I like the dude, he's up front about being an amateur historian and does take some leaps for the benefit of good storytelling. But this is what John Greene does, and everyone on /his/ hates his guts for it.
>>539857 For the vast majority of recorded history the things historians have written down have been embellished. The idea of critical history is fairly new, and considering even the record of "modern" events like WW2 and the gaps and embellishments that have been either politically whitewashed like the archives of the USSR, dramatized by historians like Ambrose making up shit about Eisenhower, or Army Combat Historian S. L. A. Marshall completely inventing research data about GI combat performance, you really have to take everything with a grain of salt.
Some of the best books I've read about Rome (Imperium by Robert Harris) are technically historical fiction. But so is most of what we think we know about Rome.
>>539857 While Carlin uses some dramatization and questionable sources to convey a story or event, Greene does it to tailor history to his narrative. That and Carlin owns up to his own faults while John Greene expects you to accept his facts at face value.
>>539857 >But this is what John Greene does, and everyone on /his/ hates his guts for it.
I'm not familiar with Greene but with Carlin he'll include something like the Korsun pocket slaughter of 20,000 German soldiers by sword-wielding Cossack cavalry in his Osfront series.
This is obviously a "romanticized" account given by a Soviet officer to the author of the book Carlin took it from (pic related), Werth even admits this. There are no collaborating sources, German records say 30,000 of the 35,000 encircled escaped.
Dan including it didn't bother me, it's meant more for exposition for the benefit of the story.
>>545756 Tried the revolutions. Between the constant name dropping and the relatively dry and straightforward narration, id rather read a book than listen to that podcast. I prefer Carlin, his tangential rambling approach is much more suited for doing something else while listening to it or as a bedtime story, which is basically how podcasts should be used
The Great Courses is pretty good for giving a quick overview of various subjects, and also gives some good recommendations for further reading. The quality varies sometimes though, for instance their courses on South American history has a lecturer who tries way too hard to make his own archeological findings significant.
Sadly they're not free though, but you can probably find them in torrent form.
So much of early history was written well after the fact, sometimes citing long lost sources, often conflicting with other accounts if we're lucky enough to have multiple. In the case of the later one must determine the more credible author.
It'd be impossible to separate the mythos of the founding of Rome, either by us or even Roman historians of the later empire. For centuries Homer's Troy was thought to be fiction, both the city and the war.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.