What does /his/ think of Dan Carlin's hardcore history podcast?

I wonder what his biases are.

>>2603296
Ghosts of the Ostfront was amazing. Just hours of description and primary sources of the Eastern Front.

He only starts to falter when he tries to get all didactic and moralising, but it usually only takes up a small fraction of the podcast.

>>2603311
He's fairly centrist, maybe socially liberal and economically conservative.

Quotes sources
Gives examples of thought process
No clear defined agenda with his retelling (his other podcast was quite anti-trump, dont get any of that here)
I'd say it's a good listen

>>2603296
Hes fantastic at really immersing you in the moment

he overdoes the sports analogies i think other than that hes great

>>2603296

It's a good podcast for people who unironically say " epic" and post on r/history

>>2603296
He's a good storyteller, but it's important to remember that, as Dan himself admits, he is not a historian and you should keep this in mind when considering his claims.

King of Kings and Blueprint for Armageddon were both really good. It leans more towards entertainment than education but it's still fairly informative. He does a good job of keeping his bias out of it, you'd think that after listening to someone talk about history for 50+ hours you'd have a decent idea of their political beliefs, but I have no clue about him.

>>2604470
>as Dan himself admits, he is not a historian and you should keep this in mind
I always wondered what supposed extra level of expertise a historian can bring to bear when making a podcast like his own, isn't it just bias towards an authority in the end? The claims would be the same, no?

>>2604540
I think he goes for the "human aspect" many times in favor of a more "accurate" narrative an historian would go for. The claims might be the same, but the narrative would be different.

I'm totally addicted to HCH as well as his Common Sense podcast. There's one episode I liked so much that I listen to it about once per year: Prophets of Doom
It has all the makings of an awesome story viz., sex, violence, religious fanaticism, war, etc. I actually spent $60 some dollars on his website to buy some of his archived podcasts, money well spent!

>>2603296
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg79R5jopj8

I loved the opening sequence of Ghosts of the Ost Front, the "what is a monument" thing, very powerful.

>>2604540
He has no training in historiography unlike historians.

I like how he focuses more on the over-arching ideas and motivations behind the "human element" of history, rather than just the chronological narrative.

>>2605276
Also, my favorites were Death Throes and Logical Insanity

Yep, like Anon said. Dan focuses on the deeper elements rather than simply a reading off a list of timelines and events like some teachers I had in college.

>>2604971
Thank God.

File: 1458520176919.png (78KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x900px

>Listen to entire Wrath of the Khans series
>Australia isn't mentioned once

0/10

It's a fun podcast.

I recently re-listened to Ghosts of the Ostfront and it is so great. It truly focuses on the real struggle of the eastern front rather that just claiming that "muh stalingrad" was the thing that changed everything.

His newest stuff has not been that great though to be honest.

But that's fine as I now have a billion other podcasts to listen to.

>>2606374
>But that's fine as I now have a billion other podcasts to listen to.
Recommendations?

>>2606381
My favorite would be the "revolutions" podcast. It made the french revolution actually fun to learn about, and has opened my eyes to awesome revolutions like the Haitian and the Gran Colombian.

Another great one is the "history of Byzantium" which continues where the "history of Rome" podcast(also pretty darn good if you can make it through the first episodes) stopped.

Other worthy mentions are "the history of Egypt" podcast and "the history of ancient" Greece.

There are also a bunch of others that I am to lazy to mention but my tips for any of these podcasts is to force yourself through the first episodes even if they are not great because many podcasters don't know what they are doing in the beginning but they get better.

>>2606424
>revolutions
Holy shit this podcast gives me the feels. Spanish America did not deserve Simon Bolivar.

He exaggerates and extrapolates way too much to illustrate the story he's trying to tell

it's armchair history, trying to make it seem super hip and, well, hardcore at the expense of accuracy

into the trash it goes

>>2603296
Wrath of the Khans is my favourite, but that's because I'm a mongolboo. Still, even I think he can sacrifice some accuracy of the events to play up whatever it is he's talking about.
>can you even imagine?

>>2603296
I always felt like his podcasts are a really good amatuer look at history. But, there are alot of podcasts which I think do a better job of going through history and have better analysis. And yes I know the point of a podcast is to be entertaining. And that if you want real history you have to read. But I still feel like I am experiencing an experience more like watching a movie rather than a documentary when listening to his podcasts. So for me that's a bad thing, but I understand why he is the moat popular.

>>2606424
>Another great one is the "history of Byzantium"
Everyone keeps recommending this and neglecting to mention that there are narrative-critical episodes randomly paywalled off.

I don't mind donating or contributing to a Patreon, but I'm wary of signing up to the tvcritic website which doesn't even have HTTPS on it, just to buy random episodes.

Does anybody happen to have a link to episode 28, at least? That happens right in the middle of the story of Justinian, in the aftermath of the Plague of Justinian.

>>2606680
>more like watching a movie rather than a documentary when listening to his podcasts
for me it feels like it has the positive aspects of a movie in that it's engaging dramatic but it has the positive aspects of a documentary because since they're so damn long he manages to squeeze in so many overarching narrative stuff and anecdotes to set the scene. I think he's also fairly good at citing his sources and telling you when there are contentious things

I didnt like the one titled "american peril". I find american history a bit boring though. His latest one on nuclear weapons is pretty interesting though. Faves are the one aboute rome and the one about proddy reformation

He's a decent orator, sadly his own ideas are pretty trite and a lot of the times outright laughable if you have any deeper knowledge of whatever topic he's talking about.

I feel like he falls back too often on the excuse that

>I'm not an historian, I'm a fan of history
>This is just the Dan Carlin version of history

>>2607138
>adly his own ideas are pretty trite and a lot of the times outright laughable if you have any deeper knowledge of whatever topic he's talking about
care to give any examples? He does repeat himself a lot but I don't think the ideas themselves are that terrible

>>2606552

>He exaggerates and extrapolates way too much
>it's armchair history, trying to make it seem super hip and, well, hardcore at the expense of accuracy

you're talking about Dan Carlin or this board ?

>>2604896
this is a copypasta right

>>2608063
Kek

>if my history isn't dry as fuck and told to me by a man with an english accent that puts me to sleep it is trash