So what did he get wrong this time?

>>276429

Is this that history pod everyone listens to?

I never figured why people are so hot on history podcasts when there's audiobooks lying all around written by scholars and researchers who took like 3-5 years to research the subject.

I have listened to Mike Duncan's stuff but he takes 3-5 years just covering a fucking subject.

>>276434
recommend any audiobooks? or sites for that matter

>>276429
He's very, very, very good at making history interesting.

As a popularizer, he's educated enough to have a decent grasp on what he's talking about, and is an excellent place to start on almost any topic.

A great example would be the episode American Peril, which covers the Spanish American War and the reconciliation and contradictions of the United States as a colonial power.

Podcasts like Stuff You Missed In History are hot garbage though.

If you want a better explanation, here's a recent article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-carlin-hardcore-history_5643b5b5e4b08cda34875511

>>276429
>So what did he get wrong this time?
>Herodotus as the main primary source

>>276429

oh this reddit meme again.

>oh he didn't really get anything wrong but he's not a historian so it doesn't count

>>276874
Wanting someone with years of training and experience in a given field of history instead of a guy who openly admits to just reading up on stuff before making a podcast is totally valid.

>>276882

>uses the exact same sources
>b-b-but he hasn't spent years reading the same thing over and over again.

Has anyone got a list of errors he's done or not?

People keep saying he's wrong but I haven't seen anyone point anything out in particular

>>276434
Because more often than not it's painfully dry. He makes a 4 hour podcast that can maintain your interest. A conversationalist style is leagues more digestible than a scholarly one

>>276429

He was following historical sources very closely this time. Half of the podcast is a dramatized retelling of Herodotus. You can't really go wrong by doing this unless the source itself is mistaken. And Dan reminds very often in the episode that Heorodotus is known as "Father of Lies".

He could be mistaken about the Assyrians and Babylonians, but I know nor the authors he's reading neither the subject itself.

>>276902
Its probably the standard "popular stuff is for plebs I read the untranslated works of Arestes the Chicken-fucker in the original Greek you normie fuck" factor

>>276461
Its not like we have a ton of contemporary sources, you know. And he constantly reminds the listener that Herodotus might be making things fancy for the sake of a story rather than telling the history.