Hello friends. Just wanted to know your thoughts on Dan Carlin

>>539302
also any good history related podcasts you would recommend?

File: hardcore.jpg (24KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x256px

Why does Dan Carlin always have an edgy "hardcore" look on his face?

>>539302

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).

>>539376

He probably thinks he'd look stupid smiling.

>>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.

>>539376
dat mean muggin

Where can one torrent all his shit?

>>539406

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.

>>539308
>also any good history related podcasts you would recommend?

People always recommend 'History of Rome' in these threads but Dan's style is more like audio books to me.

>>539406
search 'Hardcore History' on tpb

>>539302
Hurry up with the next episode Dan.

>>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.

I enjoy him but he never says with ten words what he can say with a hundred. That's probably a feature of his passion for the material and I respect that, but dude could use an editor.

Don't forget Jospeh Hogarty
http://www.europefromitsorigins.com/

There's also quite a few lectures from war colleges and universities on youtube that are pretty interesting.

Myths of the Eastern Front: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Clz27nghIg

GI Experience of Korea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEzfY3PTwFg

French Resistance in WW2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3G0O3nMB1k

Persian War: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E28PaeQQQC0

Operation Think Tank was sponsored by WarGaming.net but the actual discussion is really good;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oLY4FOrnjc

>>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.

I jack off to his voice. It's an ASMR massage.

>>539857

He speaks from a moral high horse proselytizing the plebs about how evul the Europeans were. This while neglecting and downplaying the atrocities of other peoples. Come on either do both or neither.

File: 1446494344998.png (139KB, 1899x535px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1899x535px

>>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.

File: 0786707224.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg (46KB, 335x500px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 335x500px

>>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.

>>539927
>technically historical fiction. But so is most of what we think we know about Rome.
Elaborate on this

>>543293
>That and Carlin owns up to his own faults
haa
nope

>>545307
Not him, but I'd say that beyond the most basic and fundamental of facts most of what we know of Ancient history has been embellished or simply made up. There's no way of knowing.

>>545341
Carlin reiterates that he's a fan of history instead of a historian.

>>539302
Dan, I swear to god you make this thread every day, please stop.

I like your podcast, we know you exist, stop spamming us.

>also fuck you Captcha, burgers are not sandwiches

>>539927
Tom Holland and Persian Fire or Rubicon are good ones, he's moved to a less narrative style but still good.

What do people think of Mike Duncan's new series after History of Rome, Revolutions?

>>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

>>539302
It's good as an entry to history, but he often makes factual errors or presents estimates and theories as reliable facts.

>>539302

I suggest reading books instead of listening to an amateur.

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.

>>545756
>finish History of Rome
>want to listen to more
>find History of Byzantium podcast
>random episodes aren't free
Fuck that bullshit.

>>543293
>pic
Kek, have a (You).

>>545307
>Elaborate on this

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.

>>545756
cant stand the mouth breathing. takes me right out of the narrative.