|
Milo and POTUS posted:Wasn't there a surface battle with a uboat in which some poor guy got hit with a knife and another knocked off with an empty shell USS Buckley and U-66 https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/atlantic-battle-uss-buckley-german-u-66
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 10:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
the vicious war of hans island has finally ended and the island was split between denmark and canada https://explorersweb.com/canada-denmark-resolve-arctic-hans-island-dispute/
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 12:50
|
|
|
A bitter compromise that will only lead to further war after this brief respite
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 12:59
|
|
|
as a danish citizen im infuriated. Clearly Mette Frederiksen has lost the plot and need to be deposed immediately, by force if necessary. I need historical examples of turning lego bricks and designer lamps into weapons please
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 13:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DrRadchenko/status/1536630821217615874 This Stalin guy, I dunno... I've heard this rumor of "prolonging/instigating a war in order to season troops" applied to Vietnam, Desert Storm, and OIF. Apparently at least one historical world leader believed in it (and was perfectly happy to test it out using another country's troops) but do we have evidence of other wars that were started or prolonged because leadership actually believed they needed more veteran soldiers?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
I wouldn't rely too much on a twitter user. Translation here: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112106 quote:CIPHERED TELEGRAM No. 3410 Reading the full message, the line seems really a matter of backpedalling. My interpretation is that in the message this is replying to (which I can't find, sadly), Mao complained about the Soviets being too critical about how the PLA is running the war and is pushing them to move unduly quickly, despite insufficient resources and the conditions on the ground. So this "I also think, as do you" is not demanding things are dragged out, but rather just a "chill, run the war how you wish". If you look at the later line of "I think that it will not be possible to crush these unhealthy moods unless you prepare and carry out a serious blow to the enemy with the defeat of three to four enemy divisions" Stalin is still pushing the Chinese to carry out more ambitious operations. Fangz fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:11
|
|
|
I mean, why drag it out, if you can win? If you can't win, why fight?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:13
|
|
|
zoux posted:do we have evidence of other wars that were started or prolonged because leadership actually believed they needed more veteran soldiers? So, there's a pedantic argument that people could deploy here that I want to at least acknowledge: in your question, a person could (quite viably) interpret "started" to mean "sole cause," as in "the only reason this war was declared was to give their soldiers experience." I think that if somebody is looking for a sole cause for a war they are going to be disappointed. Wars are waged by large groups of people, and to my knowledge every war has a complex set of causes, even if many of those causes are kind of boring to discuss (which allows you to narrow the scope of what you "mean" by "why did this war happen"). Which is all to say that I am not going to even attempt or engage with the notion that we have any wars in the records where the only reason a war was fought was to season the troops. I do not think such a question is interesting or reasonable to answer historically. Now, were there wars where experience for fighters was a motivating factor? Absolutely. My very first thought is of Bertran de Born. Here's a direct quote from the man: quote:And when the armies mix in battle, So he's clearly saying that war is not just good for making you good at war, but for general self-improvement. Pieces of context that should be understood: de Born was a baron. De Born fought a lot, in multiple wars, basically his entire adulthood until he retired to a monastery. De Born's poetry was very popular. De Born was a largely successful leader, at least in the limited sense that he never seems to have had to fear his underlings overthrowing him (as opposed to the stronger sense of having achieved all of his goals). All of that gives us some ammo to evaluate his statements and how they were received. First, he's experiencing war as a member of a pretty high class, meaning that he's not the one who's worrying about his farm being burned down or being chased around unarmed by more heavily armed people; he's the heavily armed people. He's experienced so he's not just making up poo poo, and the fact that he retired at an old age after fighting for decades tells us that for him war was not anything like getting blown up by a howitzer after hiding in the mud for weeks (medieval war was generally pretty low lethality and ESPECIALLY low lethality for nobles, who were 1) wearing pretty effective armor 2) getting full rations 3) not sleeping 30 feet away from the latrines). His poetry being popular and well-preserved means that his audience was on board, he wasn't just a weirdo, and there's no evidence (or reason to believe) that he's being ironic. And the fact that he wasn't really afraid of his underlings means that his constant warmongering was well received not just intellectually but socially. So anyway, the evidence is that we can take it as pretty believable that "every generation needs a good war or two to be forged into good men" was a real social value held by medieval nobles, and if not a major motivation for going to war then at least an encouraging factor (to my knowledge de Born's wars were largely coming from two major causes: English-French border disputes, and land/inheritance disputes with his brother). I would say this shouldn't be super surprising. We are not talking about modern professional soldiers, we are talking about hereditary warriors. They have a class, indeed a socially existential, interest in the regular perpetuation of warfare in order to both justify and reproduce their class, and having their sons go to war is part an parcel of that, which is in effect going to war to make veterans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
Kind of milhist, more general hist, want to learn more: I listen to the Revolutions podcast from Mike Duncan. He's been covering the Russian Revolution in really great detail. From the origins of the "Social Question" in the mid 19th century to Stalin's purges in the 1930's. It's really well-done, and I'm told it's really well-researched. Can you recommend a decent, 1-volume source on Leon Trotsky? Because it seems like he was just as evil as Joseph Stalin, and the USSR would have been just as brutal if Trotsky took over instead of him. The guy thought Robespierre was a hero of the French Revolution. He urged Lenin to institute a "Red Terror" (yes he called it that). He was head of the armed forces during the Russian Civil War and events like the Kronstadt Rebellion, during which he ordered his troops to do things like summarily execute captured prisoners and take civilian families of rebels hostage (and execute them too). He helped form the Cheka. [strike]And he invented the term "Dictatorship of the Proletariat."[/strike] Left-wing circles really venerate Trotsky. They say the Soviet Union would have been all shiny, happy people if he had won the power struggle with Stalin. Looking at his time in leadership (1917-1929), he did some loving horrible things. He was certainly more brutal than Stalin during that time. And I think if he ever got the amount of power Stalin had as General Secretary, the purges, gulags, and famines would have been just as awful as they were under Stalin. This is the impression I have after listening the Revolutions. Thus it could be the wrong impression. Is there are good 1-volume history of Trotsky, the early USSR, or the Russian Civil War that will help expand my understanding? EDIT: Totally wrong about the phrase "dictatorship of the proliteriat" Bagheera fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 15:43
|
|
|
ChubbyChecker posted:the vicious war of hans island has finally ended and the island was split between denmark and canada I don't know, man. We ought to give our poor polar forces something to do, and at least get a bottle of Canadian whiskey now and again  Bagheera posted:Left-wing circles really venerate Trotsky. They say the Soviet Union would have been all shiny, happy people if he had won the power struggle with Stalin. Looking at his time in leadership (1917-1929), he did some loving horrible things. He was certainly more brutal than Stalin during that time. And I think if he ever got the amount of power Stalin had as General Secretary, the purges, gulags, and famines would have been just as awful as they were under Stalin. Lmao That really depends on which "leftist circles" you ask. Trotskyites still exist and are much more vocal than their numbers ought to indicate, but the rest of the left wing loving loathe them. And with good reason! Tias fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:01
|
|
|
No he didn’t invent the term “dictatorship of the proletariat”. That’s right out of The Communist Manifesto, and even then Marx is referencing Weydemeyer. You’re off by most of a century. I don’t have a good source on Trotsky, but I’d be wary of whoever you’re getting this from if me as just a rando who read a commie book can fact check you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:07
|
|
|
"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is according to Marxist theory, the opposite of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". It's not opposed to the state being some kind of democracy. The point of the phrase is "who holds power as a class", it doesn't explicitly imply that the government be run in any specific way. The final word in the phrase is the important one, not the first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:18
|
|
|
The best thing for the Soviet Union would have been Zhukov coming to power and leading to immediate rapproachment with his old war buddies, devotion to the peaceful exploration and settlement of space, and White Coke for all according to their needs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:31
|
|
|
Fangz posted:"Dictatorship of the proletariat" is according to Marxist theory, the opposite of the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie". It's not opposed to the state being some kind of democracy. The point of the phrase is "who holds power as a class", it doesn't explicitly imply that the government be run in any specific way. The final word in the phrase is the important one, not the first. Yeah I was trying to be more polite (for once) and not say, “Hey in your framing of this question, why do you have weird right wing rhetoric embedded as axioms?”
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:33
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The best thing for the Soviet Union would have been Zhukov coming to power and leading to immediate rapproachment with his old war buddies, devotion to the peaceful exploration and settlement of space, and White Coke for all according to their needs. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
Yes, yes, and also shooting Beria... I am confident everyone would have shot Beria. Lenin would have probably gotten around to it if he hadn't had a stroke. There's a counterfactual for you, what if someone gave Lenin some relevant medicine and he'd never popped his dome, or hadn't done so for another twenty years?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:38
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:Kind of milhist, more general hist, want to learn more: Duncan has significant problems in basically everything he does. Basically he's in the same tier as Dan Carlin where he's drawing entirely from secondary sources. See also: forgotten weapons (although in fairness they've done some good work on French guns - I'd consider Ian a bona fide expert on French weapons). This can lead to uncritically repeating some pretty controversial claims and analyses, especially if the person doing it isn't steeped enough in the literature to be aware of and understand the larger academic discourse that the works are situated in, any responses and counter-claims made, etc. Which isn't to say that you shouldn't consume this stuff. It's entertaining and it's a good first-pass. It's just one of those things where the less you know about it the more useful it is,* and frankly the more enjoyable. You just have to be aware that you're probably inadvertently consuming some bad info alongside the rest of it, and if you want to learn more use it as a starting off point for doing your own reading. Which you're doing, so good job on that. *Carlin's series on the Mongols was really fun and interesting for me, since I knew the sum of gently caress and all about them before hand. Even so there were a few things where I kind of squinted my eyes and wondered if he wasn't massively oversimplifying or using an outdated or controversial source. Then I listened to his series on WW1 and wanted to toss my phone in a lake. Only got a third of the way through that one, it was just annoying me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 16:48
|
|
|
One take away I have from reading this and other threads about history is Weird Al was right, "everything you know is wrong." If historians, people whose profession is to study history, can't come to a conclusion about what actually happened with a given event or time period, how are us laymen supposed to learn anything?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:One take away I have from reading this and other threads about history is Weird Al was right, "everything you know is wrong." There will never be a final answer but we come closer and closer, and in the process we learn many views and many things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:12
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:Left-wing circles really venerate Trotsky. They say the Soviet Union would have been all shiny, happy people if he had won the power struggle with Stalin. Looking at his time in leadership (1917-1929), he did some loving horrible things. He was certainly more brutal than Stalin during that time. And I think if he ever got the amount of power Stalin had as General Secretary, the purges, gulags, and famines would have been just as awful as they were under Stalin. Trotskyists venerate Trotsky. That's not quite the same thing as 'left-wing circles'. For what it's worth I agree with you possibly with a side order of rather more foreign aggression. Nessus posted:There's a counterfactual for you, what if someone gave Lenin some relevant medicine and he'd never popped his dome, or hadn't done so for another twenty years? Also probably not much better, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:13
|
|
|
I'm not much of a Soviet historian but it seems to me that the big problem there wasn't the socialism so much as the totalitarianism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:One take away I have from reading this and other threads about history is Weird Al was right, "everything you know is wrong." Serious answer? Historians argue around the margins, but for the most part the really big poo poo has a general consensus. Even when the interpretations change over time it tend to be just that - the kind of interpretive aspect that you see people argue about all over this thread. A really easy example is "Was Germany to blame for World War 1?" There's a really well-documented history of that interpretation swinging around from 100% to not at all to partially. This is also where I plug that history is an inherently interpretive discipline. That's not to say that *bongrip* any interpretation is valid, maaaan. You can't interpret away the USSR suffering more casualties in WW2 than the US or slavery having been a thing. If you're an idiot you can try to make an argument that slavery was good, actually, but even there you're going to be so far out on the fringes that you're just some nut arguing against the entire rest of the academic establishment. Once you actually look at what the professionals are doing there's generally a pretty solid consensus, which can move over time, but for the most part it's arguing around the edges. How should a layman learn? My advice is always to start by just googling up books on the topic you're interested in and then google the authors. Find someone who is a tenured prof at a reasonably mainstream university. They went through the academic wringer enough that you can at least be sure you're not looking at some nutter butter like a David Irving. Then read it, and if you're still interested raid the bibliography to find other books that touch on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:20
|
|
|
Bagheera posted:Kind of milhist, more general hist, want to learn more: I don't know the answer to your Trotsky questions, but you (and possibly others? Though the reader overlap is pretty high  ) should be made aware of the The Historical, Informational, and Educational Podcast Megathreade: Do not take this as a discouragement from posting your question here in the first place PeterCat posted:If historians, people whose profession is to study history, can't come to a conclusion about what actually happened with a given event or time period, how are us laymen supposed to learn anything? As a layman, my takeaway is that you learn stuff, and it might turn out in 10 years that you were wrong, but that's fine, you get to learn why which is also satisfying. It's not like historians know the entirety of world history either, the state of knowledge being what it is means that nobody can be perfectly up to date with the latest scholarship. Nor is this a phenomenon unique to history either, our understanding of say physics is also evolving on the margins, you just gotta roll with it. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:23
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Most of the big things and events are easy to get right, it's just that there's a million little bits and particulars that are harder to pin down. And sometimes things that usually get very abridged for simplicity but might really matter to somebody else who wants to dive in deep. You're definitely never going to be able to cover everything, and you never know what I would be interested in hearing any specifics Mike Duncan got wrong. I get the impression at least that he's improved over time, done more critical thinking, referenced some issues of historicity and subjective sources, as opposed to what I've heard about Dan Carlin getting more and more complacent. I haven't been able to wade through much of his stuff because I can't deal with his episode length and didn't care for his narrative style last time I tried.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:24
|
|
|
So here's a good example. As I said before, I don't know much about the Mongol Empire. So, just googling "mongol empire books" I'm turning up a bunch of stuff. Some looks like sensationalist bullshit off the bat, ignore that. Some looks interesting. First hit: The Mongols: A History. Googling the author, Jerimiah Curtin, turns up that the book is like a hundred years old. He was an ethnographer and folklorists who did a lot of work on Native Americans.. Probably not terrible, but probably dated as gently caress. Note that this is a common problem with ancient topics. These books can actually be decent if you take them with a grain of salt. Might be a good starting place if he was a good writer or it's highly recommended. Ok, next hit: The Mongol Empire: Ghengis Khan, his heirs, and the founding of modern China. Looks promising, the tie in to the modern world indicates it's probably from the last quarter century at least. The author, John Man is a "historian and travel writer" who has his education listed as two post-grad courses leading to "diplomas" in History and Philosophy and Mongolian. My guess is MA-level work, obviously not leading to a PhD. Looks like a pop historian, travel writer, kind of guy who publishes books for dads to buy at airport book stores. This isn't a terrible first place either. Chances are he's a good writer, and chances are he's at least not making GBS threads the bed re: the history. For an ancient topic not bad, I might have reservations if this was on something controversial like the history of the modern Communist Party of China or the Holocaust etc. I'm going to skip a couple other books from the 1890s and 1930s I found, the write up would be essentially the same as the first. Then I stumbled on this: The Secret History of the Mongol Queens: How the Daughters of Genghis Khan Rescued His Empire. Without even looking up the author I know this is modern because no one gave a gently caress about Genghis's daughters in the 1890s. And jackpot, the author, Jack Weatherford was a professor of anthropology at Macalester College in Minnesota. Not a historian, but frankly when you're doing stuff like the Mongols or Native Americans you're going to see a lot of Anthropologists in there too. Either way, he's working in the academic framework and probably isn't insane. And, even better, looking at his publications shows that he wrote another book that is more directly on my stated general "Mongolia" interest: Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. That's how you do it. Now, I don't know this guy at all. But I can feel pretty safe in assuming that he's not a loon, that he's aware of the modern academic discourse surrounding Ancient Mongolia, and that he's writing these kinds of generalist books with that in mind. Also, since he's an academic, it's a pretty safe assumption that if I want to read further he's probably got a bibliography in there that's full of other pretty solid works that I can get into to learn more. Cyrano4747 fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 14, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 17:36
|
|
|
PeterCat posted:One take away I have from reading this and other threads about history is Weird Al was right, "everything you know is wrong." To back up Cyrano here, there's actually a lot of consensus. Especially in the case of "did x, y, or z happen." The big place where you see things get turned over in that stuff is where archaeology is making big strides, and most of that is turning up large population centers in areas that a lot of people thought were sparsely inhabited. The place where there's insane churn and lack of consensus is mesolithic era, which is by any reasonable standard prehistoric and thus not historians problem. A lot of why it appears that there isn't consensus among historians is because you can't make an intellectual career out of regurgitating agreed upon positions. Such things basically don't get published. You need to do something, add some texture, get in the debate, leave some sort of mark, push some boundaries. While you can be an utter crank and push Phantom Time or some poo poo, in practice, actual practicing historians (like all academics) put the majority of their time at the edge of consensus, because you need to push the boundaries in SOME way. Again not special to historians! Physicists do this too! The other element of this of course is that a lot of history education is really loving bad. History classes in public schools are not there to teach what historians think is important: I sure as gently caress did not learn source critique in high school. The objectives of most public facing history education is entirely orthogonal to what academic historians think is valuable. Most history gets written and propagated for political purposes, such as legitimating existing institutions, not for the enlightenment of the individuals receiving the history. It's not just a matter of straightforward falsehoods, but of interpretative depth and framing. To me the biggest problem is that a lot of people, even enthusiasts, come away with very flat notions of what a culture or institution is. Cultures and institutions are, generally, extremely factional, with tons of political intrigue advancing often very real interests, producing incredibly contradictory narratives depending on where you put your eyes. When you view the motives for why x country did y thing as a single motive that unified the whole country, you are blind to all of that. When you ask a historian why y thing happened they'll give you this incredibly complicated explanation, because, well, they're talking about real people who dedicated years of their lives to advancing some agenda or another, and that can feel like a betrayal. And last but not least, military history is especially bad for this, because even more than other subfields of history it attracts and sustains a shitload of cranks. The political economy of military history, where its sustained much more by independent think tanks than by academic institutions (relative to, say, sartorial history), as well as the extremely vigorous amateur enthusiasm means that there is a lot of bad military history that not only gets published but gets popularized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:No he didn’t invent the term “dictatorship of the proletariat”. That’s right out of The Communist Manifesto, and even then Marx is referencing Weydemeyer. You’re off by most of a century. duncan isn't a historian, he's a podcaster his rome series got so many basic things wrong that i had to stop listening to it
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
I appreciate the responses, you've covered what I was trying to say in a better way than I was saying it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. I got Decline and Fall if The Roman Empire on Audible and that's where I discovered there was room in the length field for the number of full days of listening time. That was a year and a half of yard work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:26
|
|
|
This convo reminds me somewhat of the explanations the lead writer of Extra History gave about their processes for the research and writing of the show (which they basically explain in their Lies Q&A post series wrap up episode) . Which basically echoes a lot of what's been said in the thread but through like how that works in like practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Then I listened to his series on WW1 and wanted to toss my phone in a lake. Only got a third of the way through that one, it was just annoying me. His series on WWII in the USSR was - suboptimal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:40
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. Podcasting doesn't make it impossible to talk about history in a deep way. It can change how you present it but if you do the work the material should be okay. The issue with Duncan isn't so much that he's talking via podcast, but because he tends to rely on sources that are wildly out of date. Or is just in accurate. If he put together the podcast into a book, it would have the same problems.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:50
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. Check this out: https://www.askhistorians.com/podcast
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:54
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. It entirely depends on what your goal is. Basically none of this poo poo is new. Before podcasts it was The History Channel (back when they still had shows about history), and before that it was dad-lit grade books about "great men" and the like. If what you're looking for is entertainment that tells you broadly correct Cool Stories About The Past then it's absolutely fine. You just have to be aware that chances are there's a lot of wonky interpretations. Again, questions like "was Germany responsible for WW1" are going to be open to a shitload of interpretation and if the show you're listening to has an opinion take it with a huge grain of salt. Right now my wife's watching some miniseries (I think it might actually be History Channel - they've kind of leaned back into that and away from Ice Road Ancient Alien Catch ever since WE and TLC stole their thunder with even trashier shows - which I also watch so no shame) on Teddy Roosevelt's life. The dramatizations are nice. It tells an interesting story. Whole lot of boomer grade hero worship but they also do address poo poo like what he thought of Native Americans. I've noticed that some of the experts they're interviewing are history professors, but one's a media studies prof and there are a couple that are just down as "expert" who I suspect are just talking heads. Which is to say it's an entertainment product that will teach you SOMETHING about the topic, but you need to be critical and not just swallow it whole. Don't watch that show and then lecture someone about how TR would have been in favor of the Jan 9th committee or whatever because you'll look like an idiot if there's someone in the room that has so much as read a good biography of him, much less if there's someone who has actually done academic work on early 20th century New York politics. But, you know, fine background noise for shitposting or lawn mowing and arguably more elevated and educational than Bridezillas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
One other thing to consider is that history is not arithmetic, in that there is often not a single exact correct answer. This may seem obvious, but some people have difficulty with it. Just because there isn't a 100% answer to something it does not mean that it didn't happen or that interpretations are therefore wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Cessna posted:One other thing to consider is that history is not arithmetic, in that there is often not a single exact correct answer. Along these lines the answer is never monocausal, even if it really looks like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Along these lines the answer is never monocausal, even if it really looks like it. YES.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. Byzantium and Friends is a top-tier Byzantanist interviewing other Byzantanists and scholars of adjacent fields about their work. It's very very good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:00
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Along these lines the answer is never monocausal, even if it really looks like it. I mean there were other factors going into it, obviously, but that one seems to have one ultimate root cause. If they'd gotten off their masonic asses and junked slavery in 1820, I doubt there would have been a Civil War.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Can you really get good history from a podcast? I listen to a lot of this stuff and have to imagine I would roll off the side of the road Toonces-style if I tried to listen to something more academic. Like, conceptually or actually? In terms of actual learning, no, I don't know of a podcast that meets my pretty middling standards of rigor and I don't have a pet one. The one's mentioned above (e.g. Hardcore History) can be entertaining but their high water mark is pretty much "op-ed that gets you interested in further research". I'd actually argue that Behind the Bastards is one of the best in this regards because it's entirely unapologetic about its biases and its narrow scope so you're at least unlikely to take the wrong idea away from it. Conceptually though? I can't see why not. It takes a different tack than just reading aloud a journal article because it's a different medium, but it's certainly possible to do something that detailed in an audio format that's still listenable. Look at like, Knowledge Fight which is doing some incredibly detailed research on intricate and sensitive topics while walking that tightrope. Still wouldn't be the ultimate authoritative source, obviously, but that's also true of any source so we'd only be expecting rough parity. Absolutely no clue if anyone wants to do that though or if there's a market. Maybe we'll see if I ever get around to making my super detailed historical linguistics and diachronic syntax podcast that no one will ever want, because what the world really needs is another white dude recording audio.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2022 19:06
|
|