|
The new Hardcore History is 4.5 hours long, with "the longest postscript in podcast history," whatever that means. I'm redownloading the rest of them so I can get ready for ~19 hours of people dying for nothing
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
Random Stranger posted:The VI is how many hours long it will be. 6.5 hours O/U, I will take the over
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
 Oh man!
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
It's out!  e: 17 minutes in, first boxing analogy gets dropped and it's a new boxer Bohemian Nights fucked around with this message at 11:45 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Oh god he's talking about three boxers fighting each other at the same time
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
we've reached peak boxing.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Anyone have a direct link to the mp3 of the new episode? The app doesn't retain my download and I have no signal at work to stream it.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
Captain Shortbus posted:Anyone have a direct link to the mp3 of the new episode? The app doesn't retain my download and I have no signal at work to stream it. http://traffic.libsyn.com/dancarlinhh/dchha54_Blueprint_for_Armageddon_V.mp3
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
That's part 5 Here is part 6 http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/b/6/fb6...b75c5e08b9e0b42
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Is he a big fan of taking a hard look at Lenin and apologizing for imperialism ("I'm sure we'd still do it now!")? wait how would someone give AND get the lion's share of casualties...the lion's share would be the majority... Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 20:10 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:wait how would someone give AND get the lion's share of casualties...the lion's share would be the majority... Yeah that threw me at first as well, but then I figured he meant that this one particular group of the German soldiers both inflicted most of the casualties that the Germans gave out, and took most of the casualties that the Germans absorbed, as compared the rest of the German army.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Oh man, those descriptions of hand-to-hand fighting about 2 hours in are just heartbreaking. I know this series has had an awful lot of horrible stories in it (here's another bit of Bill!), but the people surrendering (or trying to) really hit me in a way that none of the other stories did 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
RIP to those who played the boxing analogy drinking game on this episode
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
webmeister posted:Oh man, those descriptions of hand-to-hand fighting about 2 hours in are just heartbreaking. I know this series has had an awful lot of horrible stories in it (here's another bit of Bill!), but the people surrendering (or trying to) really hit me in a way that none of the other stories did Yeah that dude with his family photo is just insanity. Also bravo to Mr Carlin for the ending with the Blueprint for Armageddon line, very well done.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
Yeah, boxing analogies aside, this has definitely been my favorite set of hardcore history episodes, and this last one wraps it up nicely, if that's even possible considering the theme.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
I like the part where he tried to compare Osama Bin Laden to Pancho Villa. He should've included, "Both also fought in the desert!"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Anyone know something about http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/ podcast? I've read mixed reviews, not sure if I should bother downloading the first episode.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:Anyone know something about http://thehistoryofbyzantium.com/ podcast? I've read mixed reviews, not sure if I should bother downloading the first episode. It's OK, it takes him awhile to hit his stride so you probably won't like the first few at the very least.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
uPen posted:It's OK, it takes him awhile to hit his stride so you probably won't like the first few at the very least. I'll give it a try, his voice doesn't sound too bad.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
I've listened to all of it that hasn't been gated behind a paywall; and I'm considering buying the fundraising episodes too. He's one of the better Mike Duncan wannabes. For the most part, it's a successful unofficial continuation of The History of Rome. He does his research; scrutinizes the sources, tries to give as much insight as he can into the motives and psyche of the later Romans and their emperors. He actually does more analysis than Mike Duncan beyond the main narrative, especially at the rise of Islam. There's a few nitpicky annoying things I could complain about, like his tendency to keep asking listeners to "Close your eyes and just imagine..." I thought Twelve Byzantine Rulers, which was the inspiration for The History of Rome, was too "Great Men History", so this is a nice contrast. Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 22:13 on May 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Bucket-O-Nothing posted:So Dan Carlin popped up on wolf den, an earwolf meta-podcast. I can't say I listened to that but within the snark about deadlines in the comments there was a link to 10 American Presidents episode 1 Nixon - feat: Dan Carlin, which I don't recall seeing in this thread. It's a 2 hour bio if NIxon's political history along with a bit of Dan's usual recontexualizing. If you know Dan his opinions on Nixon are well trod but it stays fairly focused and neutral until maybe the last 15 minutes. I'm not sure if he's doing other episodes in the series but it's a nice change to hear him do a political show without dipping into military stuff all that much. I don't think there was a single boxing metaphor. From the last page, but I'm listening to this now and am kinda shocked that Nixon's sabotage of the Vietnam peace talks, which basically amounted to treason, wasn't even mentioned when covering the the 68' election. In my mind that's a pretty massive thing to gloss over when talking about Nixon's political career. Oh boy, basically no mention of the Southern Strategy and he even finishes with "Nixon wasn't so bad, really was a liberal and a tragic genius" Christ Carlin, way to go. I find it especially strange that he's gone so light on Nixon given his beliefs about executive overreach and balance of powers stuff, when Nixon and Ford basically laid the groundwork for Presidential immunity to prosecution going forward.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
ATP_Power posted:Oh boy, basically no mention of the Southern Strategy and he even finishes with "Nixon wasn't so bad, really was a liberal and a tragic genius" Christ Carlin, way to go. Carlin occasionally does this. I've commented earlier on his oddly sympathetic treatment of Tsar Nicholas (i.e. mention how he loved his family and just wanted to be with them, skate over the military incompetence, micromanaging, love for pomp and authority, and blindness to his own weaknesses). But maybe that's a Carlin thing - he's very big on the lurid , over-the-top events, but he doesn't like to outright condemn people or paint them as evil?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
It's not very surprising to me, I mean the dude basically did a "You know, a small tiny fringe of nutjob historians think Woodrow Wilson was an evil Machiavelian bastard and most don't...obviously da truf is in da middle, whooooo can say". The loving Tsar of Russia and even the Kaiser come out looking better than Woodrow Wilson (yes fine I know Woody was a racist, so was loving teddy roosevelt by our standards, that's not the point, he frames two positions as clearly unequal in the scholarly debate and then frames them as so equal that he's gonna "let you decide on your own  ")That's why I generally prefer it when he's outside of American 20th century history so he doesn't have an opportunity for the whole tired internet libertarian common sense thing to leak through. He's basically that guy in your history class who wore military jackets. I mean he's the type of dude to take a justifiably hard look at Lenin but then implore you to reconsider judging imperialists too harshly because "gosh, don't you think we'd do the same NOW". The point is, his choices for what you should have a humanistic open mind towards are revealing and NOT across the board. He'll spend more time humanizing a monarch or BADASSSSSSS general than an icky "liberal" american president. Is the Red Scare ep good, by the way? I don't remember listening to it in full but I thought I remember him deciding to do a contrarian "weeeell, what if it was justified". Punkin Spunkin fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
That being said, what are his top three podcasts? I'm interested in "Death Throes of the Republic", but the Khan series sounds interesting as well.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:That being said, what are his top three podcasts? I'm interested in "Death Throes of the Republic", but the Khan series sounds interesting as well. 1.) Prophets of Doom 2.) Wrath of the Khans 3.) The American Peril (or maybe Thor's Angels)
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:It's not very surprising to me, I mean the dude basically did a "You know, a small tiny fringe of nutjob historians think Woodrow Wilson was an evil Machiavelian bastard and most don't...obviously da truf is in da middle, whooooo can say". The loving Tsar of Russia and even the Kaiser come out looking better than Woodrow Wilson (yes fine I know Woody was a racist, so was loving teddy roosevelt by our standards, that's not the point, he frames two positions as clearly unequal in the scholarly debate and then frames them as so equal that he's gonna "let you decide on your own I haven't listened to Common Sense so I could be wrong, but I often get the sense he's playing devil's advocate or attempting to rationalize/contextualize. In text it would look like equivocating but as presented his actual opinion seems clear even though he's being careful not to state it. It keeps the show about the story he's telling and not his interpretations of controversial people or decisions, just presenting the various factions' perspectives on them. Again maybe that's how he talks in common sense when expressing a deeply held belief but I don't get that vibe from HH alone.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
midnightclimax posted:That being said, what are his top three podcasts? I'm interested in "Death Throes of the Republic", but the Khan series sounds interesting as well. Punic Nightmares, Ghosts of the Ostfront, Prophets of Doom. Death Throes and Wrath of the Khans are pretty great too.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
TheFallenEvincar posted:Is the Red Scare ep good, by the way? I don't remember listening to it in full but I thought I remember him deciding to do a contrarian "weeeell, what if it was justified".
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
I'd say Wrath of the Khans stands tall for no other reason than I don't think most people, even history buffs, have much more knowledge of the Mongols other than "conquered China, made it to Russia, petered out". Carlin does a great job of relating the damage the Mongol invasion of Persia did to the Islamic world. In school, you may (or may not) have touched on Islam's rise and how it contributed to European knowledge along with sparking the Crusades and the Renaissance with the fall of Constantinople. But then there's nothing really as it's just "Islam continues in the form of the Ottomans until WW1." The whole history of the Middle East and Islamic culture changed when the Mongols tore up Persia and Baghdad. But you don't learn that in US schools because you're too busy trying to keep track of all the Henrys in England.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:But you don't learn that in US schools because you're too busy trying to keep track of all the Henrys in England. I learned about 0 Henrys. Just 1 George, and I think some Elizabeth I and Victoria. American Schools drop vast regions of the globe from the curriculum like a hot cake. You learn the 5 rivers where civilization started and then you quickly never hear anything around the Indus or Yangtze again for millennia. You stick with Mesopotamia and Egypt till around Classic Greece and then they're not mentioned again either. Then it's Rome, general Europe in the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and then North America is discovered and nobody cares about any other continent until sometime around TR and the Rough Riders taking on Spain.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
What's really bad is how no one bothers to mention things like the War of 1812 being a minor sideshow in the greater Napoleonic Wars. It's just "Impressment, Brits bad, White House burn, Battle of New Orleans we win, hooray!" 
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I learned about 0 Henrys. Just 1 George, and I think some Elizabeth I and Victoria. American Schools drop vast regions of the globe from the curriculum like a hot cake. You learn the 5 rivers where civilization started and then you quickly never hear anything around the Indus or Yangtze again for millennia. You stick with Mesopotamia and Egypt till around Classic Greece and then they're not mentioned again either. Then it's Rome, general Europe in the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and then North America is discovered and nobody cares about any other continent until sometime around TR and the Rough Riders taking on Spain. And even with that, you had a vastly better and more intensive curriculum than we did, where it was All Revolutionary War All The Time.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:And even with that, you had a vastly better and more intensive curriculum than we did, where it was All Revolutionary War All The Time. Well, I was in the honors courses and took AP History. Which is actually pretty pathetic considering I spent my educational time in the "good" track and still didn't get a good view of world history.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I learned about 0 Henrys. Just 1 George, and I think some Elizabeth I and Victoria. American Schools drop vast regions of the globe from the curriculum like a hot cake. You learn the 5 rivers where civilization started and then you quickly never hear anything around the Indus or Yangtze again for millennia. You stick with Mesopotamia and Egypt till around Classic Greece and then they're not mentioned again either. Then it's Rome, general Europe in the Dark Ages, the Renaissance, and then North America is discovered and nobody cares about any other continent until sometime around TR and the Rough Riders taking on Spain. History classes are always going to have a focus on what is significant for that culture. Asia has a lot of interesting history, but it was relatively compartmentalized from western History for a long time so history classes in the US aren't going to cover a lot of it. Part of the problem is that history textbooks are going to build a relatively simple narrative. "Western civilization started here, went to these places that matter to us, and ended up with us." There isn't a lot of room in the public school curriculum for exploring other aspects of things. But the same applies to everyone. Basic history education is going to be "a history of us" and thus skim over a lot of significant things.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Well, I was in the honors courses and took AP History. Which is actually pretty pathetic considering I spent my educational time in the "good" track and still didn't get a good view of world history. Hey, at least you had an AP History class. I know, intellectually, that part of the problem is that I grew up in Massachusetts, where the teachers could try and get kids interested in the Revolutionary War by actually taking them around and showing them stuff - but for years that was all we got. I didn't even hear mention of World War II in a history class until 7th grade (and even then it was "there was a big war and it sucked and they called it World War II because it came after World War I which we won't bother teaching you about until you're a freshman in high school"). EDIT: Basically, what Random Stranger just said, only localized to the state rather than national level. By the time I was in an actual "world history" class the teacher was vastly more interested in teaching us broad, sweeping theories than actually paying attention to, y'know, things that happened. It was pretty sad.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
The closest thing I got to a passable history lesson in high school was when we watched a bootlegged copy of Titanic in my World History class (It was the summer after Titanic was released, and a student brought it in). We also watched Village of the Damned in our Civics class. I can't possibly stress how lovely the schooling in Florida is. I probably watched the first hour of The Matrix a dozen times in various classes because we would never pick up where in the movie we cut off when a period ended. We did spend a good chunk of time on Latin America & Haiti because I went to school in South Florida, and most of the students were from South America/the Caribbean. Pretty much all of my knowledge of history comes from, or was made redundant by, podcasts and material I've read/watched online.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I think Carlin is just embracing his own amateurism when he makes these episodes. Certainly he does ground them in plausible reality and brings up the 'conventional' historical consensus but he also cares about telling the hidden stories or alternative interpretations. I wouldn't recommend citing Carlin in a paper the way you could probably get away with with Mike Duncan but he's a damned good narrator.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Australian high school history these days is basically 6 years of Gallipoli. Imagine that 30 minutes Carlin spent talking about the Dardanelles campaign; now extrapolate that into several years of history class and you've got Australian high school. Oh and stories about the brave white folk conquering the "empty" continent. I didn't really feel Carlin did an injustice to Woodrow Wilson. Admittedly, I don't know how widespread the "Machiavellian manipulator" view of him is, but Carlin seems to make pretty clear that it's a fringe attitude and not generally considered accurate or reasonable. And I didn't think the Kaiser or Tsar Nicholas came out of HH looking great at all. Sure, Nicholas's story ends with a sad little anecdote about him and his entire family being executed, and the Kaiser loses his empire, but we're reminded that they're the people who ultimately started the war for selfish reasons, and that a huge proportion of the globe has suffered because of them. I mean, if you go back to the first episode he basically calls them morons; isn't his analogy for the monarchs something like "the two of clubs in a full deck of monarchs"? Overall I think it's been a fantastic series and I'm actually kind of sad that we don't have another episode to look forward to.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:41 |
|
|
I've always looked at Carlin as a storyteller first, whereas Duncan is much more of a historian. My understanding is that Carlin doesn't mess up the facts too much, but he's much more interested in the human experience of the historical periods he visits. That's great, and I love how it works in HH, but I was disappointed in that American presidents piece because it was much more pure history focused, and I just personally felt Carlin missed the mark on Nixon the man, and why he's important to American politics.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 01:27
|
|