|
jagstag posted:his room.e series was good though if you don't want to work through the rise and fall of the roman empire As a counterpoint it was terrible.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
I think his last Decline of the Roman Republic episode was where Carlin jumped the shark. Up until then the show was some good, if shallow, history where he was a very good narrator When he started doing incredibly long single episodes he got way too indulgent with his analogies and constantly repeating himself. Robin Lane Fox said something on the History Extra podcast for their Wolfson History Prizes episode a few years ago back that made me realize why I had grown tired of Carlin - Making comparisons to the present day shows little respect toward the reader. I couldn't get through the introduction to Margaret MacMillan's The War That Ended Peace because she was doing that and I found it a little annoying. With Carlin's podcast it's obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
He's an autodidact - with all the pluses and minuses that entails - and one that has no appetite for scholarship and no consideration for method. His is a search for the most novelistic presentation of events possible and then its transcription in to long-form sports commentary.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
I find him a lot more entertaining than other history podcasters and I guess that says something bad about my intellect or my interest in the lurid side of history. I was listening to the Tides of History guy who seems like more of a scholar and I just couldn't get into it, despite the excellent production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
He's one of those guys who is good for sweeping background info in a subject you know little to nothing about and just want the broad strokes on. I really enjoyed his series on the mongols and, even if I was cringing a bit here and there when he wandered into philosophy or trying to compare their slaughter to the Holocaust, all in all it was fun enough to listen to while working out specifically because I know gently caress all about the Mongol empire. I learned the basic broad strokes and by itself that's an interesting story. Maybe I absorbed some old interpretations or controversial opinions presented as fact, but it gave me a decent starting point to at least understand the major issues at stake. On the other hand I listened to the first half of his WW1 series and had to stop or I was going to end up throwing my phone in a lake. That's a subject where I have a better-than-passing understanding of the scholarship and major interpretive issues and hoooooooly poo poo that dude just accepts a lot of stuff really uncritically. He also just LOVES to ruminate on turning points that never happened. "Just think, if this guy had stopped and eaten a full breakfast on that sunny spring morning in 1914 Gavrillo Principe would have stayed home and read a book instead and the entire tragic history of the 20th century would have been averted saving hundreds of millions of lives."
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
He can be infuriating if you know anything more than HS knowledge of the subject he is talking about. However for your every day Joe who isn’t going to read and just wants the broad strokes you can do far worse. Remember, most people actively stop giving a poo poo about history after high school (if they even paid attention to it then - our recently political climate should be exhibit A of people’s ignorance to history - personal anecdote and example a lot of my family still thinks the civil war was about "states rights" no matter how often I try to correct them. And any history or points of view of history that isn't directly related to the US completely confuses/befuddles them ) and if they learn anything further it’s usually from some dreg from the History Channel. Dan Carlin at least attempts to take an “all-sides-view” and he tries to not have a specific Anglo view of history. Also he admits his shortcomings up front and encourages people to learn more on their own. I mean, I cringed at a lot of what he said during the WWI podcast since it’s a subject I’ve studied deeply but I enjoyed the personal anecdotes he read (soldiers letters, personal diaries of the generals, etc) and still found it enjoyable for my hour work commute. His Fall of the Roman Republic and Genghis Khan podcasts were absolutely fantastic since I was completely ignorant of those subjects and they inspired me to read more about them. I say if you have a friend or relative who is interested in an area of history that Dan has covered, by all means have them listen. Once they are done, ask if they want to know more, then kindly point them to some works by authors who can give them a more in-depth view of the subject. At the end of the day, I think that is Dan's goal. Not to be an expert, but to get people interested so they begin to read from experts/primary sources and learn more. And it's not just with Dan, but I try to get them to watch a documentary as well if there is a good one on the subject. For most people, it is far easier for them to digest Audio/Visual media first in order to get interested in a subject, so you might as well point them to sources that are not terrible. After that, get them to read if they actively wish to learn more about the subject. Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 21, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
That's the point, I think. I like listening while I run. I've gotten my girlfriend interested in history because of his Mongols series. I'll read better and more critical history on my own, so I don't need or expect top-notch scholarship from him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 17:44
|
|
|
Everyone itt: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3i3lrv?start=378
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 20:32
|
|
|
I hated his Mongol series because it’s like twelve hours long and I felt like i learned nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Whelp, just emailed this to half a dozen grad school buddies and all my coworkers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Solaris 2.0 posted:He can be infuriating if you know anything more than HS knowledge of the subject he is talking about. However for your every day Joe who isn’t going to read and just wants the broad strokes you can do far worse. what did he gently caress up with the WW1 stuff. as someone said up thread, he cribs off guns of august and gets redundant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
lol
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 03:46
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:what did he gently caress up with the WW1 stuff. as someone said up thread, he cribs off guns of august and gets redundant. Nothing major honestly. However someone is free to correct me as I’m not an expert just an avid reader / documentary watcher. I’m probably being harsh in retrospect. He gets redundant and I remember his early stuff is a bit dated with how the lead up to the war happened, and some motivations for the offensive tactics used. He also seemed to mostly ignore the eastern front and middle eastern theaters. Otherwise it’s fine. His description of the battle of Verdun and men literally drowning in mud at Passchendaele were horrifying 
Solaris 2.0 fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jul 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
He accepts Tuchman super uncritically and she has some pretty glaring issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Yeah Dan Carlin is very History channel in that regard. A lot of their shows didn’t look very critically at their sources in order to create a rather uncomplicated narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 12:24
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yeah Dan Carlin is very History channel in that regard. A lot of their shows didn’t look very critically at their sources in order to create a rather uncomplicated narrative. true. as people have said up thread and as a history major, I think he is good as a primer for most people, but just know he uses dated and biased sources. i still like his stuff, though i prefer the dollop because i like microhistory and they are funny. also i'll take carlins world war stuff over loving history channels the WORLD WARS mini movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:true. as people have said up thread and as a history major, I think he is good as a primer for most people, but just know he uses dated and biased sources. i still like his stuff, though i prefer the dollop because i like microhistory and they are funny. Though if you look at it deeper you are gonna be a little confused, as that is what happened when I watched their series on Barbarians and later learned how much of their info was either wrong or only one theory. Also Dan could use the actors from the Barbarian series which had a production budget of 8 dollars, to illustrate his points.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Does anyone have recommendations for a social history of leisure? A friend and I were having a conversation about how often European peasants who lived near one went to the beach, but I’d really be interested in any time period.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2018 23:34
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Does anyone have recommendations for a social history of leisure? A friend and I were having a conversation about how often European peasants who lived near one went to the beach, but I’d really be interested in any time period. If you're at all interested in Russia, Louise McReynolds' Russia at Play is a good academic history of leisure in the late Russian Empire. More focused on the nascent middle class than on peasants though because that's who the sources are about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2018 00:26
|
|
|
I know next to 0 about the Wars of the Roses. How can I get into learning about that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 13:12
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I know next to 0 about the Wars of the Roses. How can I get into learning about that? read alison weir's the wars of the roses
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I know next to 0 about the Wars of the Roses. How can I get into learning about that? Dan Jones 'The Hollow Crown'/'The Wars of the Roses' is a pretty nice narrative history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Mr_Roke posted:Dan Jones 'The Hollow Crown'/'The Wars of the Roses' is a pretty nice narrative history. also a good option. I do prefer Weir, partly because I think she's just a better writer and partly because she includes a lot more of the probably-apocryphal anecdotes that make the WoR so much fun (while duly noting that they are probably apocryphal). her book has the weird flaw of ending before Richard III is deposed, though. either book will do you right, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 12:08
|
|
|
Any good reads on the First Red Scare (1917-21)?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
A human heart posted:Hardcore is a great genre containing a lot of great bands my man https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KeplwDwEB4
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2018 06:33
|
|
|
Found a copy of Landmark Herodotus in really good shape for $15 at a local book store today. Excited to dive into that. Does anyone have reccommendations for books on Alexander and early Rome?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
What’s the general consensus on Nixonland?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
Meridian posted:Found a copy of Landmark Herodotus in really good shape for $15 at a local book store today. Excited to dive into that. Alexander of Macedon by Peter Green is probably the best bio. There is a distinct lack of non academic books on early Rome but I’d recommend giving The Rise of Rome: From the Iron Age to the Punic Wars by Kathryn Lomas a look. It’s new, published just last February and I haven’t yet read it yet but it covers the period and looks extremely promising. Keep in mind that this is NOT the similarly named Rise of Rome by Anthony Everett which is fine but really feels like little more than Livy packaged for a modern audience. It’s straight forward and mostly uncritical. SPQR by Mary Beard covers early Rome for the first quarter or so of the book but I can’t say I’m a huge fan because in my opinion she goes too far the other way and brushes off most of the early history as “we can’t know how much truth is in the accounts of Roman history pre 280BC so gently caress it were gonna assume it’s all bullshit.” Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Aug 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
Cervixalot posted:What’s the general consensus on Nixonland? loving fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 07:52
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Alexander of Macedon by Peter Green is probably the best bio. could you share just some more recs on Roman history, from the republic through the collapse of the western empire? it's drat hard to find any single-volume survey - the Oxford History spends about half of its length on historiography and culture, which while interesting in its own right is not quite what i'm looking for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Re Nixonland/Perlstein, check out his most recent NYT piece after you're done, he discusses some of his intellectual blind spots in a really refreshing and honest way imo E: here it is https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/11/magazine/i-thought-i-understood-the-american-right-trump-proved-me-wrong.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
I’m traveling to India in the fall and I’ve realized I know very little about Indian history. I’ve found books on Partition but I’m more interested in earlier history: the Raj, the British East India Company, the Mughals and further back. I haven’t had a lot of luck even on the nineteenth century piece let alone anything earlier. Anyone have any recommendations? I have a background in academic history so I don’t mind dense as long as it’s well written.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a book about borders? Like, borders through the ages. How did one cross a border between Roman Gaul and Germany? How did borders become more entrenched and formalized as the bureaucratic state blossomed in the 19th century? Etc, etc. Stuff like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 16:27
|
|
|
Anyone know any good books on the treatment of Koreans in Japan in the first half of the 20th century and/or the effects of the Great Kanto Earthquake on the Japanese treatment of non-Japanese?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
Meridian posted:Does anyone have reccommendations for books on Alexander and early Rome? He also has another book called "Alexander to Actium" which covers the Hellenistic Age. While not specifically about Rome it talks a lot about the interactions between the Hellenistic kingdoms and the mid to late Republic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
I haven't read either of those, but I did really enjoy Peter Green's short Hellenestic age primer. A slim volume which really does a good job of conveying the flavor of the era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Gleri posted:I’m traveling to India in the fall and I’ve realized I know very little about Indian history. I’ve found books on Partition but I’m more interested in earlier history: the Raj, the British East India Company, the Mughals and further back. I haven’t had a lot of luck even on the nineteenth century piece let alone anything earlier. Anyone have any recommendations? John Keay's "India" is about as good as a one-volume survey of Indian history as you can get. The Chaos of Empire: The British Raj and the Conquest of India by Jon Wilson is a deep dive into that part of Indian history, and Wilson thinks the British were loving scumbags top to bottom in how they went about conquering and governing India (he's not wrong). Good read, pretty enraging book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2018 23:01
|
|
|
So I’ve been on a Vietnam binge since watching the Ken Burns documentary last year. My wife having been born in Vietnam has also peaked my interest in that country’s history. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned “Embers of War”. I am a few chapters in and it is absolutely fantastic. I read Graham Greene’s “The Quiet American” earlier and until that point, that was my only source on the French period. With that said, are there any books that focus on the initial French conquest of Vietnam? Or its history before that? Also, and this is random, but is Mark Bowden’s “Hue: 1968” any good or does it exclusively focus on the US side? It’s hard finding works that focus on the NVA or even ARVN perspectives of that period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Hue: 1968 covers just about everyone. NVA, Viet Cong, ARVN, civilians. It's a really good read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:10 |
|
|
smr posted:The Chaos of Empire: The British Raj and the Conquest of India by Jon Wilson is a deep dive into that part of Indian history, and Wilson thinks the British were loving scumbags top to bottom in how they went about conquering and governing India (he's not wrong). Sound like he's just got an axe to grind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2018 17:46
|
|
