|
I found both the American and English ones super boring but the rest of Revolutions is good.
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
SerCypher posted:Yes, that is us! I appreciate the kind words. I've just started listening to your most recent episode. I have read some of the Fu Manchu stories. All I can say is: 'oof'.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 17:44
|
|
|
One thing that is worth pointing out about the ARW series of revolutions is that its the one that introduces Lafayette as a character so it might be worth listening to just for that.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
It’s funny that his early Revolutions episodes, while fine (and some are good to great) are a lot like his early History of Rome episodes: covering a lot of traditionally trodden ground the traditional way only to expand significantly as he goes on.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
Samovar posted:I've just started listening to your most recent episode. I have read some of the Fu Manchu stories. All I can say is: 'oof'. Yeah, I was more familiar with the goofy comic book villain presentation of the character and was surprised just how blatant the worldview was in the first three books. And that the author really seemed to own it and believe in shadowy Chinese super criminal organizations, even until late in his life. It's like if a Qanon person ended up writing a popular novel about the deep state and the character stuck around for the next century.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
The English Civil War season was interesting probably more because I just knew so little about the event, while I can't really remember much of whatever's unique about Mike Duncan's take on the American Revolution in the mess of information I have absorbed into my brain. When he gets into the French Revolution, he goes a lot more in-depth on the social contexts of events and the individuals doing their own politicking and plotting, and he gets more self-aware about the historiography. SerCypher posted:Yeah, I was more familiar with the goofy comic book villain presentation of the character and was surprised just how blatant the worldview was in the first three books. With how elaborate some conspiracy theories get, it's not surprising that you could catch a big audience just by selling them as fiction instead of the secret truth. That was kind of the idea of X-Files. And I think pulp media at the time kinda got blurry between total fiction, mythologized hearsay, and supposedly plausible stories.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
IMO the ARW episodes are good, even if not quite on the level of the later ones. I'm partial to the Mexican episodes myself.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 05:16
|
|
|
The Haiti episodes were where he let his usual smartass neutral historian mask slip and you could hear him get genuinely upset and heartbroken at the horrors that the Haitian people got put through.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 05:23
|
|
|
FMguru posted:The Haiti episodes were where he let his usual smartass neutral historian mask slip and you could hear him get genuinely upset and heartbroken at the horrors that the Haitian people got put through. Yeah you can hear him losing sympathy for the liberal revolutionary types who he was very sympathetic to in the previous series.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 05:50
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Yeah you can hear him losing sympathy for the liberal revolutionary types who he was very sympathetic to in the previous series. Radicalization is real. Edit: I think it was hearing about the castration by molasses which got me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 05:57
|
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:I'm partial to the Mexican episodes myself. He addresses this at one point near the end, but his clear sympathy for Pancho Villa through the majority of it before quickly kind of admitting that he was a pretty lovely guy who did a bunch of bad stuff was a little weird to me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
The Haiti series is the one that I'd get someone to listen to if they only we're going to listen to one. The Bolivar series is pretty great too though. Lots of great characters. I love the janeiros, or that but where they crossed the mountains.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 16:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The English Civil War season was interesting probably more because I just knew so little about the event, while I can't really remember much of whatever's unique about Mike Duncan's take on the American Revolution in the mess of information I have absorbed into my brain. Same, also because it lends so much context to a great monty python song that's been banging around my head for nearly 30 years. Hell, this song covered the events more thoroughly then my AP European history course in high school did https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBPf6P332uM Kalli fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:He addresses this at one point near the end, but his clear sympathy for Pancho Villa through the majority of it before quickly kind of admitting that he was a pretty lovely guy who did a bunch of bad stuff was a little weird to me. Why? You can find someone sympathetic without having to pretend they weren't lovely. Especially in the world of revolutions, a lot of figures are like that.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 22:04
|
|
|
Yeah Duncan is sympathetic towards a lot of figures who were assholes or didn't really end up serving the cause of revolution that well. He liked Lafayette enough to write an entire book about him even though he was ultimately never more than a (well meaning) liberal at heart, he loving loves Talleyrand who is like the textbook scheming chancellor character, and more recently he's pretty up front about his view that Tsar Nicholas wasn't really a bad guy personally and what happened to him is pitiable in a sense, he was just a woefully under equipped ruler for the times he was in and too attached to absolute authority that was very clearly not long for the world.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Kalli posted:Same, also because it lends so much context to a great monty python song that's been banging around my head for nearly 30 years. Hell, this song covered the events more thoroughly then my AP European history course in high school did For me, it was also interesting coming back to Charles I when examining Louis XVI, the Duke of Orleans, and Nicholas II.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 23:36
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah Duncan is sympathetic towards a lot of figures who were assholes or didn't really end up serving the cause of revolution that well. He liked Lafayette enough to write an entire book about him even though he was ultimately never more than a (well meaning) liberal at heart, he loving loves Talleyrand who is like the textbook scheming chancellor character, and more recently he's pretty up front about his view that Tsar Nicholas wasn't really a bad guy personally and what happened to him is pitiable in a sense, he was just a woefully under equipped ruler for the times he was in and too attached to absolute authority that was very clearly not long for the world. “Woefully under equipped ruler for the times” is pretty much the catchphrase of every revolution  I don’t remember if it was Duncan or someone else who said that monarchy is just drawing cards: sometimes you get the King of Hearts, sometimes you get the Two of Clubs. And I think his love of Talleyrand stretches back a long way, well before his political views shifted. I think his more modern appraisal would be way less sympathetic or admiring.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 23:56
|
|
|
I think it's possible to build sympathy or affection towards historical figures without necessarily agreeing with them or thinking that they even did good. Pancho Villa put forth such an impressive character that it's hard not to kinda like him, even though his earlier campaigns knocking down major landholders eventually led to assassination attempts and using terrorism to engineer a US invasion. Impressive guy, bit of a psychopath. I feel like a lot more prominent figures in like the medieval era probably fit a similar profile, just projecting their charisma and relying on a cross between personal grudges and pragmatism to push them forward rather than any ideology. Monarchs you can sort of sympathize with after you understand how they were brought up to be what they were, and how they could just be well-meaning idiots and the system generates malice underneath them automatically. Although there's also bastards like King Charles.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah Duncan is sympathetic towards a lot of figures who were assholes or didn't really end up serving the cause of revolution that well. He liked Lafayette enough to write an entire book about him even though he was ultimately never more than a (well meaning) liberal at heart, he loving loves Talleyrand who is like the textbook scheming chancellor character, and more recently he's pretty up front about his view that Tsar Nicholas wasn't really a bad guy personally and what happened to him is pitiable in a sense, he was just a woefully under equipped ruler for the times he was in and too attached to absolute authority that was very clearly not long for the world. When it comes to Nicholas II I kind of get it. He was just absolutely and completely out of his depth, had received an awful and probably counterproductive education, and operating in a system that did its best to isolate him from the world around him. He was presiding over a machine that produced a shitload of suffering but was never really in control of it. Dude would have lived a much happier and longer life if one of his uncles had pushed him off the throne and sent him to live in Denmark or some poo poo. But he was also a living breathing caricature of a racist, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 01:05
|
|
|
There aren't a lot of heroes to root for in history because heroes aren't real. The Behind the Bastards holiday episodes about not-Bastards went pretty quickly from Wallenberg (no body count) to John Brown (body count and some violent excesses but ultimately on the right side of history) to Nestor Makhno (a complicated guy in a complicated situation with a pretty substantial body count who was at best the least lovely of a bunch of lovely leaders). Duncan is a storyteller and it's not surprising that he's drawn to people who have interesting stories. But it is kind of weird that he's so sympathetic towards Nicholas II when most of the other figures he likes were survivors while the Russian Revolution would have unfolded very differently (or not at all) without the czar constantly making unforced errors.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 01:35
|
|
|
webmeister posted:“Woefully under equipped ruler for the times” is pretty much the catchphrase of every revolution One of Carlin's better analogies was his idea of the "monarchy dice" representing the random chance of hereditary monarchs. Sometimes you roll an 11 or 12 and get a Cyrus II or a Louis XIV who is just absolutely a cut above, sometimes you roll a 1 or 2 and get a Caligula or a Charles VI. But the vast majority are 4's, 5's, and 6's: not great, even arguably substandard, but usually fine in times of peace and stability. Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II all kinda fall into this bucket: monarchs who probably would be relative historical footnotes had they ruled in more stable times, but lacked the ability to handle the upheavals of their respective eras.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 01:39
|
|
|
The vibe I've been getting from Duncan on Nicholas II is that Nicky is sympathetic in that he was a doufus who seemed to genuinely love his family, but I don't feel that Duncan is trying to make him out to be anything better than an extremely incompetent and self-absorbed leader.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 02:31
|
|
|
Sydin posted:One of Carlin's better analogies was his idea of the "monarchy dice" representing the random chance of hereditary monarchs. Sometimes you roll an 11 or 12 and get a Cyrus II or a Louis XIV who is just absolutely a cut above, sometimes you roll a 1 or 2 and get a Caligula or a Charles VI. But the vast majority are 4's, 5's, and 6's: not great, even arguably substandard, but usually fine in times of peace and stability. Charles I, Louis XVI, and Nicholas II all kinda fall into this bucket: monarchs who probably would be relative historical footnotes had they ruled in more stable times, but lacked the ability to handle the upheavals of their respective eras. The vast majority would be 6's 7's and 8's!! Dice don't work like that Dan Carlin!!!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:The vibe I've been getting from Duncan on Nicholas II is that Nicky is sympathetic in that he was a doufus who seemed to genuinely love his family, but I don't feel that Duncan is trying to make him out to be anything better than an extremely incompetent and self-absorbed leader. Emphasis mine. Nicholas II, while being just a middling-to-incompetent ruler, is also totally bought into the idea of absolutism. An imperial figure who believes he’s God’s regent in Russia and is just failing about in his role. It’s completely horrendous.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 06:01
|
|
|
His house would have better called Dunning-Kruger than Romanov.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 10:15
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Tsar Nicholas wasn't really a bad guy personally and what happened to him is pitiable in a sense, he was just a woefully under equipped ruler for the times he was in and too attached to absolute authority that was very clearly not long for the world. Thats pretty much an accepted consensus, Nicholas II didn't do things like personally intervening into political court cases to force surprise last minute verdicts like his "liberator" grandpa Alexander II used to do (and people wonder why he got blown the gently caress up), he was a failson to rule them all who delegated way too much to incompetents and monsters and rolled along in blood and wine until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 10:37
|
|
|
I don't listen to it consistently, but whenever I run through a few episodes of The Pirate History Podcast I come away impressed. It strikes a great balance between doing what it says on the tin, as well as putting that in the greater context of the history of civilization and focusing in on relevant subjects outside of a strict historical continuum. It probably errs a bit on the side of pop-history in places, but I think it's a good listen for anyone who is curious.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2021 12:31
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a philosophy podcast with decent politics? I tried The Partially Examined Life but listening to them critique Camus and Kant one minute and praising the likes of Malcolm Gladwell and "philanthropists" like Bill Gates the next left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 11:01
|
|
|
PerilPastry posted:Can anyone recommend a philosophy podcast with decent politics? I tried The Partially Examined Life but listening to them critique Camus and Kant one minute and praising the likes of Malcolm Gladwell and "philanthropists" like Bill Gates the next left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Why Theory is pretty good
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 11:51
|
|
|
History ifPhilosophy without any gaps
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/edward_guimont/status/1395504959056187393
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/lessismorrissey/status/1395544668562247683?s=20
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah Duncan is sympathetic towards a lot of figures who were assholes or didn't really end up serving the cause of revolution that well. He liked Lafayette enough to write an entire book about him even though he was ultimately never more than a (well meaning) liberal at heart, he loving loves Talleyrand who is like the textbook scheming chancellor character, and more recently he's pretty up front about his view that Tsar Nicholas wasn't really a bad guy personally and what happened to him is pitiable in a sense, he was just a woefully under equipped ruler for the times he was in and too attached to absolute authority that was very clearly not long for the world. yeah, nicky was hosed from the beginning because he was dumb but sorta wellish meaning royal moron who believed in absolutism and got all the wrong lessons from his dad because his dad and nicky got hosed up seeing their somewhat reformist leaning grandfather get voiped by a bomb and die in front of them on a table. nicky sorta fell into the Louis XVI spot where he was the wrong man at the wrong time to save the regime or himself.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Cockblocktopus posted:There aren't a lot of heroes to root for in history because heroes aren't real. The Behind the Bastards holiday episodes about not-Bastards went pretty quickly from Wallenberg (no body count) to John Brown (body count and some violent excesses but ultimately on the right side of history) to Nestor Makhno (a complicated guy in a complicated situation with a pretty substantial body count who was at best the least lovely of a bunch of lovely leaders). yeah. there are no pure "good" guys but their are goodish guys but all of them are messy and most of them are bad as gently caress in other respects. i think its because nicky 2 could have actually done good things with his power but he was too stupid and up his own rear end to do them.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 14:09
|
|
|
Wow, I was the pole dancer in that bar that night. What a small world!
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 14:19
|
|
|
Arrhythmia posted:History ifPhilosophy without any gaps fuf posted:Why Theory is pretty good 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2021 15:28
|
|
|
I just stumbled across What's Left of Philosophy and it's been pretty good through the first couple episodes I listened to. I don't think the politics of PEL are terrible (like 2 libs a centrist and a progressive?) but they seem out of their depth talking about anything contemporary.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2021 20:47
|
|
|
Anyone know of a "economic history" podcast? Like "a look at the japanese economy in the 80s", "argentina in the 90s", "the four tiger states in the 90s", etc.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2021 09:25
|
|
|
I was wondering if there were any podcasts about Irish History? Anything really, either pre-colonialization to independence or pre 21-st century. Likewise for Australia, New Zealand, India, and South Africa (really former British Colonies). I'm an English teacher abroad and I've realized my knowledge of other English-speaking countries isn't great. The US I've got pat. The UK is generally pretty good, especially England, though I suppose I should ask for Scotland and Wales as well. Hell, my knowledge about Canada is good enough that if I need more information I know where to find it. But the others? Nada. I've been enjoying The Chinese History podcast otherwise. Montgomery has a strange delivery that feels a bit try-hard, but I'm enjoying the short-form style. It's refreshing after so many deep dives.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:33 |
|
|
There’s one called The Irish Revolution, it’s a ten part lecture series. I can’t vouch for it because I never got around to listening to it but maybe it’s worth checking out.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2021 10:55
|
|
