What do you guys think about this guy? Just started listening and it's nice, but is it accurate?
There are answers on this by various historians online. The general consensus is that he's entertaining and mostly accurate but he's not the one you want to turn to if you want in-depth knowledge about the subject. He's a good entry-point for history enthusiasts and generally interesting to listen to. That said, I just bought The Fall of the Republic from his site and I'm enjoying it so far.
He's great. He brings a lot of passion to the table and is pretty entertaining. He also draws good conclusions and is pretty accurate for an amateur historian (which fortunately, he seems to have the humility to never forget he is).
he cites his sources a lot, and reads many straight quotes. He will mention if he was forced to rely on only a few sources in a section (because of language or other constraints). HE often mentions what biases his source might be bringing to the narrative (such as Chruchill's account of the Gallipoli doonbogle is somewhat damage control)
Except for some of his analogies, I can't see where you could fault his accuracy very much.
Never believe anyone entirely, always double check what someone says.
Latest one was a bit direction-less. Not sure what he was really going for.
The WW1 series is fucking spectacular however. Have listened through it twice, will probably listen again some time in the future.
Dan is great. He himself has said he considers it his job to tell a story well enough that it gets the listeners interested in further reading about it. And most of the time, it works.
Blueprint for Armageddon is honestly the best podcast l've ever listened to.
Isn't the new one supposed to be a two-parter?
>Blueprint for Armageddon is honestly the best podcast l've ever listened to.
I listened to every episode after getting my wisdom teeth out while whacked out on Oxycontin, what an experience.
NOT A HISTORIAN JUST A FAN OF HISTORY
SORRY IF I MESS UP THIS BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE
A MODERN SPORTS STADIUM
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE?? CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE?
LISTEN TO ME SHOUT A QUOTE
[spoiler]Punic Nightmares and Blueprint are the greatest goddamn things ever[/spoiler]
This is going to come up sooner or later, might as well be now
Agreed, Ghosts of the Ostfront is positively stellar. In both it and in Blueprint for Armageddon, he does a bloody excellent job of conveying an idea of how mentally and physically exhausting it was to fight on the front lines in the first and second world wars.
>Found "Prophets of Doom" to be absolute God-Tier
>Story of madness, prophets, religious fanatics starving to death within their own city
>Leap onto the internet to find out more about it
>Find a bunch of sources through Google (inb4 pleb tier)
>Apparently real story nowhere near as fun as Carlin told it
I'm not as big of a professional History fag as most people here, but tell me, did Dan Carlin deliberately use the most extreme sources because he knew that would make his story better? Or did I do wrong in going to the wrong sources?
>Am I getting that right, Ben?
From what I've heard of his earlier shows, he seemed to have been a lot more bombastic and Alex Jonesy. I actually like the way he's simmered down; he seems more experienced and pleasant to listen to.
I hope this board will generate fan art somehow; I expect we'll get a drawfag thread eventually.
[spoiler] they will never enable surprise boxes on this board [/spoiler]
This is why /his/ is rapidly becoming my new favorite board
fuck you man. i have a bad cold and now my chest hurts from laughing so much. its so dead fucking on.