I haven't listened to all of them, most of the way through the third episode, but about the only thing I would say is that it is pretty Anglo-centric but given the English language sources available it can be very hard not to be. The biker gang comparison seemed a little much at times but, hey, sometimes if the shoe fits. This episode lacked a strong narrative, an interesting angle, or even a recognizable purpose. He's entertaining and does a remarkably good job to be unbiased. Można również usunąć pliki cookies, dokonując odpowiednich zmian w ustawieniach przeglądarki internetowej. Get it on iTunes or here: and on dancarlin After listening to the show »Thor's Angels« where he is talking about the Dark Ages in Europe including some stuff about Charlemagne I thought: »Hey, I am actually living in Aachen, the very city where King Charlemagne ruled Europe from. Feel free to submit interesting articles, tell us about this cool book you just read, or start a discussion about who everyone's favorite figure of minor French nobility is! Modern history has shown us that killing that many people and disposing of the bodies is incredibly difficult, even with modern technology.
Topics vary widely from show to show, though are generally centered on historical events and discussed in a talk-show style format. Usually, though, Dan finds an interesting angle and explores it through a number of situations. I know that some of his past work has been criticized for its accuracy, but most of the criticism I read was random reddit comments. A group of people standing up for their beliefs, beliefs that were just that, peaceful, even at great personal cost is not, in my view, unreasonably fanatical, but a testament to the strength of personal convictions in the cause of peace. Edit: Thanks for the responses guys! All posts will be reviewed by a human moderator first before they become visible to all subscribers on the subreddit. That said, I felt that this episode lacked focus.
I would say everything I have heard in Blueprint for Armageddon has been represented accurately. They are faint enough that it won't really bother you if you don't like that kind of thing, but just barely there enough to add a lot of ambiance with faint sounds of cannons blasting in the distance. Most importantly, you'll see that the academics disagree with each other, which is the heart and soul of professional academic life. I am happy to hear everyone things positively of the podcasts and their historical accuracy. It continues to gain in popularity, being the 8th most popular podcast in Society and Culture as of July 24, 2010.
Have fun and get those podcasts if you haven't already! Parliamentary reforms are fundamental to how nations make decisions and events unfold, but it's not the most entertaining reading or listening. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how much the actions of the church in the past which often mimic or are very similar to how it is practiced today in non-Western countries affects the quality of life both individualistically and societally for many people in the world. But Carlin himself says that he is a military buff rather than general history fan. It is the only episode he has done where I knew virtually nothing about the topic beforehand, and I'd say that was true for most listeners as well. I would say the two biggest problems he faces is the lack of the economic dimension - but then again even historians hate it and complain about how boring it is - which is absolutely crucial to understanding many things. Dan also doesn't shy away from discussing values, emotion, fear, etc. Most professional historians stick to a more sterile, scientific type of history.
Also his belief that the Hungarians of the medieval period could field anywhere close to 80,000 troops. Initially the episode was intended to be a one hour piece on Charlemagne that got out of control. Catholicism is very de-clawed as its power is significantly reduced in the Western world in comparison to how it is practiced in areas of more limited means. I ask for more caution when addressing religious topics esp with what appears to be a Western bias. However, I will credit this episode with giving me a much clearer understanding of how Christianity evolved from a pacifist religion centered around living in harmony into a religion that had no problem launching conquests and enforcing orthodoxy. W przypadku braku twojej zgody na akceptację cookies niestety prosimy o opuszczenie serwisu chomikuj.
Some of the stuff he talks about hasn't been proven or hasn't been supported by multiple sources, some of the stuff is incorrect can't remember what, honestly, and it wasn't something really important but still , but he's mostly on point from what I can tell. I'd also say Dan Carlin's interpretation of events is generally informed by logic and reason and I think he tries to let the events tell the story rather than push a personal agenda I'm looking at you Victor Davis Hanson. He doesn't prepare the podcasts off his own knowledge or expertise backed by source material but rather the picks a topic, reads a number of sources on it and then compiles it into anywhere between 1-4 hours of interesting storytelling. His history of the Mongols was mostly taken from 'The Secret History of the Mongols' which is a very unreliable source, if one of the only comprehensive ones. That would have made a good thesis for the episode.
Those podcasts definitely help fill in that gap pretty well. I won't even go into 'Thor's Angels' For people that don't like to read they are great pod casts and great entertainment. On a whole he does a fantastic job, even for someone like myself who prefers to read. For single topic episode, Prophets of Doom is great. This is a gift for Dan Carlin, the maker of the awesome podcast series »Hardcore History«! Pełną informację na ten temat znajdziesz pod adresem.
I think it is his best work solely from a storytelling and production standpoint. The period after the fall of the Western Roman Empire has always been a favorite of mine and Dan handles it in a very interesting way. I really do love your work, though. That might be interesting for Dan, let's give something back! It is one of if not the last episodes where he uses a background sound design. It just sticks with you. A new podcast is created approximately every two months.
I don't think Dan Carlin would be intentionally misleading on any topic but a professional historian might criticize Carlin for using popular sources rather than academic histories, primary sources or first person accounts mostly true when he's discussing older history like the Mongols, when it's pretty much necessary. That out of the way, the review: I feel bad leaving less than a 5 star review because I love Hardcore History and even a less than great episode is still head and shoulders above most history programming out there. I love your work, but you seem to sway between taking into account what the ancient world was like re: the context of the time while using judgment on more modern history because it informs the way such things currently affect the world. It's about ww2, but it is narrowly focused only on the part of the war between Germany and the Soviet Union. Miroslav Volf mentions this in Christianity and Violence p13.