History podcasts

anyone here has a good pick besides hardore history and wwii podcast? (the ray harris one)

Other urls found in this thread:

youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/2016/4/9/she-richard-nixon-helen-gahagan-douglas-the-blacklist-episode-9
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

History of Rome is pretty GOAT

When Diplomacy Fails is a pretty cool too

History of Rome
History of Britain (something along those lines)
Related: Philosophize this

>Hardcore History

Dear user,

Thank you for your post and enclosures. I have given some thought to our recent correspondence. It is always difficult to decide on how to decide on how to respond to people whose ethos is so alien and, in fact, repellant to one's own. It is not that I take exception to the general points made by you but that every ounce of my energy has been devoted to an active opposition to cruel bigotry, compulsive violence, and the sadistic persecution which has characterized the philosophy and practice of facism.

I feel obliged to say that the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us.

I should like you to understand the intensity of this conviction on my part. It is not out of any attempt to be rude that I say this but because of all that I value in human experience and human achievement.

Yours sincerely,
Bertrand Russell.

youmustrememberthispodcast.com/episodes/2016/4/9/she-richard-nixon-helen-gahagan-douglas-the-blacklist-episode-9

if you're interested history of the world up to today in this year, why dont you feast your eyes on

could you repeat that, user, in hebrew this time

>History of Rome

This podcast is rubbish. The reason that it is so popular is that people cannot be bothered to read a book. There is no information or perspective in this podcast that couldn't be obtained from a quality book. In fact, I suspect that "Mr. Duncan" paraphrased this entire series from books, or, or likely, websites. I'd wager just about anything that he did absolutely no original research nor did he examine any primary sources of Roman history at length. I also seriously doubt that he knows Latin. No intelligent person would consider the opinion of someone lacking Latin as any sort of authority regarding Roman history. What you fanboys such as yourself like is the fact that Mr. Duncan has spared you the onerous chore of cracking a book.

Do you realize that the "work" for the podcast is probably nothing more than a paraphrase of Wikipedia articles? I stand by my contention that the podcast contained no original research, and that the man responsible for it quotes from primary sources only when they were found in a secondary (or tertiary, etc,) sources (despite the [You can criticize the quality of the show all you want, I would love to see a text of the show, complete with specific citations for proof to the contrary. Indeed, if this work is so great, how come the text of the contents hasn't been collected and published as a history book?

And no, I don't purport to be an "expert" on Roman history, but neither do I put websites into my own words via paraphrase and try to pass it off as some sort of achievement or act as if doing so makes me someone who can speak about the topic with authority.

Granted, the podcast isn't bad if you take it for what it is-some dude summarizing Wikipedia in his own words with occasional attempts at puns. One would be much better off for simply reading a good one volume book on the matter like "History of Rome" by Michael Grant.

1/3

Of course, reading the primary sources would be best, but if you don't have the time to read one book, you probably don't have the time to read *many*, so a good one like Grant's will do. But I suspect that the appeal of the podcast is mainly for people who are to lazy to do much reading at all.

In short, no one should consider an audio recording of a rewording of an internet encyclopedia as some sort of accomplishment.

However, the presence of a bibliography implies the the contents derive the works therein contained. Be that as it might, I refuse to believe that the contents of the podcast are not, with possibly a few minor exceptions, the paraphrases of Wikipedia articles on Roman history, and perhaps other websites. I would gladly and fully retract this statement were the contents somehow sourced/cited.

Further, I am not criticizing in any way the quality of the show, per se. In terms of reading modified text from of internet site(s), I guess the quality is more or less reasonable. What I do find fault with is the fact that fanboys see the podcast as something beyond what it is; an audio paraphrase of Wikipedia. It bothers me in no way that people would enjoy this podcast-but problem is that far too many are saying that it is something that it isn't.

2/3

Even a relatively short book that perhaps condenses Roman history a wee bit too much, like Grants "History of Rome" that I mentioned earlier, would have been a serious investment intellectual effort, selecting and reading the sources in Latin and Greek, etc, not to mention time consuming. It's the product of serious and thoughtful scholarship. This podcast, on the other hand, consists of simply restating the words of an internet encyclopedia. Again, there's nothing wrong with that, in and of itself-just say so instead of hinting that it mostly comes from Classical sources or even books by contemporary historians. Unless Mike’s independently wealthy with no need to work and thus have a ton of free time, or he is some sort of super speed reader, there is no way he could have read more than a fraction of the bibliography, anyway.

3/3

Shut up Ed

i can't read books while i'm walking in the woods, playing video games or drifting off to sleep

Dude what the fuck is your problem. It's in intro level course on the basic history of the Roman Empire. It's not meant to be ground breaking insights - it's just a basic run through.

>playing video games or drifting off to sleep
Your're still not getting the sufficient information about ancient Rome by actual credible historians.

'Basic' as in wikipedia paraphrasing? If I had to make a recommendation then reading wikipedia is much better than listening, either way the information is crap.

I just started listening to Life of Augustus

I enjoy it and they go really deep into the history

The hosts present it in a really laid back fashion though so you might not enjoy it

...

What was that F. Scott Fitzgerald quote about the men who fought in WWI that Dan Carlin recited? I can't find it for some reason.

Martyr made is really good, it's about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and really makes you see it in a different light

>dude is a tool because he happens to like a book

That has nothing to do with history

The History of Byzantium ought to be in the Rockstar category.

t. DPhil Byzantine History

anyone have a list of great audiobooks?

I have a 30 hour road trip coming up and need to fill some time

>That’s different. This western-front business couldn’t be done again, not for a long time. The young men think they could do it but they couldn’t. They could fight the first Marne again but not this. This took religion and years of plenty and tremendous sureties and the exact relation that existed between the classes. The Russians and Italians weren’t any good on this front. You had to have a whole-souled sentimental equipment going back further than you could remember. You had to remember Christmas, and postcards of the Crown Prince and his fiancée, and little cafés in Valence and beer gardens in Unter den Linden and weddings at the mairie, and going to the Derby, and your grandfather’s whiskers.
>’‘General Grant invented this kind of battle at Petersburg in sixtyfive.’‘
>No, he didn’t—he just invented mass butchery. This kind of battle was invented by Lewis Carroll and Jules Verne and whoever wrote Undine, and country deacons bowling and marraines in Marseilles and girls seduced in the back lanes of Wurtemburg and Westphalia. Why, this was a love battle—there was a century of middle-class love spent here. This was the last love battle.’

You sound upset. Does it really bother you that much that people enjoy an informative podcast? What information presented leads you to believe that those of us who listen to the History of Rome don't also read history?

Please get over yourself and grow up.

Sincerely,
user

its this some sort of board meme im not aware of?

I've started it now that I finished the History of Rome, it's definitely in the HoR style but not quite as good. It's also weird getting used to a different narrator.

1493 is awsome by Charles C Mann

>facism

But some people are SOOOO ugly.

A history podcast that puts pop fiction on its recommended reading list sounds like a bad podcast.

why? you can say that GOT is not good fiction, but how does that affect the content of a historical podcast? unless he used it a source wich I dont think anybody with a two-finger wide forehead would do.

That's very powerful

every time I read this fucking thing it gives me the chills

>Indeed, if this work is so great, how come the text of the contents hasn't been collected and published as a history book?

Aside from the fact that trying to collect spoken word recordings and publish them as history books is retarded, he is writing a book. 'The Storm Before the Storm', which is going to cover the pre-Caesar area, probably from the Gracchi Bros. onward.

I'm sure this will turn into great pasta, though.