What do guys think of extra history?

>Realcrusadeshistory has an entire miniseries debunking Extra Credits, and unlike Extra Credits he names his (mostly primary) sources.
I remember making it halfway through before getting bored. The thing about his name dropping sources is that they don't really stand up to further scrutiny since they're incredibly elective.

EH is guilty of extrapolating fiction from already outdated research, while RCH is guilty of developing an opinion, then picking and choosing sources to support that opinion. EH is good for organizing complex history into a mostly coherent and concise story, if prone to filling in blanks they shouldn't, while RCH is good for organizing concise military campaign history but prone to embracing modern biases and falling into total amateurism.

>jews
>having the holy land
Christianity or bust.

tier list?

Its style reminds me of that steaming pile of shit known as spirit science so i can't take it seriously.

Soon we'll have Sarkeesian's history channel, so pepper your angus,

>Basing your ideas of history on who you support or think is better because of modern situations
Well that just proves he must be shit

>modern
>Catholic
>modern
The fuck are you on?

this, Veeky Forums needs this.

cancer

RealCrusadesHistory is God tier
Mohammaden detected

Go LARP elsewhere, nerd.

...

written by a video games cuck who was so absolutely retarded that it took him like 5 years to realize that he could actually find a use for his classics degree on the internet

>RCH is guilty of developing an opinion, then picking and choosing sources to support that opinion
Really though? He uses both muslim and christian sources in most of his points as far as I know

It's decent entratainment. I liked their series on the South Sea Bubble. Never heard of it before

I don't.

God tier:

Good tier:

Shit tier: Everything.

Read books, you stupid niggers.

It's not what he uses so much as what, when, and for what point while clearly ignoring any source material that might contradict him. This isn't an issue when he's focused on a specific battle or events of a war, but it's more blatant when he has an opinion meant to contradict another opinion. For example, his rebuttal against EH concerning pilgrimage safety pulls on a single line about Charlemagne considering a Jerusalem campaign, but ignores everything to do with his embassies with the Abbasid Caliph or his endowment for a Frankish pilgrimage inn in Jerusalem, a very obvious piece of evidence that pilgrimage was not only growing or going strong but that it had very powerful and peaceful backing on both sides.

Don't listen to them, they consistently get stuff wrong and oversimplify things.

Fuck off.

Are these any good?
youtube.com/watch?v=RnWpBRqi4PQ&list=PLgagF9NTfWWECsJJToaxSdH98XB6mD56X

youtube.com/channel/UCR0tz3OreBWlmoy3MFHKDaQ/videos

This.
I like learning about new things, and I think they cover the surface ideas well, and at least making people aware of historical events, because they're just explaining Wikipedia articles in a story presentation. Still, as someone who doesn't really care that much about early Christian schisms, I'm liking having some basis about the whole Monosophytes and Chalcedonians outside of Crusader Kings.
As for their presentation, I actually enjoyed how they went through Suleiman's life. It was neat getting to learn about the man while simultaneously learning about his deeds, and the narrative they gave to his death was decently touching.

>what is the lies video at the end of every series?

Extra History C O N S T A N T L Y states that they are only giving the general picture described in their series, and that their goal is to encourage people to read more and dive deeper into the subject to see for themselves.

honestly they're good at what they set out to do. they give you the general gist, get you interested, make you read more, and correct everything they get wrong in the Lies segment, as well as other content they had to cut to save the entertainment value.

It's something to show a middle or high school history class, to get people who couldn't care less to suddenly get interested in Japanese Clans or a man who single handedly stopped cholera outbreaks in England.

tl;dr if you want super detailed super sourced history, you're not getting much entertainment value out of it, giving people the general idea then encourage further reading is Extra History's goal, and it fucking works.

Admiral Yi was pretty cool.

Sultan story felt a bit made up but nicely crosses tangents with Justinians series. But like most anons point out, it's mostly entry level because you can't fit a book in one video or even a series.

What did they get wrong with their crusades series?

Not having a go at you, I'm just quite ignorant on the topic.

Spirit science is known to have stolen their style, if they hadn't no one would have paid attention to them and rightfully so.

>Creative assembly has surplus of money
>spend it on teaching history
they should have used that money on polishing the game itself

They're bronies, apparently

hey, I never played total war, but I didn enjoy them putting out some good "trailer" content for the punic wars.

The South Sea Bubble one was interesting to me because i really had no idea that event happened.

Okay, makes sense

I've only seen a few episodes of their Justinian history, and in my opinion, they rely far too much on trying to tell a narrative based history, and the writers are so arrogant that they think they have the skill to portray the inner-workings of the emperor's mind. There's a lot of snark, and a lot of '''wit''', and it gets really tiring after a while. I wouldn't recommend it, just read a book.

I think these are okay in a "look kids, history can be as interesting as fiction" kind of deal.

As a way to start someone's interest in a new topic.

For example, i really had no idea about the South Sea Bubble or about John Snow, so i came out of that at least with names so i have at least something to start with.

If you know the very basics of a subject though, then you get almost nothing from it. The Sengoku one is the most basic description of the era. If you watch any of the inumerous Oda Nobunaga anime that releases every fucking year in Japan you basically know everything they showed in those videos.

You'd absolutely hate their Suleiman series. I mean, I like them, and I found that to be pretty cringeworthy. They totally glossed over the fact that he had his best friend tortured to death. I can see them being this liberally pro-muslim pre-ISIS, but they were being way too pro-muslim given the current political climate.

I can almost picture it in my head. It does seem as though there's a new generation of people, including this duo and John Green, who seem incapable of imagining things as anything but anachronistic cliches. During the course of the Justinian video, the narrator uses a phrase like "Justinian surveys his grand dominion" at least seven times. I half expected the Padme and Anakin theme music to start playing.

>that one guy that keeps saying realcrusadeshistory is bad without even watching the guys videos

sure the guy has a pro crusader bias, but he cites his shit well and even frequently has specialists on his program. He's probably the best crusade podcaster out there.

They're waisting all the bandwidth on their shit shows, which is bad seeing as we're going to run out.
youtu.be/GuqmKg6QQTw

>but he cites his shit well
He cites selectively in defense of his bias, not well.

as I see it; a generation that is not wise to the facts of the real world,

Islam is a relgion of conquest, this is something colleges have failed to adequately teach,

Christianity has a history of conquests, and colonialism, but it does not stretch back to the root of the religion like Islam.

Have you even watched his podcasts? Can you name a single thing that he gets wrong?

See this user Another point I can bring up for the same video series is his choice for sources concerning violence against Eastern Christians where he quotes an Armenian bishop writing about a Seljuk invasion of eastern Anatolia in the mid 11th century.

The issue isn't that he's wrong about that, it's his roughshod methodology in trying to pick and choose his sources to zing Extra Credits with. The source he used was only recently translated, having been unknown or at best unreadable for most Western historians. Whether or not that's fair to use against clear normies like Extra Credits who probably rely on history books from Barnes & Noble, the problem here is that his point: Eastern Christian misery was known to Latin Europe, is not proven with this quote as there's little evidence this chronicle made its way to the Pope or became popular in Western Europe. He chose it because it's gratuitous, and proves there was violence some decades ago, but it doesn't prove his actual argument that the Turks were slaughtering Eastern Christians on the eve of the First Crusade decades later, nor that Latin Christendom was aware of this because of the Ani chronicle.

If he wanted to actually prove his statement, he could have referenced the letters written by the Byzantine Court to each other and to the nobles of the Low Countries in the late 1080's which discusses the pirate raids of the bey of Smyrna and the (pagan) Pecheneg raids into Thrace and their devastation. This then raises the question of violence in Syria rather than Western Anatolia, but that's a hazard one should face when posing a hypothesis like his.

It's amateurish, but then he is an amateur presenting to an audience of amateurs with a lot of politics on their minds.

I've never heard of this Armenian bishop source, but there were other sources besides that one that pointed to violence against pilgrims and a call for help from the Byzantines as being the primary motivations. Actually this inability for pilgrims to safely travel to Jerusalem is mentioned very frequently in justifications for the first crusade

>I've never heard of this Armenian bishop source

It's the one he uses in his attack on Extra Credits, which it and other videos like it are where his style starts to fall apart and start showing its obvious flaws.

>but there were other sources besides that one that pointed to violence against pilgrims and a call for help from the Byzantines as being the primary motivations
And again, I'm not disputing that there was violence in the east that was a big deal for the hysteria surrounding the First Crusade. I could probably make a better and less inconsistent case than RCH about it at this point. But his point here wasn't about violence against pilgrims at this point, though thank you for reminding me that he did use this source to say that Byzantium called for help, because that's another big mistake. Armenian Ani at that point had just been conquered by the Byzantines, and the Seljuk invasion neither elicited a call for help from the Byzantines, but it drove the Armenians to call for Georgian - not Byzantine - help.

Also, the issue of pilgrimage difficulty has always been conjecture, and has yet to overcome skepticism that follows the fact that a number of the First Crusade had already been on pilgrimage earlier, while other Latin pilgrims had done the same around this time, which sparked Alexius's interest in the first place of potential Latin mercenaries coming to join him with pilgrimage as a major selling point.

Rather than pilgrimage issues in the Holy Land, it was the sudden disruption of Aegean and Anatolian communications and travel due to the rebellion of Nicaea and Smyrna that pushed the Emperor to call for help.

A terrible, gross oversimplification that doesn't take minute details into account.
>durr Columbus was a murderer!!
>and yes I completely failed to mention that the concept of germs was unknown to everyone

here

The pilgrimage thing is partly the point RealCrusadesHistory was trying to argue when he discussed Charlemagne, that the Latins did care about the Holy Land and that Muslim domination of the Mediterranean led to a downturn in pilgrimage until the First Crusade. For reasons already stated, this is incorrect, but another reason is that pilgrimage wasn't that big a phenomenon until the 8th and 9th centuries, and exploded in popularity from that point onward despite there being Muslim control of the Levant, North Africa, and southern Italy and Sicily.

You'd be surprised by how little sense your answer should make but doesn't.

>Judging a history youtube channel because it supports one side instead of the accuracy of sources and how objective they use it
Holy shit stop discussing history and go fucking play Skyrim you nigger

>actually watching history related youtube channel and not reading a fucking book
>supporting Islam
>supporting the fall of the Holy Land
Moslem eat shit.

I didn't even mention one fucking word about Islam and Crusades and not reading a book you fucking mongoloid

I don't care you faggot, if you actually unironically watch youtube videos on history, then you're a faggot.

A quick google search shows that's outdated and no longer something anyone cares about. Verizon even said there never was a spectrum crunch

No, YOU fuck off mudslime

>Reading history books
>Supporting a side

>thatsthejoke.png
The point is that their a bucnh of pop-sci and pop-hist morons who don't actually have the credentials to teach people stuff like this.

They're ok. If you want to read a detailed, hardcore history, you can find somewhere else. I'm well aware that they're doing this with narrative to make History some sorta story arc and they did fine with it. It could be a lot worst. They are what most people call it "Entry level". And that's not a bad thing. Wanna know more, read about it. They just wanted to make people pique on the interest of a subject matter and that alone is sufficient.

But their gaming topic? Fuck them. The moment where they talk about propaganda games and "How Japanese indie scene is" is where i say "You know nothing, Extra Credits"