Who Hardcore History here?

Just finished Kings of Kings today, my first of his podcasts, and really liked it. I think I'll do Blueprint for Armageddon next or maybe Wrath of Khans. What do you guys think? Which would you recommend?

I loved his Death Throes of the Republic. I've studied the late Roman Republic for years and Dan approaches it from a lot of interesting angles that often get overlooked.

Also, I loved Logical Insanity, i consider it to be his best episode.

Both are very good, but since I have a bias towards preferring World War I I would of course recommend that. Wrath of Khans presents a more, for lack of a better word, well-ordered and linear story though, since Blueprints necessary demands that he jump from front to front and between the situation in the various countries fairly frequently.

Wrath of the Khans is really good, Blueprint of Armageddon as well. King of Kings is interesting, but I didn't feel it was as good as the two above.

The Eastern Front series is also very interesting and horrific, sort of like the Khan one.

The first episode of King of Kings was excellent but the second and third one were not quite so.

Yeah I agree, it was good, felt like he was building up towards something and then he kind of got stuck with the whole persian thingie and it felt like, to me, that he didn't really get to the point.

>mfw Dan described Subutai and his men digging a large hole in the ground, tossing hundreds of bound prisoners into it, and then constructing a deck on top of said prisoners on which to have dinner

Subatai best general ever or best general ever? That is savage as fuck.

Listened to the newest episode today. I don't agree with his views nearly as much since I started hanging on /pol/, but I still listen to every episode.

I would like him to branch out into other topics. King of Kings touches on subjects he has already done in the past, so I was a bit disappointed there. I'm hoping he covering the Warring States era of China desu senpai. Don't really have a favorite episode, they are all pretty good.

Indeed, things like that made me shiver.

The same in the Eastern Front one how the Soviets put Germans shoulder to shoulder only to spray them with water so that they would form an ice road.

Nothing really got to me as much as Rome's treatment of Carthage. Feels bad man.

>German soldiers arrive into russian villages
>are greeted with cheers, flowers, gifts and blessings as they're seen as liberators
>the next day they put that village to the flame
It's a tought part to listen to.

It triggers weird feelings to listen to his shows on the Mongols and the Punic Wars. It's like, despite you knowing very well how the story is going and being fully aware that such notions are childish and have no place in the study of history and warfare, you want to protest that it's not "fair". That it's not "right" for a group of people so arrogant and convinced of their own invincibility to not have some sudden setback, some major defeat to finally humble them and "even the odds".

Incidentally, it's a feeling that also stirs whenever there's a thread discussing the World Wars and someone mentions how "they could never have ended differently because the allied powers would never accept any peace terms but total capitulation of Germany" as if that was an unquestionable law of nature.
I'm a little bit of a Imperial Germaboo, yes.

Kings of Kings I is an underappreciated gem

>We've got your god

Dan really did a good job of explaining the Assyrian mindset

I had a hard time following his narration on Kings of Kings I.
I had to relisten it again to get it.

Wrath of Khans > Blueprint = Prophets of Doom > King of Kings = Death Throes = Punic Nightmares

Only the last 30 minutes of the last Punic Wars episode really does it for me though. The way the Roman diplomats cheated the Carthaginians multiple times, each time demanding more and more, with Carthage agreeing to everything but destroying their own city, and then them getting butchered was really hard to listen to. I'll be honest, I never could listen to all of it.

Dan's depiction of the Mongol Conquests never really did that to me, probably because the fights seemed more fair. The Europeans gathered to fight the Mongols, and were crushed. The Khwarezmia Shah provoked the fight. China was never willing to submit, and were arrogant in terms of never allying with each other.

Fuck Cato.

King of Kings I is really hard to follow. He starts off talking about the Spartans, and then about the Meads/Persians, and then about the Assyrians.It took me multiple gothroughs to actually comphend the narrative in the first episode. Thankfully, with months between his episodes, I had plenty of time to do so.

t. Dan Carlin

He's great, but it takes him too long to make the episodes. By the time he makes a new one, I've already forgotten about him and have to re-discover him.

I loved his episode about the CIA's operations in central Asia. Very illuminating stuff about an obscure chapter in history.

I'm ok with the 5 month wait time. Considering the quality of each show, a more frequent schedule would be impossible.
I assume Dan has normal paying gigs and does his podcasts on the side. So they take a while to get done.

same desu

>newest episode today
Fuck you, getting my hopes up. Half a month old already.

Carlin is a charlatan, you can't take anything he says seriously.

When has he ever deviated from the normally accepted history (and NOT preempted it with "Now, a few historians disagree, saying...")

Wrath of the Khans > Prophets of Doom > Blueprint = Death Throes > Ghosts of the Eastern Front >>>> King of Kings

King of Kings takes to long to get into the main subject and jumps around far too much. It stands out as the weak series in a stable of great histories.

>It's a "contrarian makes a claim with no supporting evidence" episode