Why does he say he isn't a historian?

Doesn't he educate?

How is he different from a history professor?

He is different in that he doesn't hold the title of professor nor is he qualified to. Not to mention that history professors are not necessarily historians.

Sure, but you could take the time he spent talking about all the deaths from the entire series and make an entire 120 minute episode on it. Something's wrong if you have a series on Khans and don't even talk about one of the greatest and most famous.

That's much more important in the long run.

Learning about the specifics of Kublai Khan's life is cool, but not as significant to the progression of history.

Who?
>/r/askhistorians
Ask them, how the fuck am i supposed to know?

I would say he is about as educational as something like Crusader Kings is, as in he gets you interested in the subject. But once you start really doing some research into a subject he's covered, you realize he made a lot of mistakes, such as exaggerating things or repeating disproven stories.

I agree that he should talk about the deaths (although not for as long as he did), but he didn't even really talk about the ways the mongols changed the world.

Did he at least mention the Black Plauge?

I thought that stuff was more important than most of the other things. People don't usually spend time on the average person's experiences during these historical events. It makes things more grounded than just hearing about who some dude a thousand years ago conquered so and so and some city was sacked.

Yes, but he didn't connect it to the Mongols, or the origins of the plague.

He only did it to combat revisionists that like to gloss over the deaths for "the good things the mongols did".

for someone whose mum and dad didn't fund his ass so he could get a history degree dan carlin is knowledgeable, critical and more entertaining than any of them will ever be. maybe that triggers them. the only reddit worth visiting is r/badhistory anyhow.

What's wrong with that?

I know as well as the next guy the timeline of the historical events he covers, but I don't hear about the human side of them.

>human side
What do you mean, human side? What is not human about the Mongols? Since when is going around and conquering other people not something humans did/do?

Don't be dense, I meant the average person being invaded. Or even the average soldier like he did in the ww1 and 2 episodes.

I just don't like the term, as it implies that it is somehow not human to do things that humans have been doing for thousands of years.

But that's completely valid.

>chapo trap house

Love those boys

hes the masculine version of John Green, making him easier to hate for redditors.

The problem is he took that one point and kept repeating it. The revisionists do have valid points, which I feel he should have gone into some detail about.

It's very dishonest. Stewart had massive influence and he knew it. Despite this he would claim to be just a simple comedian telling jokes when he got called out for saying something wrong.

Carlin not outright saying he's an expert (historian) gives him an out. "Oh, what I said about X is wrong? Why would you take that as fact, I'm not a historian afterall!"

It's not dishonest at all. If you say "I'm not an expert so I'm likely to get things wrong once in a while" you're allowed to get a few things wrong and if anyone takes your word as gospel that's their own damage.

That because it is frowned upon in the circles that historians run in nowadays.

This almost immunological response to Great Man history saturating most of historical study for centuries has now led to the prevailing method of cut and dry facts with very little care for personal insight.

I believe it is because most historians are afraid that they will pickup the biases held by the original catalogers. Or may in some way revive Great Man history's prevalence in academia.

I just want to mention that this is also why historians look at people like Holland, Everett, and Goldsworthy as anathema to "actual" historical study.

the problem with popular history is that its just scratching things on the surface, creating myths and explain things with wrong reasons

if you dont actually read professionals, who make it their mission to uncover the truth you make yourself from clueless to stupid

i mean just listened to the bits of his spartan podcast
spartans didnt fight for "western" civilization, they fought for their own damn kingdom and values, spartan values were no western, with slavery and no rights for helotes etc.
just like there were no million persians, they werent even persian for the most part

Because if something is popular people will hate on it.
Like most of you I have no idea how accurate your info is, it's not like I read most of the sources myself
I'm just a dude who likes history posting on a mongolian tabloid website and Dan Carlin is the same: just a dude who likes history and is sharing his interest

In any case if you ever find yourself valuing the opinion of anyone on reddit you should probably kys

*accurate his info

I don't think you understand the way it's used in this structure. The human side means the individual level, not just the grand strategy and economics of massive regions but a closer look at the individual people living with the economics and strategy.

>Why does /r/askhistorians hate him so much?
Why would I know, faggot?

>spartans didnt fight for "western" civilization, they fought for their own damn kingdom and values, spartan values were no western, with slavery and no rights for helotes etc.
just like there were no million persians, they werent even persian for the most part
He goes into this point extensively and explains exactly how this is not the case
>i mean just listened to the bits
oh, now it makes sense. Perhaps You should listen to the whole thing of something to criticize it, especially when your criticisms is about someone being superficial

I consider him a great storyteller first and a historian from the 1950's second.

Most of his sources on a lot of ancient history are derived from books written in the 1930's. Anything to do with ancient Perisa and the East is based on Will and Ariel Durant's "Story of Civilization", which is almost 100 years old in the period between Ancient Mesopotamia and Alexander the Great.

What I'm saying is that he makes a great narrative, but his reference points haven't caught up at all with modern scholarship in many areas

Doesn't he have a history degree?
Doesn't he publish materials related to history?

So how is he not an historian? Is there some guild of historians that he isn't a member of?

I still miss the fuck.

He always came across as comedy first, strong liberal opinions second.

All his replacements have kind of the opposite arrangement.

I do blame the show, and the bush administration, for giving us a generation of liberals hat didn't feel like they had to try to be right.

One of the reasons I don't like Noah is because he's always talking about "you Americans". While on the other hand, John Oliver says "us".

>Why does he say he isn't a historian?
To evade accountability

Because he says he isn't a historian.

If something triggers liberals it is probably because there is some truth to it, though not necessarily so.

I'm a phd canditate in history and I enjoy his podcast, just don't take it as gospel and see it as entertainment
he only has a b.a. and he has no scholarly work which is published. Hardly 'a historian'. At least have a phd and few publications before calling yourself one.

I would call myself until I graduated and have few articles in journals.

>How is he different from a history professor?

he doesn't try to turn you into a radical who's woke about the intersections of paying money to apologize for shit you dindu and cutting your dick off to end patriarchy one johnson at a time.

Classics and Ancient History has quite a few conservative historians. You are attacking out of ignorance imho

But I need to feel better about myself in relation to people who are betted educated

How much of the coming generation is conservative though? If these kids are indoctrinated by Social Justice elementary school, middle school and high school teachers, what effect will the one conservative professor have? I've also heard of attempts to require all students at universities to take courses in social justice activism.

Dude, I go to one of the most liberal liberal arts colleges out there, and that has never happend.

I will reaffirm what the guy is talking about. University of Winnipeg had recently decreed that all students must take an Indigenous history/relations course regardless of whatever field. Murmurs about it suggests the informational meetings and information booths were only done in the arts buildings. There was recent talk at Univetsity of Manitoba about doing the same thing, before the STEM students banded together and put a halt to that. UofM requires a course elective of either Psychology, Sociology or Gender studies.

To be fair, UofW has a fat studies program, so it's a waste of a liberal shithole anyways.

Dan "Never use 5 words where 50 will do" Carlin

even so, I enjoy listening to him from time to time. He does need to try to pare things down a bit, however.

>ways the mongols changed the world

you mean ways the subjects of the mongols who managed to survive changed the world

Who would've never underwent such changes without the Mongol campaigns forcing them to do so

Oh, you're talking about Canadian colleges. Yeah, that makes a lot more sense then. Don't really have as big of a problem with that in the states.

>would've never underwent such changes without dying en masse and paying token tribute every year to some horsefucker cause the Khan got cucked once like a decade ago

What are you trying to say pal? Maybe presenting your thought in a coherent form instead of greentexting about horse fucker khans in autistic rage would help

if i have a degree in physics and make a podcast about space that does not make me an astrophysicist

Just throw in some shitty boxing analogies and you'll be set m8

So a lazy version of the Titanic collided against a grumpy and baldy singing giant and sinked

Meanwhile yanks stolen bongs B-17 and loaded them with some huge M117 bombs which also contained paratroopers

A giant made of stone and awesomeness stopped the crowd of rescues

7th Calvary Regiment also made of giants is retiring due an accident that never happened with Kirov airships covering their retreat

Meanwhile some Genghis Khan recon gook is watching the scene and is going to report that there is nothing worth after Rome

I also fucking hope that this pic is just a made off and not something created for the show

fucking auto correct, should trash and disable it