3 ms·

Just keep in mind to take everything he says with a big grain of salt. Quite a few times I've been mesmerized by his podcasts only to find out later its either

Just keep in mind to take everything he says with a big grain of salt. Quite a few times I've been mesmerized by his podcasts only to find out later its either mostly made up or a "classic" but totally discredited version of the story. He really doesn't bother reading up on the latest and most accurate material for his topics. It's the main reason why I stopped listening to him (the smaller one is that I will never get used to his grating accent).

stanrivers 5y ago
Oh - interesting, I never knew that was a claimed levied against him - that his history wasn't necessarily accurate. That is a bummer. Still like what he is doing for getting the concept out there that history is worth studying and should be "cool," and you can't blame a generalist for not being 100% up-to-date on the latest findings / understandings by experts... so if its just that, I get it - if its more storytelling and embellishment - that is unfortunate.
- muro 5y ago
  I was disappointed when listening about WWI how wrong the numbers were and gave up.
etc-hosts 5y ago
do you have some examples? I read https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoughts_on_dan_carlin/cd4qedu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoug...
pomian 5y ago
To be fair, he always states: "I am not a historian". So if you listen to him as a storyteller, you will have a great time, and you might learn something along the way.
- emptyfile 5y ago
  Absolutely, he's the kind of guy that should fire up your interest and make you buy a real book to learn more. However, never take the book he's actually using...most of the time it's plain outdated. As you say, you can't really blame a guy who says 5 times per episode that he's "not a historian", but plenty of times I just can't help and wonder why didn't he spend 30 minutes extra researching a topic and choosing better material and sources. The only answer I got is that bad material makes for better stories.

stanrivers 5y ago

Oh - interesting, I never knew that was a claimed levied against him - that his history wasn't necessarily accurate. That is a bummer. Still like what he is doing for getting the concept out there that history is worth studying and should be "cool," and you can't blame a generalist for not being 100% up-to-date on the latest findings / understandings by experts... so if its just that, I get it - if its more storytelling and embellishment - that is unfortunate.

muro 5y ago
I was disappointed when listening about WWI how wrong the numbers were and gave up.

etc-hosts 5y ago

do you have some examples? I read https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoughts_on_dan_carlin/cd4qedu/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoug...

pomian 5y ago

To be fair, he always states: "I am not a historian". So if you listen to him as a storyteller, you will have a great time, and you might learn something along the way.

emptyfile 5y ago
Absolutely, he's the kind of guy that should fire up your interest and make you buy a real book to learn more. However, never take the book he's actually using...most of the time it's plain outdated. As you say, you can't really blame a guy who says 5 times per episode that he's "not a historian", but plenty of times I just can't help and wonder why didn't he spend 30 minutes extra researching a topic and choosing better material and sources. The only answer I got is that bad material makes for better stories.