4 ms·

I entered the article ready to be critical, but I saw they quoted Dan Carlin's hardcore history on the first page. Satisfied. I can go to bed, nobody is wrong o

I entered the article ready to be critical, but I saw they quoted Dan Carlin's hardcore history on the first page. Satisfied. I can go to bed, nobody is wrong on the internet today.

pharmakom 3y ago
Is Dan Carlin considered a good source? Genuine question.
- piva00 3y ago
  I think this answer on /r/askhistorians is still a good, and succinct take on Dan Carlin as a source [0]. I heard from other historians the same, he is a good entertainer but not a definitive source to be absolutely trusted, it's pop-history well done. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoughts_on_dan_carlin/cd4qedu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoug...
- beloch 3y ago
  I'd say he's pretty decent, provided you keep his slant in mind. He's a radio journalist and not a historian, although he does have a history degree. He hasn't written books on the Mongols, but they're one of his favourite topics and he's probably better read than most on them. He definitely has a taste for the darker side, and the Mongols provided plenty of fodder for that. If you're listening to Dan Carlin, you're probably getting the "most metal" version of what's well-accepted in a decently comprehensive review of available literature, sometimes with a few of the more salacious bits from less accepted sources thrown in for fun with his warning. Meanwhile, reading a just-released book from an actual historian may, instead, furnish you with views that are innovative and not yet broadly accepted, or just plain wrong. You really need to read a few different historians on any given topic to start to get a real handle on it. Everyone has their own strengths, weaknesses, angles and agendas. You can do far worse than starting with Carlin. He's great at making topics interesting enough to read more on. I am not a historian though, and I'd defer to one in assessing Carlin.
  - jawilson2 3y ago
    I agree completely with this. I almost view/use him as a historical Wikipedia. He has gotten me interested in so many historical topics I previously wasn't interested in, e.g. the first World War. After many of his series, I track down his sources (usually on his website) and read those books. I love finding the tidbits from his shows in the broader context of the original books.

I entered the article ready to be critical, but I saw they quoted Dan Carlin's hardcore history on the first page. Satisfied. I can go to bed, nobody is wrong on the internet today.

pharmakom 3y ago

Is Dan Carlin considered a good source? Genuine question.

piva00 3y ago
I think this answer on /r/askhistorians is still a good, and succinct take on Dan Carlin as a source [0]. I heard from other historians the same, he is a good entertainer but not a definitive source to be absolutely trusted, it's pop-history well done. [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoughts_on_dan_carlin/cd4qedu/ https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/thoug...
beloch 3y ago
I'd say he's pretty decent, provided you keep his slant in mind. He's a radio journalist and not a historian, although he does have a history degree. He hasn't written books on the Mongols, but they're one of his favourite topics and he's probably better read than most on them. He definitely has a taste for the darker side, and the Mongols provided plenty of fodder for that. If you're listening to Dan Carlin, you're probably getting the "most metal" version of what's well-accepted in a decently comprehensive review of available literature, sometimes with a few of the more salacious bits from less accepted sources thrown in for fun with his warning. Meanwhile, reading a just-released book from an actual historian may, instead, furnish you with views that are innovative and not yet broadly accepted, or just plain wrong. You really need to read a few different historians on any given topic to start to get a real handle on it. Everyone has their own strengths, weaknesses, angles and agendas. You can do far worse than starting with Carlin. He's great at making topics interesting enough to read more on. I am not a historian though, and I'd defer to one in assessing Carlin.
- jawilson2 3y ago
  I agree completely with this. I almost view/use him as a historical Wikipedia. He has gotten me interested in so many historical topics I previously wasn't interested in, e.g. the first World War. After many of his series, I track down his sources (usually on his website) and read those books. I love finding the tidbits from his shows in the broader context of the original books.