What are the best history podcasts, bros? Any region or timeframe, but a brief QRD with your answers is nice if the name itself isn't enough to know what it's about.
The only ones I've listened to are Hardcore History (which I love and idgaf what anybody says), the History of Rome, and I'm now listening to the History of Byzantium.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Yeah, I really like how Dan narrates history and atleast he is pretty open about him not being an historian and when he feels his sources are biased. He did went to uni to learn about history I think, that makes him more qualified than most history youtubers, tik tokers, etc.
>e is pretty open about him not being an historian and when he feels his sources are biased
There is nothing impressive about going to university and getting a history degree.
You don't need a history degree to tell you how to read sources.
People have gotten academia backwards.
>Romans
>scientific advancement
what, concrete?
learn to read
learn to read
learn to read
learn to read
>an entire thread of moron manchildren sneedyboys who need another man to narrate for them
>nobody reads primary or secondary compilations
>IQfytory and humanities
holy shit you should all be round up and shot, read sources, form opinions based on evidence, and then discuss. Sneedcasts are NOT TRUSTWORTHY. i would cane your pale white asses if you were my students
This thread is still more on-topic than half of the IQfy threads up right now, why are you seething lol
i really liked Fall of Civilizations
Fall of Civilizations repeats the same bullshit misconceptions most do about the fall of the Aztec in their episode about them.
What was he wrong about?
Off the top of my head, that the Aztec extracted sacrifices/slaves as taxes/tribute, which made them disliked, which is why Cortes got allies.
It's a very common misconception, but when your entire podcast series is about the "fall of civilizations", and you're fundamentally misunderstanding the politics behind the fall, that's sort of a grave mistake to make (see: https://desuarchive.org/co/thread/131262696/#131267179; especially the pastebin, though even that I wanna expand on/make longer now)
Also I think he included the myths about Cortes's arrival being preordained, and the video version includes a bunch of inaccurate modern concheros dancers which aren't reflective of actual Aztec clothing or ornamentation a all, unlike say pic related which is accurate.
>Off the top of my head, that the Aztec extracted sacrifices/slaves as taxes/tribute
That's true though? It wasn't the only form of tribute, but that did happen.
That isn't unique to aztec culture.
It's not true, though. Again, read the tbharchive post and pastebin.
My point is that that's NOT what happened. See above.
I'm pretty up front with my posts here on IQfy that jabberwockxeno, Zotzcomic etc, and other people who do Mesoamerican posts on other platforms are all people I exchange resources and coordinate posts with.
>the widely disliked sentiments against the Aztecs.
Because it wasn't really a thing: Obviously some subject states didn't like them, because generally speaking being conquered and having to pay taxes isn't something people are fond of, but that they mostly left subjects alone to self manage and were hands off, and didn't demand sacrifices as tribute is what's ACTUALLY widely attested in tribute rolls and primary sources; and that ignores that there were also actually quite a lot of subjects that intentionally aligned themselves with Tenochtitlan to benefit themselves politically: States would join it to get better access to their trade network or to suck up for a political marriage to leech off some of it's political influence; or gain protection from other hostile neighbooring states, etc.
In particular states inside the Valley of Mexico MASSIVELY benefitted from the tribute/tax influx into the valley and had heavy, heavy political marriage ties to each other and Tenochtitlan, and had been for around or over a century. It is not an accident you only see them side with Cortes after Moctezuma II dies, the city is hit by smallpox, etc and it's no longer able to project political power outward (esp. since as the Aztec empire didn't directly manage subjects and they kept their own identity and interests, seceding and switching sides when they thought they can get away with it, like after the death of am emperor), where their tribute/tax influx into the valley and the power they got by virtue of their political marriages with Tenochtitlan are in jeopardy anyways that they ally with Cortes.
1/2
cont:
The claim isn't that "Akshually the Aztec were super beloved and dindu nuffin", or even that no states that allied with Cortes hated Tenochtitlan (Tlaxcala did, that's why they were the only state to really fully commit to Cortes from the start; technically Texcoco and Huextozinco had greviences too; but note that Tlaxcala and Huextozinco weren't "Aztec subjects", they were hostile enemy states the Aztec were at war with) it's that they really weren't particularly onerous as a captial in terms of what they expected of their subjects, even if they were warmongering expansionists, and that hand soff political system where subjects kept their rulers, laws, customs, and populations meant that subjects saw themselves as their own city state first, and part of the Aztec empire second, which encouraged fluid side switching and backstabbing to gain power.
Both in ways TO join the Aztec, such as what I mentioned with political marriages or trade access, or to get AWAY from the Aztec, such as when far off provinces stopped paying taxes after aztec emperors die, or what we see with Cortes after Tenochtitlan got crippled by Moctezuma's death, the toxcatl massacre, smallpox, etc. Again, that states inside the valley only joined Cortes after it's influence and power was cut down is very telling of it being an opportunistic attempt to make the most of the situation, vs if they joined Cortes and Tlaxcala from the start to get rid of Tenochtitlan.
This is something you see all the time in Mesoamerican history: The region tended to not have directly managed imperial style kingdoms and empires, so states constantly switching allegiences and taking each other out by working with each other to try to gain influence was a regular occurrence: The Aztec Empire itself formed this way, and you see it dozens of other times where some other Mesoamerican state allies with Conquistadors to take out their capital or rivals even after the Cortes expedition
Please step back for a moment and understand what the original claim was versus what you're trying to frame it as
>'aztec subjects and allies really did not like them'
>'akshually, they should have liked them - ok wait maybe they had reasons to dislike them but they were wrong to dislike them'
Plus, the Fall of Civs episodes that cover the Aztecs explicitly point out these nuances that you yourself are bringing up. I'm not sure if you've actually watched them or only heard its content peripherally, but the videos are by no means simply taking the Evil Aztecs perspective uncritically.
t. Tonatiuh Huitzil
No need to waste effort posts on IQfy
You're that weird guy on reddit who constantly tries to reframe the coups as purely reapolitik rather than acknowledging the widely disliked sentiments against the Aztecs.
>Off the top of my head, that the Aztec extracted sacrifices/slaves as taxes/tribute, which made them disliked, which is why Cortes got allies.
I'm pretty sure he mentions this, but it's been a year since I've listened to it.
In Our Time is by far the most scholarly podcast. The host is an elderly British man who fluctuates between annoying and based, and he runs a 30-45 minutes interview on a wide variety of topics. The guests are all distinguished English professors who do a good job summing up their specialization.
Sometimes there are disagreements too, which is nice to see. It is always very professional and well supported, a really nice insight into how historians "do" history.
These both look really cool. Think I’ll check them out. Love listening to humanity based podcasts while running or lifting weights.
Thanks anons
History of Byzantium
I've been listening to The Rest is History after Dan did a crossover episode with them on his second feed
Those were great episodes
When they're good they're good, but half their episodes are such bullshit topics
Points for at least shitting out an ep consistently every few days, so there's generally one good one per week
History of Egypt Podcast covers all 3,000 years of Egyptian civilization before the Persian/Greek/Roman empires kicked the doors down, has been a very solid listen so far
History of Rome is an old one but it’s what got me started
Any good podcasts for setting up a history timeline that covers the basics of everything? It's hard to remember shit about Romans or Mesopotamians when you don't know the sea of context each Empire sits in
I'm listening to the audiobook for pic related but it's outdated as frick. He thought the Mediterranean Sea was created 10,000 years ago. I'm kind of afraid to read on since I have no confidence anything he says is true anymore.
If you don't know anything about philology this one will feel like someone kicking open the door to your mind.
This was my gateway drug into the larger field of linguistics, I still love it.
It was my gateway into ancient history and linguistics. I didn't use to like either. But now the PIEs will never not fascinate me. When I hear the word "mother" I'll often immediately think of how it's at least 6,000 years old.
I think you'll like it. There's not much more human than speaking, and that podcast will tell you everything you need to know about why we speak how we do.
Revolutions by Mike Duncan
There is literally no-one better than Dan so you can only go down from there.
The only thing I bother listening to is Kosmographia with Randall Carlson. You can keep your boring conventional history crap that makes you fall asleep, meanwhile I'll have fun listening to theories about Atlantis.
https://vocaroo.com/19rBp7dt05tm
Cant stand the way Dan talks. Literature and History is good one
Fall of Civilizations is just wikipedia article reading with high productuon values.
He's a great storyteller. Which is why we listen instead of just reading about it ourselves.
I quite like History on Fire.
The host is an actual university professor, which gives it a lot of credibility for the market.
Listening to his episodes on Joan of Arc, fascinating woman.
The History of the Christian Church is actually pretty good if you Christgay
The Dollop is pretty entertaining historical fun episode (like Last Podcast on the Left) but be aware the hosts go full blown ranting about Trump around episode 200 or so, which might be entertaining if it wasn't so cringe
PEOPLE:
>Tolstoy
>Napoleon
>Alexander the Great
>Carl Peters
>Ken Burns Lewis and Clark
>Henry Ford
>Milton Hershey
>Wernher von Braun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zempXajeE&t=1032s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv0IB-TwFH8&t=1328s
>Andrew Carnegie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQI5ozFdNYs
>The Godfather of Cannabis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csbJnBKqwIw
CIVILIZATIONS / GROUPS:
>Rome
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItwGz43a_ak
>Medici
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOAVRcI6mFU
>Romanov Dynasty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DEVQ8UacA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLnYFdAhFLk
>Mughals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFdt_4VbQ_M&t=3132s
>Crucible of Civilization. rise and fall of democracy in Athens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUu6ZdsDZeU
>Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLz58QJ68R9CTFj8KbMx0UD4tZCft69-0Y
>Medieval Britain hosted by Terry Jones
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_13O8xhsOCZJBRSdvrqpstrLU7ofpZRC
>Here is Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC-IjblKuh4
>Russian israelites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfN3yQJxe8E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2dgWV63GMc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlyQjKnbE5Y
Take meds.