EP21 Hollandansandbrook

[@IreliAmBad]

I could listen to this forever. Really hoping this collaboration becomes a regular thing. Great chemistry between these three.

[@jkewish10]

Dan Carlin is the American Homer. It absolutely makes my day when I see that Dan has a new show even if he is a little left of my own politics. What I really appreciate is Dan’s ability to summon in both sides of an issue to enhance the conversation. I think I’ve listened through the King of Kings sequence 5 times now…

[@fairy2000]

That’s funny because he would consider himself a right wing guy for maybe 25 years until recently.

[@talldude1412]

The recent form of Republican is barely even conservative at this point. Just populist Christian.

[@cosmicmuffet1053]

I don't know how he finds time between working at the nuclear power plant and being Mr. Plow.

[@jda555]

Dan Carin isn't "left", which does not reflect his background or his statements at all. My guess is that you are just a racist and you're disappointed because he doesn't toss you any red meat in the way of the demagogues on Fox News. Defining "left" as anyone who is not a knuckle-dragging racist bigot.

[@thetruthfromthefuture]

I appreciate your comment. I also enjoy listening to him regardless of political alignment. History is History is History.

[@glengarner4566]

This was one of the best episodes I've heard. What a great convo.

[@wasimshaikh1665]

Mr. Dan Carlin, you're the best story teller I have seen ever. Thank you for the work you have been doing.

[@dumyjobby]

Oh yeah, this afternoon will be very enjoyable. Tank you Mr Carlin, i enjoy your podcast a lot.

[@mattstakeontheancients7594]

Awesome listened to the Rest is History with y’all 3 and it was gold. Glad to see them on here.

[@MrHazz111]

People of KZbin, drop everything and go listen to Rest is History now. (maybe after listening to this one)

[@CL-we8tn]

OMG!!! IT'S A GOLD MINE!! THANK YOU!!

[@frederickfairlieesq5316]

What are some episodes you recommend?

[@benh580]

Link?

[@Nyingmaba]

Also interested in recommendations. Daunting when there are 200+ episodes and youre not certain its what youre looking for

[@TheMightyMurse1917]

Sir, yes sir!!

[@jesusalvarez-cedron6581]

Regarding the conquest of Mexico, in fact it was a victory of the indigenous people who were slained by the mexicas, and Hernán Cortés made use of his european (and cultivated) way of making politics to try to unite them in his command. Thousands and thousands of them fought alongside the spaniards, and even with more ferocity. And afterwards the conquest all of them showed their pride to their allegiance to the Spanish Crown and had several rights and concessions that a contemporary irishman couldn't even imagine. The modern tale (invented trough the XXth century by the mexican elite) about the evil spaniards conquering a bunch of gandhis have made an amazing psicological damage into the minds of mexican citizens. And of course the history of the 300 years (1521-1821) of New Spain have banished, just becouse maybe someone could see the contradictions of that tale of good and evil.

[@KORTOKtheSTRONG]

neat

[@suxcawks]

Tom's brother, James Holland, is also an accomplished WW2 historian and hosts excellent WW2 podcast "We Have Ways of Making You Talk" with comedian and history buff Al Murray. Be good to see Dan do a show with them, too.

[@robertjohn8711]

Holland is well worth reading! He’s very nuanced and insightful, there is really a lot to learn from him

[@skp8748]

Except on anything related to islam 😂 then he goes full looney

[@-Zevin-]

Great content, highly appreciated. I would like to expound in regards to bronze age weapons vs a Iron age army, and why I don't think there would be technological advantage on the battlefield. Hammer hardened bronze can actually be harder than Iron, It is incredibly robust. A Bronze sword would have no more problem than a Iron sword, removing limbs in a chop or piecing through a torso in a thrust. While bronze armor is heavy, it also is still incredibly protective and would withstand iron based weapons. Steel made a larger difference in hardness, but even then the technological gap is small, even in contrast to semi automatic rifles developing into automatic ones in a battlefield context, which happened in a absolutely minuscule span of time in comparison. The real advantage of iron was economics and availability. Bronze required tin, and tin was only mined in certain regions. Iron was widely available, simple to work and cheap. Iron took over as the metal of choice for good reasons, but effectiveness was not one of them, certainly at first; advanced steel technologies took centuries more to evolve. If interested in more I encourage searching for bronze sword testing and bronze sword information on KZbin from some of the local HEMA community (Historical European martial arts) which includes archeologists and historians with a passion for history, experimental archeology and the study of original historical manuscripts.

[@-Zevin-]

@@micahh108 Hardness is highly desirable in weapons, and ancient people went to great lengths to have harder edged weapons and armor, swords were quenched specifically to increase hardness while sacrificing toughness. Likewise armor in the middle ages was case hardened when the technology was developed, because hardness was highly desirable. Even far into the iron age, bronze helmets, bronze/brass body armor were common sights. Earlier roman helmets were often bronze, Roman armor lorica squamata were often made with brass/bronze scales and used well into the 2nd century AD and later. Even incredibly modern swords, made of modern industrial mono steels that ancient people could only have dreamt of, can still not cut through bronze armor with ease. Bronze will dent and take deeper scratches than steel, but is still a very robust material. Bronze bends it does not shatter, precisely because it is softer than steel /iron in its unhardened form. This is why bronze age swords had a complex blade geometry, a convex edge profile flaring into a thick central mid rib. The thick midrib of the sword would have been softer and more tough unhardened metal, while the edges were hammer beaten, this compresses the metal through a process known as work hardening, giving a complex hardness and toughness balance similar to laminated steel blades. This allowed the edges to potentially chip, but the blade spine would hold firm. In contrast steel is worked completely differently and posses a mono hardness/toughness, excluding the rare Asian examples of laminated steels and edge tempering, such as clay tempering in Japan and water tempering in India and Nepal. The quenching and tempering process is incredibly important with steel, striking a balance of hardness and toughness/flexibility. I would encourage you to watch testing videos of Bronze weapons here on KZbin. The advantage of steel, (good quality properly treated steel) is it can posses both qualities, this also took centuries of evolutionary development in metallurgy. All steel is not created equally, all bronze isn't either for that matter, but it is entirely possible to create a steel sword that is softer than a well made bronze one, or a steel sword that is far more brittle and less tough. Swords braking during the middle ages from a single blow was a incredibly common occurrence, and is why "proofing" tests before sale became common place. This would happen because of unseen impurities in metal ingots, and poorly done heat treatments; with the technological level of the middle ages both failed often. Bronze is actually less susceptible to these impurities because of its smelting and casting, and receives no such heat treatment. In contrast Iron/steel was not smelted in the west until much much later in history, as the technology for creating sufficiently capable furnaces did not exist. Now most important of all, Iron is not steel, it is far inferior to steel, nor is it materially a significantly better base for weapon making than bronze, but logistics wins wars and builds empires, and bronze was worth its weight in gold (figuratively speaking) compared to cheap plentiful Iron. Even the Romans often used untreated soft iron, and many early iron Celtic swords were materially inferior to well cast bronze swords. As armies grew in size, and states began to fund armies in the tens of thousands, Iron was a obvious choice.

[@jacobschindler2513]

@@-Zevin- While all of that's basically true it's more that bronze is way heavier by volume then iron and having full coverage with bronze was basically impossible and iron weapons could be wielded longer as they required much less strength to use.

[@-Zevin-]

@@jacobschindler2513 This is true, another factor is weapon length, iron allowed people to start building longer swords too, because of the lighter weight. Although iron still suffered from the problem of bending, a problem that plagued long Celtic iron swords. The next significant advancement technologically was the ability to temper and create flexibility in steel, which allowed very long long swords in comparison to bronze.

[@bambi8179]

Always great to see another episode

[@WrestlingWithGod77]

Yooooo was just thinking about this podcast and I get a notification, what a synchronicity

[@jerejarvinen625]

Maybe you summoned it??!! Thanks if u did

[@chellybub]

Carlin Holland Sandbrook, a dangerous and wonderful trio!

[@Galvaxatron]

I could listen to Dan Carlin talk about shoe laces for 5 hours and I would be highly entertained.

[@shananagans5]

The aglet was invented in 1790. That may seem like a minor factor but it reduced frayed ends and made lacing your shoes notably easier. lol No doubt, Dan Carlin is fully capable of talking about shoe laces for 5 hours and, no doubt, I would be sitting right next to you listening intently for every min of that five hours.

[@CoolAdam247]

The "Rest is history" podcast is awesome 🚬😎👍

[@shinjukucalling763]

the bug has spoken

[@CMDR.Gonzo.von.Richthofen]

Nice try, Adam. You look like a bug with a fake mustache.

[@drakeholliday5671]

What’s up my gay people?

[@avigenuth4395]

This was phenomenal! Super thought provoking at the end!

[@dustyfairview9062]

Thanks dan. I read tom hollands herodotus to ease the wait for the next big HH . You're right this stuff is cool

[@JohnDoe69986]

The guy who wrote “Stalin”would be an interesting interview. First of his name, Simon Sebag Montefiore.

[@officialoaksey]

Dear Dan Carlin ane Hardcore history fam. I would absolutely ADORE hearing a podcast series about the vikings, or even pre-viking scandanavia. Perhaps this already exists? Otherwise PLEASE DO IT

[@horsem.d.7979]

He did a podcast about Germanic peoples called thors angels, not exactly Vikings but close

[@charlesreid9337]

there arent many podcasts about the vikings because there wasnt much too "them". They were basically groups of thugs who raided european church's and monasteries and slaughtered peasants and priests. They werent crushed because it wasnt monetarily worth it.

[@officialoaksey]

@@charlesreid9337 that's a drastic over-simplification of an intelligent and unique group of people. They created one of the best ships for ocean, sea, and river travel; they were intelligent fighters, and they remained isolated on in a country that was a mystery to the eastern world of hundreds of years. Plus their religious ethos is FACINATING. They weren't crushed because THERE WAS NO ONE TO CRUSH THEM. Would be an EPIC hardcore history episode

[@toddsutherland5047]

I love the three of them together! Please keep making more of these 🤘

[@carlosvasquez9890]

Hi Mr. Carlin. Just a comment: Even though for a lot of people it seems a surprise, I think It is no wonder at all that Reagan was so moved by The Day After. Richard Rhodes in ""Arsenals of Folly" explain the way Reagan's mind worked in the best possible way, citing Leslie Gelb : "Reagan thought "anecdotally, not analitically"" Whether that feature was good or bad boiled down to the author's appreciation of Reagan's legacy, but it seems to be a broad consensus on that idea.

[@ryancummings5583]

My dad is gonna be so hyped about this, Dan Carlin is his jam.

[@charlesreid9337]

Dan is.. these other two sound like they got their degrees from an incompetant high school history teacher

[@historyismetal2187]

@@charlesreid9337 savage.

[@bymafia2606]

@@charlesreid9337as much as I like Dan, Tom and Dominic are far more accomplished historians and authors. Dan is an amateur historian.

[@charlesreid9337]

@@bymafia2606 call to authority.. having credentials doesnt mean youre even competant in a field. Dan's talent is seeing beyond the "powerful leader did this" and encompassing everything from the effect on world history to the individual soldier and civilian

[@thomasmitchell4128]

Ah yes. I was just thinking we were overdue for some Dan Carlin.

[@Weemadaggie]

Very interesting. As always. But gentlemen, I would not want to be caught ordering food at a restaurant with you three. I'd die of starvation.

[@jestermoon]

Thx again Dan!

[@dylanpilcheruniverse6515]

I’m not a military expert at all but I do study Ancient Rome extensively . I would fairly safely wager that ceasar would have beaten most armies from history even many of those coming after him.

[@cosmicmuffet1053]

57:00 Unfortunately, there has been an escalating series of accidents around infrastructure. Just because military computer systems have sufficient security doesn't mean civilian infrastructure does, and the average person working a job is not good at cyber security. In fact, even most of the people who work with computers are not capable of more than basic defense. Luckily/unluckily a lot of modern hacking is done via social engineering. And people have a tough time balancing open-mindedness that's a necessary part of working with people in other countries as part of modern supply chains, and suspicion that helps protect assets.

[@b.griffin317]

57:00 As to cyberwarfare: Russian lack of capability shown here so far is more a matter of choice not to use them than lack of ability. One of the key aspects of cyberwar is MAD and the inevitable and uncontrollable escalation that would likely ensue if it ever got "serious." In this way it is similar to nuclear. The situation in Ukraine is not at a level that Russia would consider risking its infrastructure and society to the level it would be exposed to if it went down the cyberwar road.

[@Mindstangle]

Even the very wise cannot foresee all ends

[@nolebez6850]

I work near the colonial pipeline's hub. I work on exactly the same actuators (devices that control valves on pipes) at the hub. If we get locked out. We have to replace them. The actuators never were worked on or replaced.

[@twonumber22]

Always appreciated.

[@tommonk7651]

Brilliant!

[@sarcasmo57]

Super interesting.

[@vastvideos7212]

I've always been told King author was a metaphor for learning to craft iron weapons more efficiently. Always a pleasure to listen, thx Dan

[@Thanos916]

Good ole King Author.

[@kackljas]

Interesting how a conversation about King Arthur turned into a conversation about nuclear war.

[@ianshaver8954]

American military person here. The role of the tank will not be obsolete as long as militaries have a need for mobile, protected artillery. But what protects the tank changes. Rather than just armor, we’ll be adding a combination of accurate auto cannons, micro missiles, lasers, and microwave weapons. These will be either on the tank or on a separate vehicle moving with the tank. Drones are far more vulnerable to lasers and microwave weapons than anything else on the battlefield, and the US is already fielding these technologies. Same with the carriers. Our need for a floating airbase will remain, but we may have to drastically adapt the protective bubble that keeps them alive in the 21st century.

[@joeleonard9965]

Don't reward my horrible sleep schedule like this...

[@brandinhassiel6440]

I NEED MORE CONTENT!!!! Please

[@cwindhorst83]

Woo hoo I've waited my whole life for this to drop!

[@brendanblessington4187]

Please do a podcast on John Paul Jones, probably the greatest hero of the American Revolution who gets overlooked. It's so sad that Benedict Arnold, the best American field commander and Jones just get bypassed in the teaching of the American revolution. John Paul Jones just has such a rich journey, I would love to hear your take on his story. You always really get to the fat and gristle that most people leave on the bone of history.

[@yusuffulat6954]

Awesome episode!

[@JesterPickering]

Thx Dan ❤ 0:34 🎉 Stay Safe and Stay Free

[@michaelwoodsmccausland5633]

I agree. However Ralph Ellis Joseph P Campbell agree this is the same story of Issi Emanuel! MWM@

[@b.griffin317]

28:45 As to the obsolescence of armor on the modern battlefield I refer you to the youtube channel Perun who has done an extensive study on the subject. The tl;dr: 1. Russian armor underperformance has as much to do with poor tactical employment (lack of escorting infantry, launching an offensive in Rasputitsa keeping you to the roads where you are easily ambushed, poor logistics and training) as anything. 2. Tanks are more endangered now than they have been in a long time, but if employed properly are far from useless. Perun does make a good case for older generations of tanks likely being not worth the cost to keep in inventory however. 3. Whatever its faults armor is still essential if you ever want to go on the offensive. If you need to gain territory or regain that which has been taken from you then the side with (properly deployed) armor will wipe the floor with the side that does not. Perun makes a very good case that mere possession of tanks is not enough and proper logistical and all-arms tactical support is essential to getting any sort of results for them and to justify the heavy capital costs of operating and keeping an armored corps.

[@alexturner1945]

Great plug for Perun... Papa Power Point would be proud 👊

[@elicurlee-strauss7339]

thanks Dan

[@geoffg8791]

"1 hour on the French Revolution" *Laughs in "Revolutions"*

[@TheRealDieYoung]

Thanks Dan 😃

[@TheKeatoncar]

Awesome listen

[@derik7505]

Oh, this is easy. King Arthur is the sun and the round table is the zodiacal wheel from which the twelve knights (constellations) are positioned. Case closed. Old story. Got some archetypal stuff thrown in there too

[@Feathermason]

'The Bedford Incident' always spooked me....'Dr.Strangelove' as well....doing school drills of hiding under yer desk freaked me out..

[@Eric-ot7en]

Richard Widmark,Sydney Poitier!

[@WebbiestZeus]

1:30 AM sleep will be postponed

[@deusvult5247]

Let’s add a couple more hours I guess 🤷‍♂️

[@WebbiestZeus]

@@deusvult5247I just finished it now lol

[@davidfinley8777]

Working title?

[@silencer1286]

I like this convo the only part I take issue with is the end about colonialism. There just seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. First of all colonialism is more then conquest. It’s the theft, rape, murder, subjugation, exploitation and replacement of a people and their land. The question of “well what about the Arab conquest of Egypt?” Well for starters Egypt hadn’t been an independent land, ruled by Egyptians since Alexander so it being passed from one imperial overlord to another isn’t much of a difference but even still any issues regarding that have long since been resolved. That was 1,400 years ago and it’s negative consequences have long since faded. It’s not relevant. On top of that even if there was still those consequences they have their own nation, they have their land and self determination in a way that indigenous peoples do not. As well indigenous people still exist today and still are deeply effected by colonialism. The last residential school closed in 1998. The big big issue is that indigenous people are still being oppressed today. In Canada for example many indigenous communities lack access to clean drinking water. My point is that these are not comparable and same goes for the other examples brought up like Gaul and Rome (two peoples who don’t even exist anymore) or the Aztecs.

[@markstruble5143]

I’m a Wikipedia surfer podcast listener not a real historian but have dug deep into people finding America before Columbus. In my opinion from science I’ve read seems for sure Vikings and Polynesians were here. Debatably Phoenicians and Egyptians maybe Asians like Chinese but not haven’t found much there but wonder what there boating tech was capable of but anyways wanted to say I stumbled upon people finding native Americans who spoke welsh, have found theories of place called devils mound or something like that in Kentucky near Cincinnati. Is it possible that during the reign of Camelot King Arthur or Allies achieved a boating technology capable of reaching America. If Vikings did it they maybe could to but would look into welsh speaking Native Americans is interesting

[@dylanpilcheruniverse6515]

Dans question what accounts for the military dominance of the Roman’s even theoretically over future opponents from a different time. There’s many factors that made them great. I wouldn’t underestimate the social wars. The italic wars. The Punic wars. Of course the Marian reforms. Everything Rome did to expand at the time and become the giant they became plays a factor.

[@alexbrint3798]

Hell yeah. I have Tom Holland's tranlation of Herodotus

[@bencampbell3250]

Awwww yeah dude keep it up

[@iphonewalkthroughs]

Typo in the Title Sounds like a Weird Al song

[@canofsoda]

that is a great comparison

[@nozrep]

it is an intentional typo because you say it altogether at the same time quickly and then you can see how the d in the and gets swallowed in the vocalization of it. So it is very intentional. I immediately caught it and found it quite humorous.

[@domhumungo]

Please do Florida next!!!

[@alexross394]

Dan Carlin? On my birthday? Today is a good day.

[@yj9032]

Rome was more urbanised than any mediaeval kingdom. There, I said it.

[@stormjensen1]

Thanks for yet another brilliant conversation. Algorithm engaging commenced.

[@willishness3748]

Heckin hell yeah, new hardcore

[@hodin333]

Awesome

[@Paladiesh]

What I want to add to the discussion about the tanks is this: a lot of the footage we see and stories we read from the current war in Ukraine cannot be taken at face value since both sides started out with strong and seemingly preheated propaganda materials. If the tank is so obsolete then why is Ukraine crying a bloody river asking the west for more tanks? I believe if tanks are used as a system with infantry cover armed with antidrone weaponry, among other things, they're absolutely devastating to light to mid defense lines and all other types of vehicles except for, maybe, other tanks. Most developments in modern military tech seem to have increased recognizance capabilities as well as accuracy of weapons, however at the end of the day you still have to put boots on the ground to claim the territory. And this war is a perfect example of that - Russia could bomb Ukraine into oblivion 10 times over, but that's not really the point of this war, now is it? So we circle back to infantry holding positions on the ground and the opposing side needing mobile artillery and tanks to crush the said opposing infantry. The big idea of a lot of western prewar analysis was that drones and well trained mobile squads would substitute all that, but seems to have been based on data gathered from fighting insurgents in the middle east, not a modern well equipped military.

[@stewartdalton3298]

Yep. Its like getting a massive fix of seratonin..... Was going to try and explain but I got lost in the conversation, Debate,forced theories. Certain voices overwhelm other people's views.

[@manzell]

I think there's an idea that intra-civilizational conflict is OK - it's OK for the Americans to go to war against Germany; but not against Vietnam. the Italians can fight the Greeks but not the Ethiopians. And of course, this all relies on a belief in Classical Racism, that the races we recognize today are in fact Civilizational Boundaries (all this to support the feeling that Black Americans are more African than American). That many people identify themselves as primarily members of globe-spanning civilizations of a billion or more people is probably pretty good by historical standards, but i think at some point in the future we'll really only acknowledge a single human civilization.

[@mikeus69]

Didn't know spiderman was so into history

[@killermonjero]

I'm hearing a lot of what T. H. White wrote in "The Once and Future King. " Might is right.

[@ermining1]

For those looking for part 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/r53WiIVjdr19oq8

[@redsierra8631]

thank you

[@steveswafen2528]

Thank you kindly for providing a link as hadn't heard about this podcast until now & wasn't sure if they were here or exclusively else where. Well now I know & look forward to giving these gents a sub & listen to past podcasts. Have an awesome day/evening 👍

[@MrDirtclodfight]

Gotta love it!

[@fritobelize6271]

Hello Dan, hope you are well...

[@juegangermanface7498]

its completely fascinating for an European how fixated Americans are on warfare...

[@ilKhan-Ghost-of-Clan-Mongoose]

we're the first. wooooow

[@guilhermesstrueb881]

It looks interesting, but it's a bit too anglocentric for me. There are already too many podcasts about English/british history.

[@aleinstein3223]

This was very cool. Thanks

[@kk89ize]

If Historical people believed that Arthur existed, who are modern historians to say he never existed? I don’t think medieval people would make castles and name their sons after a random myth. Just because something doesn’t seem plausible to us doesn’t mean it’s not true

[@daviddiaz529]

Putin doesn't look anything like Dr. EVIL but Klaus Schwab does.

[@nolebez6850]

After Rome....seems to me local myths left un-oppressed by the Roman bureaucracy and then the immense sense of longing for better times and the void of power that's getting filled....I don't think it's much a wonder that the Mid-evil World was populated by these King Arthur types. It's cool ect & so on But to me. It makes a good bit of sense that it happened

[@Feathermason]

...'The Mouse That Roared'

[@ryancummings5583]

What happened to the Reddit story where a platoon of marines got transported back into Ancient Greece or something. Maybe the Ottoman, like the 15th century. It was a dope thread that got optioned by some movie studio.

[@petorian343]

r/romesweetrome

[@klausgartenstiel4586]

saving humanity is a team effort, but sometimes to make an omelette, you have to break a tyrant's head.

[@gertrudlehmann4869]

Thank you, so interesting!

[@Fryed_Bryce]

It's going to be dangerous if Dan's jeans get any higher or any tighter👖

[@ChateauLRDS]

The Conquest of the Americas was only possible because of “germ warfare”, the invisible invader.

[@johnwray393]

I mean, is was going to happen either way. Definitely isn't only possible due to that.

[@jakesully2868]

Or maybe that they hadn't invented the wheel, or sailing, or armor...

[@furiousgeorge4114]

These dude's should hangout more often!

[@freedem41]

Where you have abuse and damage you cannot claim it is good unless the conqueror does less damage than what was before. As bad as the Spaniards were they had a lot of support from several tribes for whom the Aztecs were far worse, and even though they grew to hate the Spaniards also I don't think those of the generation that experienced the Aztecs would have preferred to have those folk back. In North America the issue is more ambiguous for a different reason, that the plagues brought early on (by Europeans but not when they were even aware of the groups that died) had reduced the populations so much that there were not enough warriors to resist and the tribes that did exist were very different than that of their grandparents. The horse particularly changed their culture even more than the plagues. So by that point the Americans were just a different tribe committing genocide on each other just before doing so to the tribes to the West. It is only slowly that democratic ideals have spread and are now receding that there was ever hope and while the ideas were better and worse the infection of empathy did not favor any group or nation, nor is it enduring in any of them. It is however, the only positive hope for society, or at this point even out species.

[@ScoundrelSFB]

Damn that went to fast. Absolutely phenomenal 👏🏿 👏🏿👏🏿

[@Supergforce777]

Dan I have to go to bed, what were you thinking?

[@ph00z00]

"exploititive" re colonisation.. new word to me

[@fritobelize6271]

Edger the Peaceful

[@danielmeissner4521]

I'm so happy 😁⚡😁⚡😁

[@NitroDubzzz]

Dan Carlin isn't doing shows about history anymore is he...

[@johnwray393]

Yes, they just take forever to make.

[@nozrep]

ummm so this show is a show about history, albeit alternative possibilities that never actually happened talking about them using the actual history as the jumping off point. Also yes, Dan Carlin has ALWAYS taken months at a time to release each new 2-4 hour long episode of Hardcore History proper. Previously a long time ago before Addendum, he had the Common Sense podcast concurrent to the Hardcore History podcast. He discontinued Common Sense because it was so full of common sense during the rise of the era of the marxist wokesters that it was becoming highly controversial and antithetical to the the rest of his primary goal of sharing history stories. However, you can still go back and find all of his Common Sense episodes from 10 years ago and longer ago.

[@nozrep]

nitro dubbz listening to a history podcast saying it’s not about history and also saying Carlin doesn’t make new history episodes anymore without himself going to the channel page and checking the historical releases of all the episodes months and years apart from each other. Lolz. Well hopefully he will educate himself on it and realize he is quite upon quite quite incorrect in his silly assumption.

[@yj9032]

1:12:47

[@TheVietnameseDevil]

Civ gang 😎

[@fghgkyuuyk6116]

The battle of Hastings was decided to be there cause of Williams late arrival. And the Saxons was doing well until one section charged the Normans. (so did Ceasars Legions in Spain). The Roman Legions losing to the Normans on better cavalry terrain is not unthinkable. they lost many battles. But Ceasar dident lose any. If Ceasar was commanding the Saxons, they would have won.

[@h32022]

Except Caesar *did* lose battles. He literally lost the battle of Dyrrhachium 😂 Don’t let admiration of past figures turn to hero worship. Caesar was no god and had his own host of flaws. If Caesar wasn’t so arrogant, his fellow senators wouldn’t have thought that he wanted to make himself a king. If he wasn’t so arrogant that he made his rivals plead for their lives when they were captured, they wouldn’t have held grudges against him and killed him on the ides of March. Appreciating historical figures is cool, but hero worship is revolting

[@fghgkyuuyk6116]

​@@h32022 "If they were lead by a winner, they would have won today" Ceasar. So Ceasar dident think he lost. I dont think he lost, if he did, what do you think he lost? Dyrrhachium? He dident have it before the entrenchments and skrimishes began.

[@hereforthecommentsection_11]

@@h32022 it was either plead for your life” and be thankful you’re even being given a chance” because normally they would just be executed…

[@Jamedia66]

Being the victim, and seeing oneself the victim are two entirely different things. The first being circumstantial, and the latter a form of self imposed idolatry. Gospel of Christ is that man is to Will his faith regardless of any and all circumstances. Faith is to cultivate, whilst lacking faith is to surrender to the victimhood of man’s innate order of subjugation. Yet when looking through the worldview lens(man’s world not God’s) of “oppressors vs oppressed”, this is not possible to understand. Man has always been perpetually misguided by the annals of perceived victimhood and his self justified malfeasances which have ensues in its “cause”. The truth is, that these two opposing factions are not categories of which men are the protagonists, and which are the antagonist, rather that these both exist and oscillate within each and every individual… Cultivation 🙏… or subjugation. God’s light… or man’s…

[@Thanos916]

32:14 Haha

[@PhantomGreyfire]

☕

[@pablopumarestaminiau7512]

People like to use Spanish conquistadors as a short-hand for brutal European colonialism, but it's a very poor example. Spain founded dozens of hospitals and colleges and universities throughout America for the benefit of the native population. How many schools or universities did the English set up in the Americas, for the benefit of the native population? Spain arrested Columbus for enslaving local tribesmen. Queen Isabel then granted the peoples the status of subject to the Spanish crown, given them essentially equal rights to Spanish subjects in Spain and Europe. Marriage between Spaniards and local women was recognised and even encouraged. How long did it take for interracial marriage to stop being taboo in North America? If England had done half of what Spain did back then it would have pinned all sorts of proto-humanitarian pins on itself.