History channels.

[saxdude]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I feel your pain my dude. I want tonnes of material on Middle Eastern history, Japanese history and Chinese history as well as anything else I can throw into the mix.
I also get totally triggered when I see Latin spelling of Greek and Persian names. Perikles not Pericles, Kyros (Kurosh in Persian) not Cyrus, Lysandros not Lysander etc etc.

Here are some channels you can all watch, let's start a revolution.

Knightsquire - a hilarious tuber who talks about knights and swords, he specializes in making fun of awful swordplay from shows and movies




Medieval Review - another of these Medieval Youtubers, he talks about weapons and armour and anything medieval, he also does sword reviews


Scholagladiatora - this guy is similar to the above but his thing is more melee combat in general since he does videos about ancient weapons, medieval weapons and modern era swords and the like


Knight Errant - as the name implies his thing is knights so weapons, armour and HEMA


Shadiversity - our boy here makes videos about everything apparently from fantasy to weapons, I think he is best known for his "what weapon would they use" where he has gone over things like wizards and centaurs among others


Lindybeige - he makes videos about whatever happens to be on his mind, judging by the scope he has a lot on his mind, he is in fact a historian and a trained actor and I swear I saw him on TV one time


Metatron - a YouTuber near and dear to my heart not only because we have the same name () but also because he speaks Japanese and is as big of a samurai fanatic as I am, his channel specializes in history and combat and speaks English, Italian and Latin as well he is a professor in Italy


EmperorTigerStar - our buddy here likes maps, lots and LOTS AND LOTS of MAPS (as an aside he once asked me to help him make a Sengoku Jidai map )


History Buffs - Jeremy's channel is all about reviewing historical films for their historical accuracy, think of a historical movie and chances are he has done it, History Channel even got him to do a Vikings podcast and took him to Ireland to meet the cast


C&Rsenal - Othais and his friends talk about historical weaponry and put it to use, I really find their small arms history to be fascinating (mostly the Franco-Prussian War and WW1)


Forgotten Weapons - GUNS GUNS GUNS! What are you looking for? Austro-Prussian War? WW1? WW2? Vietnam War!? Ian probably has it.


InRangeTV - more guns more Ian, mostly he and his friend put these weapons to the test including assault rifles


Skallagrim - end him rightly, what more can I say?

They are all nice and good until they venture out of their areas of knowledge and produce truly cringe inducing works themselves, which are then taken as fact because they've garnered so much good faith. Skallagrim and Lindybeige come to mind, though to be fair neither of them are particularly egregious, especially Skalla (though his video on the viking settling of vinland is the one I'm thinking of).

Schola is easily the most palatable for me.

Maybe TWC should make it's own youtube videos haha.

[Roma_Victrix]

Maybe TWC should make it's own youtube videos haha.

To be honest they are already halfway there considering how the major mods here have their own Youtube videos promoting them and showcasing their content. Europa Barbarorum II comes to mind, if not Third Age Total War and Stainless Steel.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

A lot of those guys I didn't post because of their historical videos but because of their historical bent on things like weaponry. That in itself is history but you understand my point I think.
Other than that I don't really have any YouTube channels that focus on the history itself. A lot of the people on TWC and other places like Historum, Scholars of Shen Zhou, Samurai Archives etc could produce their own content.

Anyway I'm not sure what specific errors have been made because I don't watch all of these channels that often. It is something I watch from time to time.

In other news I saw the Onin War video from BazBattles. Yeah it was decent but there wasn't too much detail about the operations themselves. Not that there were a lot of battles or anything in this conflict but more detail would have been nice.

Meanwhile I saw two more of Kings and Generals' Napoleonic Wars videos. The problems I pointed out already still persist. No appreciation for the incredibly complex operations carried out during the war and instead an anachronistic focus on single engagements. Lack of details as these campaigns, for instance they do not label Corps or Divisions or who commanded them. No real look into how Napoleon advanced on Vienna in their Austerlitz video, the advance on Vienna itself a complex operation. The insistence that Austerlitz was the game changer in the war when in fact Massena had already pushed into Graz and forced Archduke Charles into Hungary and Napoleon had taken Vienna and then advanced into Moravia, defeating two entire Austrian armies in the process and forcing another Russian army to retreat to Austerlitz in the first place. Strange errors such as Napoleon attempting to gain naval supremacy even though this was something he had given up in 1804. An awkward statement that Napoleon becoming Emperor of France forced various states to form a coalition when in fact Sweden was a "natural French ally", but feared the tide of Revolution, and the king of Naples was actually favourable towards Napoleon, but was pressured into making war by his ministers and nobles. Part of the reason for changing France into a monarchy was the implication that if France could be seen as a monarchy again it would dissuade the other kingdoms and empires from seeing France as a threat to their status as monarchies, since the Revolution was in effect ended when Napoleon seized power in 1799 and ended many aspects that were created through the Revolution. It backfired and this later shifted to a personal dislike of Napoleon rather than the French state.

In the Trafalgar video they state that Nelson was made commander of the Royal Navy, when in fact he was given command of a fleet and was a subordinate, he wasn't even a full admiral when he was killed.

[athanaric]

They are all nice and good until they venture out of their areas of knowledge and produce truly cringe inducing works themselves, which are then taken as fact because they've garnered so much good faith. Skallagrim and Lindybeige come to mind, though to be fair neither of them are particularly egregious,

Well, they're only human after all. That's why it's a good thing that there's several such channels and they can correct each other if the situation requires it. Plus, they are open to feedback in my experience.

especially Skalla (though his video on the viking settling of vinland is the one I'm thinking of).

Maybe a bit off topic (but we could just adjust the topic to make it about "historical channels on youtube" if that's OK with the OP), but what are your gripes there? Haven't watched that. I generally like him but his accent takes some getting used to.

Schola is easily the most palatable for me.

His is one of the few video channels, perhaps the only one, that I can recommend without reservations when it comes to topics covered by his area of expertise. Plus, he'll teach you everything you want to know about size, penetration, and butts.

[Knight of Heaven]

The aljubarrota video wasn't bad. Some misspelled names, but that is to be expected.

[Roma_Victrix]

Maybe a bit off topic (but we could just adjust the topic to make it about "historical channels on youtube" if that's OK with the OP)

NO!



Nah, just kidding. You can talk about other Youtube channels so long as they are related to history and historical documentaries. You get a bonus if you compare it to the Kings and Generals channel.

His is one of the few video channels, perhaps the only one, that I can recommend without reservations when it comes to topics covered by his area of expertise. Plus, he'll teach you everything you want to know about size, penetration, and butts.

Mike Easton (from Schola Gladiatora) likes blunt, offensive butts and he cannot lie. Other HEMA brothers can't deny. When a girl walks in with an itty-bitty waist and a rapier in your face, you get sprung!

Mike Easton don't want none unless you got tactics, hon!

The aljubarrota video wasn't bad. Some misspelled names, but that is to be expected.

It was factually correct and decent because it was done by BazBattles, not the Kings and Generals channel.

[Knight of Heaven]

It was factually correct and decent because it was done by BazBattles, not the Kings and Generals channel.

Btw about the legend of the baker of Aljubarrota.


https://mysticalportugal.wordpress.c...f-aljubarrota/


Its a good read, quite entertaining. And quite a woman.!! I bet she ended up training with the Faceless Man in her adventures although she seems more of a Brianne of Tarth as physicality is concerned..

In order to earn some money, she started using her knowledge at fairs by battling men. Well, this story caught the eye of a soldier, who set her a challenge: if the soldier won, Brites would marry him. If he lost, she could kill him.
Which is just what happened…

[Roma_Victrix]

Btw about the legend of the baker of Aljubarrota.


https://mysticalportugal.wordpress.c...f-aljubarrota/


Its a good read, quite entertaining. And quite a woman.!! I bet she ended up training with the Faceless Man in her adventures although she seems more of a Brianne of Tarth as physicality is concerned..

Hah! That's a bad way to go, hombre. The concerned look on those Spanish soldiers' faces says it all!

On another note, this video from BazBattles about Alexander's siege of Tyre is awesome:

[Ilkin1987]

Hey, guys!

First of all thanks for sharing - that really helps. I don't know why, but whenever Youtube algorithm sees that videos are shared on a new resource, it starts suggesting the videos to more people within the platform.

Secondly, I read all of your criticism. Some of it is a bit too harsh; most is on point. We will try to think about everything posted here and improve upon it. I have been a lurker on the TWCenter for more than a decade, so your opinion is important for me.

Making no excuses, but it is a bit different when you are on the other side of things. Mistakes are made, pronunciation is botched, some info is cut to improve the pacing of the story. If you are a fan of history, I highly recommend setting up a channel. Maybe, I can give a few pointers. Just send us an e-mail at info@kingsandgenerals.net. Same goes to any criticism or a partnership offer - we always try to answer every letter, every comment on youtube and every post.

Thank you.

[Roma_Victrix]

Hey, guys!

First of all thanks for sharing - that really helps. I don't know why, but whenever Youtube algorithm sees that videos are shared on a new resource, it starts suggesting the videos to more people within the platform.

Secondly, I read all of your criticism. Some of it is a bit too harsh; most is on point. We will try to think about everything posted here and improve upon it. I have been a lurker on the TWCenter for more than a decade, so your opinion is important for me.

Making no excuses, but it is a bit different when you are on the other side of things. Mistakes are made, pronunciation is botched, some info is cut to improve the pacing of the story. If you are a fan of history, I highly recommend setting up a channel. Maybe, I can give a few pointers. Just send us an e-mail at info@kingsandgenerals.net. Same goes to any criticism or a partnership offer - we always try to answer every letter, every comment on youtube and every post.

Thank you.

^ So this just happened.

Thanks for the reply, something I was most certainly not expecting, since most successful Youtube channels would readily assume they are above the mudslinging of proletariat commentators frequenting online gaming/history forums. It's perhaps a testament to the sheer power and unbridled authority of TWC on such matters.

Again, for sake of clarity I will reiterate my position that I think the production qualities in your videos are pretty fantastic, even if they seem to comically borrow a bit too much of the overall graphical style of the campaign map in the TW game Rome II. The narrators you have seem decent enough, albeit their research into proper pronunciation of non-English names is not on par with the Youtube channel BazBattles, your older, more established rival. You guys are clearly capable of doing research and nailing certain facts, but you should probably heed the biggest criticism Oda Nobunaga shared above about missing the bigger picture, providing unnecessary levels of exposition while focusing too much on single engagements instead of the grander strategies being employed. For that you'd need an actual seasoned historian to offer guidance on how to interpret major conflicts. It's perhaps tempting to just do some preliminary research and spit out a video as quickly as possible, which will please amateur history buffs lacking background knowledge about the subject as well as your sponsors at Patreon (if you have some sort of quota system for the amount of content you should produce). However, clearly it isn't going to please the more academically-inclined, like Oda or Cyclops here.

Or perhaps they're just a small minority with niche concerns you can just ignore, since you have hundreds of thousands of views already and you've got that $$$ from Patreon anyway.

In the Trafalgar video they state that Nelson was made commander of the Royal Navy, when in fact he was given command of a fleet and was a subordinate, he wasn't even a full admiral when he was killed.

I guess him being a Vice Admiral of the White is good enough for me!

In that case, the Joseon Dynasty's Yi Sun-Sin, the Korean admiral of the Imjin War with Japan hailed as the equivalent of Horatio Nelson in East Asia, was a more superior officer in his own navy than Nelson was in his. Take that, perfidious Albion!

[Knight of Heaven]

Well the pronunciation of non English names will always be a problem is some cases. It is not something i get stuck too much. I mean it isn't as important as the historical facts imo.

If i can suffer Bad pronunciation of Portuguese names by British Football narrators, i can do it too in Historical documentaries. Well with in reason anyway. The ão in João and such is always a challenge for non speaking Portuguese. ( even to Spanish speakers).

Making no excuses, but it is a bit different when you are on the other side of things.

I can imagine. There will always be positives and negatives, my only wish is for you guys try to improve with each video.

Its nice and entertaining that we have videos like this after all.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Hey, guys!

First of all thanks for sharing - that really helps. I don't know why, but whenever Youtube algorithm sees that videos are shared on a new resource, it starts suggesting the videos to more people within the platform.

Secondly, I read all of your criticism. Some of it is a bit too harsh; most is on point. We will try to think about everything posted here and improve upon it. I have been a lurker on the TWCenter for more than a decade, so your opinion is important for me.

Making no excuses, but it is a bit different when you are on the other side of things. Mistakes are made, pronunciation is botched, some info is cut to improve the pacing of the story. If you are a fan of history, I highly recommend setting up a channel. Maybe, I can give a few pointers. Just send us an e-mail at info@kingsandgenerals.net. Same goes to any criticism or a partnership offer - we always try to answer every letter, every comment on youtube and every post.

Thank you.

I knew this would happen.
I enjoyed bashing the Napoleonic Wars videos. In my defense I have been subbed to your channel since the start and have recommended your videos. I would rather watch your videos than the factually inaccurate Extra Credit or the mediocre Vlog brothers anyway. I also don't care about pronunciation since that is an honest mistake that anyone can make, English speakers and non-English speakers alike.

If you ever need help or someone to look over your work you can ask me since I don't mind.

As a word of advice you should always keep the scope of your videos more contained. For instance in the Marengo video I thought there was too much exposition about the previous war. Anyway best of luck since I actually did enjoy the videos in spite of the criticism.

Speaking of Extra Credit

Who did it best?



or

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-Rise-to-Power

[saxdude]

To be honest they are already halfway there considering how the major mods here have their own Youtube videos promoting them and showcasing their content. Europa Barbarorum II comes to mind, if not Third Age Total War and Stainless Steel.

I had in mind more a VV produced series, it being an open channel and having enough political variety that it wouldn't get bogged down by certain views. It'd probably be a massive hassle though, lol.

Well, they're only human after all. That's why it's a good thing that there's several such channels and they can correct each other if the situation requires it. Plus, they are open to feedback in my experience.

Yeah fair enough, I appreciate when they openly acknowledge lack of knowledge in an area, it's rarely ever stubborn or malicious which is why I can follow guys like Skallagrim and Schola knowing that if called out will always respond with humility and genuine interest. It's just a point that is relevant to make.

Maybe a bit off topic (but we could just adjust the topic to make it about "historical channels on youtube" if that's OK with the OP), but what are your gripes there? Haven't watched that. I generally like him but his accent takes some getting used to.

Really? What with you being german I thought his swedish accent (¿?) felt closer to home, or maybe the fact that it's swedish is precisly the issue

Anyway, I've made the points before, and I've considered making a thread discussing mesoamericans and such. Generally his video was about why the vikings didn't expand and succeed the way spaniards did in the Americas. It's been a while since I've seen the video but the conclusions, based entirely on GG&S which is a book I have many problems with are the following (If I recall correctly, I might be wrong but I remember the general premise):
1) Neither the viking colonies nor the indigenous settlements were populous enough for disease to spread the way it did
2) Vikings were not as technologically advanced relative to the natives of vinland, compared to the Aztecs/Spaniards.
3) Viking culture was not imperialistic. At least not in the same way Spain was.


My issue with his points (which were really Niel Diamonds points) are as follows:
1) Disease didn't spread like wildfire, it spread locally and regionally, almost exclusively in reaction to spanish colonial practices and presence. Spaniards arriving to a postapocalyptic America is a myth. The comment about population sizes in eastern north america is mostly true, but it also helped that vikings didn't go out of their way to screw over the natives.
2) Technology played a minor role in the conquest of the Americas. Armor and cannons as formation disrupters certainly kept the spaniards alive in situations where they most certainly would have suffered heavier losses, but in all, cannons were adapted against, and native armor was every bit as effective (slightly less so). I think Skalla makes the point about horses, but horses provided the single largest advantage over first encountered natives. Had the vikings been armed similar to the spaniards the results would have likely been the same to their historical counterparts.
3) Spanish sucesses predicated almost entirely on native troops and the exploitation of native political structures. Unlike the vikings, the spaniards stumbled into a mosaic of cut throat polities within a largely hegemonic system, each polity was fiercely patriotic, had it's own army, and whilst subjugated by the Aztec empire, was still largely independant. Alliance with the spaniards was not the product of a revolt against a percieved unjust regime, but the political machinations of polities trying to get a leg up against their rivals, the early colonial period was thus seen as an extention of aztec imperial policies, and most of what had been the aztec empire was then conquered in much the same way the aztec empire had been initially conquered.
Regarding troops, every single spanish expedition was accompanied by native troops numbering 3-1 at minimum. They formed the vanguard of the army and a large number of casualties were sustained every campaign (which might be kept in mind when numbering the relatively little spanish losses). To my memory there were only ever 3 expeditions into mesoamerica without native troops (or with exceedingly few), all three into Yucatan, all three by the same guy and his son (Francisco de Montejo), and all three unsuccesful.

The vikings in contrast, had none of that. Even if they had, they largely didn't have the same expansionistic ambitions the spaniards did. If the vikings had arrived to mesoamerica, it strikes me that the result would have been largely what the Mesoamericans had hoped for with the spaniards, a mercenary force that served to further the political ambitions of a polity.



Fun fact* Mayan and Nahua troops were present in the Andes and the Philipines.

His is one of the few video channels, perhaps the only one, that I can recommend without reservations when it comes to topics covered by his area of expertise. Plus, he'll teach you everything you want to know about size, penetration, and butts.

Yum.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Two YouTubers I really don't like. The Vlog Brothers and Extra Credit really trigger me.

The Vlog Brothers are so general with their information that it would kill you if you saw a detail somewhere. In one video that got trashed and then removed, they actually said that Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel was racist. This is despite the fact that Jared Diamond rejects the premise of racial difference and instead chooses to focus on the concept of resource availability resulting in cultural differences. Another example is that in their WW2 video they said that the scarcity of resources played a role in the outbreak of WW2 by expansionist powers, in particular a desire for agriculture... did Japan conquer China for farming? Really!? What a suggestion, considering that the Japanese stated goal was control of the Chinese market which accounted for 70% of Japanese goods, that is to say that Japan's market was bigger in China than in their own territories. The other reason was because Japan wanted to control the mainland in order to defend the archipelago as part of a long term strategy.

Extra Credit, well watch the Oda Nobunaga video I posted. They had less information for the entirety of 1550-1560 than even the Wikipedia page or the Samurai Archives. They spent 10 minutes saying absolutely nothing. Also god damn it that squeaky voice is so annoying.

[Marvzilla]

Even guys who are experts like Matt make mistakes, for example his point about early Sabers. He is a great source for a lot of stuff and I am long subscribed to his channel.

[Cyclops]

... I read all of your criticism. Some of it is a bit too harsh; most is on point. We will try to think about everything posted here and improve upon it. I have been a lurker on the TWCenter for more than a decade, so your opinion is important for me. Making no excuses, but it is a bit different when you are on the other side of things....
Thank you.

Thanks for responding.

I take your point, it was reinforced for me in the last few weeks. My 3 year old son is asking "why?" a lot recently, including some tricky questions about pregnancy, the difference between male and female anatomy etc. so I've been explaining a lot to an uninformed audience. The temptation to simplify is enormous, but if I build lies into his world view I think I will weaken his intelligence. There's also a temptation to make jokes, eg "we poo in the toilet so the poo can go to the poo party haha! No not on the floor!" luckily I explained that the poo party was a joke and our waste is reprocessed as fertilizer, but I still got a few rounds of questions about the poo party OMG why did I say that?

I've also spent time with a very clever nephew of mine, he's about 11 and interested in history, and asks a heap of questions. "Why did Hitler attack Russia" was a doozy, I had to balance what an 11 year old can digest with "not telling lies" which I value highly. The short answer was "because he promised to", the long answer included a discursis on the morale sapping effect of having line infantry commit atrocities. I tried to explain about Stalin's paranoia about a German Wallied invasion, but that would have brought in the anti-Soviet war in 1919-1920, and where would I stop? Its really hard to decide the scope of a story.

So in a small way I am trying to grasp your difficulties of working in a short format information service, with an audience of ungauged knowledge, presenting interesting material. I should have tempered my criticism by saying great effort on the video, it looks good and you make a complex subject relatively digestable. I have picked a few points, and insufficiently emphasised the point that your video will serve as a point to stimulate further research. I understand you can't compress the history of the Iron Age Near east into 10 minutes so stuff will get left out.

You've made a number of interesting videos and I've made none, and I am grateful you take criticism in this way (and have taken the time to respond) rather than saying "STFU noob" which would be an understandable response. I lack the skills and time to make my own videos, and aside from potshots on this forum I can't really assist with fact checking. Also you have a nicer speaking voice than mine.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

To be honest most historical documentaries were probably popular back in the 1990s and early 2000s. Now there's not much content on history being made - I mean Knightfall and Vikings are the only saving grace of watching anything historical even though it's fiction.

I want to learn about Mesopatamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Assyria, Ancient Persia . I'd def love to know more about Indian history - Particularly the Chola Empire that ruled most of South-East Asia, the Marathas, the Aztecs and the Mayans, the Olmecs and the Toltecs, the Zapotecs.

There are so many periods of history that could be turned into entertaining TV shows but no one wants to do it.

I don't want a damn 90s documentary telling me with outdated graphics about how things worked.

I'd def love to know more about Hindu Empires, Vietnamese Empires, Chinese Empires or something of the sort. But most historical documentaries just get cut up for entertainment purposes and are edited so much that it's like there's nothing fresh on it.

Sure the youtube channels do a good job but they're already picking over the glossed over battles time and time and time and time and time and time again. I mean why isn't there so much of a detailed study on the battles of the Three Kingdoms, the battles of Emperor Ashoka and Emperor Chandragupata etc. Bronze Age Battles anyone?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

For most of the subjects you mentioned one would need to understand the language that the sources were written in. Actually a lot of Egyptian and Mesopotamian history was covered decades ago when the cuneiform tablets and hieroglyphs were translated and published. As a result there are few stones left unturned and most Egyptian and Mesopotamian studies are unavailable due to having far too many people as it is or being an exclusive club, so at this point it is mostly a circle jerk within academics. Egyptology is very competitive for that reason since everyone has to justify their presence but very few discoveries are made anymore.

Persian history never really caught on both due to a lack of native sources, since most of what is known about Persia actually comes from the Greeks and Romans, though in recent times the subject cannot gain traction due to how politicized Persian history has been in the past century. In addition to that gaining access to Iran is extremely hard for Westerners so I'm afraid that Herodotus will have to suffice.

South East Asia has similar problems though when it comes to simple historiography a total lack of sources becomes an issue. Not to mention that those languages are very hard to learn.

Indian history is dominated by Indians and they don't like Westerners poking their noses in their history and coming up with their own "colonialist" interpretations. Essentially much Indian history as written by Indians has become "we wuz Rajas n " and has been used as a political tool to justify the existence of the Indian state. It has actually become so politicized that there is even a small counter movement formed by Indian historians themselves to set the record straight, although many of them are seen as partisans. Though the crucial problem with Indian history is that the actual sources are almost non-existent before a certain point. We probably have more written about the Maurya Empire from the Greeks than from the Indians themselves.

China, Korea and Japan are actually subjects that have picked up more traction in the past 30 or so years. More sources become available, more historians are going to East Asia, more Asian historians are coming to the West and more works are being published. That said China is very particular about what is published and said within China and much of their history is politicized by the ruling party whenever it is convenient. One topic becomes popular and then gets dropped in favour of something else. I remember when the Qin Dynasty was popular, these days it is the Three Kingdoms and I suspect that eventually it will be replaced by the Tang Dynasty or perhaps due to the internet a rising interest in the Kuomintang and WW2.

The only history which has been constant are the Ming and Qing periods. History after the Qing Dynasty is almost non-existent in China. The Chinese are also uncomfortable when it comes to Westerners digging through their history and again the issue of a "colonialist" perspective is a complaint. A lot of historians end up going to Taiwan to conduct their research instead of China.

The Chinese also like to monopolize their history so they don't tend to bring in outside perspectives and they don't discuss recent findings with Westerners very often. For example a paper or book is typically not translated to Chinese and when it is then it usually only happens after about a decade and by then it is usually considered outdated or incorrect. When it comes to papers these are usually managed by institutions, who also are somewhat regulated by the government. Books on the other hand are rarely digitized, printed in paper back for mass consumption and so someone who is inexperienced will have trouble tracking them down because there are just so many different books.

Japan and Korea have similar issues of being very insular and are also sensitive with regards to politicizing of history. One would have a hard time with the subject of ancient Japanese and Korean relations for that reason, or even the more recent history such as WW2. I mean heck, until recently the subject of the Imjin War was very taboo and even Western historians could be seen to have biases depending on which country they specialized in (Turnbull is for team Japan, Hawley is for Korea and Swope is on the Chinese side).

[The Wandering Storyteller]

For most of the subjects you mentioned one would need to understand the language that the sources were written in. Actually a lot of Egyptian and Mesopotamian history was covered decades ago when the cuneiform tablets and hieroglyphs were translated and published. As a result there are few stones left unturned and most Egyptian and Mesopotamian studies are unavailable due to having far too many people as it is or being an exclusive club, so at this point it is mostly a circle jerk within academics. Egyptology is very competitive for that reason since everyone has to justify their presence but very few discoveries are made anymore.

Persian history never really caught on both due to a lack of native sources, since most of what is known about Persia actually comes from the Greeks and Romans, though in recent times the subject cannot gain traction due to how politicized Persian history has been in the past century. In addition to that gaining access to Iran is extremely hard for Westerners so I'm afraid that Herodotus will have to suffice.

South East Asia has similar problems though when it comes to simple historiography a total lack of sources becomes an issue. Not to mention that those languages are very hard to learn.

Indian history is dominated by Indians and they don't like Westerners poking their noses in their history and coming up with their own "colonialist" interpretations. Essentially much Indian history as written by Indians has become "we wuz Rajas n " and has been used as a political tool to justify the existence of the Indian state. It has actually become so politicized that there is even a small counter movement formed by Indian historians themselves to set the record straight, although many of them are seen as partisans. Though the crucial problem with Indian history is that the actual sources are almost non-existent before a certain point. We probably have more written about the Maurya Empire from the Greeks than from the Indians themselves.

China, Korea and Japan are actually subjects that have picked up more traction in the past 30 or so years. More sources become available, more historians are going to East Asia, more Asian historians are coming to the West and more works are being published. That said China is very particular about what is published and said within China and much of their history is politicized by the ruling party whenever it is convenient. One topic becomes popular and then gets dropped in favour of something else. I remember when the Qin Dynasty was popular, these days it is the Three Kingdoms and I suspect that eventually it will be replaced by the Tang Dynasty or perhaps due to the internet a rising interest in the Kuomintang and WW2.

The only history which has been constant are the Ming and Qing periods. History after the Qing Dynasty is almost non-existent in China. The Chinese are also uncomfortable when it comes to Westerners digging through their history and again the issue of a "colonialist" perspective is a complaint. A lot of historians end up going to Taiwan to conduct their research instead of China.

The Chinese also like to monopolize their history so they don't tend to bring in outside perspectives and they don't discuss recent findings with Westerners very often. For example a paper or book is typically not translated to Chinese and when it is then it usually only happens after about a decade and by then it is usually considered outdated or incorrect. When it comes to papers these are usually managed by institutions, who also are somewhat regulated by the government. Books on the other hand are rarely digitized, printed in paper back for mass consumption and so someone who is inexperienced will have trouble tracking them down because there are just so many different books.

Japan and Korea have similar issues of being very insular and are also sensitive with regards to politicizing of history. One would have a hard time with the subject of ancient Japanese and Korean relations for that reason, or even the more recent history such as WW2. I mean heck, until recently the subject of the Imjin War was very taboo and even Western historians could be seen to have biases depending on which country they specialized in (Turnbull is for team Japan, Hawley is for Korea and Swope is on the Chinese side).

Thanks Oda!

[Roma_Victrix]

Persian history never really caught on both due to a lack of native sources, since most of what is known about Persia actually comes from the Greeks and Romans, though in recent times the subject cannot gain traction due to how politicized Persian history has been in the past century. In addition to that gaining access to Iran is extremely hard for Westerners so I'm afraid that Herodotus will have to suffice.

Great post overall, but I'd like to add to this part about Persian history and historiography.

For the sake of clarity and others here who might not know, I'll mention a few historiographic traditions that far predate the Persian one. Aside from earlier simple annals/chronicles/king lists arranged in strict chronological format (also maintained by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, and many other civilizations), the true historiographic tradition in the West/ancient Greece obviously dates back to the histories of Herodotus and Thucydides in the 5th century BC. For the Romans it can be said to begin with Quintus Fabius Pictor in the 3rd century BC, although he was more aligned with the annalist tradition and Cato the Elder (234–149 BC) wrote the first Roman history in Latin (followed by Lucius Coelius Antipater, Sallust, and Livy). For the Chinese the historiographic tradition stems from Sima Tan and his son Sima Qian, who wrote the Shiji (Records of the Grand Historian) in the 2nd century BC, finalizing it in 94 BC towards the end of Emperor Wu's reign.

Much like Hindu India, however, the Persians were far behind the Greeks, Romans, and Chinese in establishing a historiographic tradition. For that matter, they lagged behind even the early Christian historiography and ecclesiastic historiography stemming from Eusebius in the Eastern Roman Empire. This historiographic tradition later spread to Christian countries like Axumite Ethiopia, although the Ethiopians of that period still wrote terse chronicles and not the full histories and royal biographies that would come about in the late 13th and 14th centuries during the early Solomonic period. The medieval Armenians were in a similar boat, developing their historiography through the context of the established modes of Christian historiography and worldviews (e.g. Stepanos Asoghik and Matthew of Edessa). The Persians, on the other hand, did not have formal written histories until the late Sasanian period, with the Khwaday-Namag commissioned by Yazdegerd III (r. 632–651 AD). The problem here, however, is that this text is completely lost! We can now only speculate how it influenced later Persian historiography after the Muslim conquest by the Umayyads. We assume that it served as one of the chief primary sources for Ferdowsi's Shahnameh.

The problem becomes even more pronounced for the Parthian period between the Seleucid and Sasanian eras. The history of the Parthian Empire has been largely reconstructed through Greco-Roman histories and even Chinese histories. The reign of kings has been validated by the numismatic discoveries of various coins in and around the Middle East dating to the time period and featuring the reigning monarch of the day. Although not many of them have survived, the Parthians left all kinds of records on ostraca, papyri, parchment, and even stone with chiseled inscriptions. These texts range from astronomical treatises to mundane storage lists of wine and other goods. Other documents discovered include stuff like provincial taxation information, accounting, and management issues they dealt with, while others contain vital info on the military, such as lists of titles and officers.

Although relatively speaking we don't know very much about the Seleucids, they are at least better understood than the subsequent Parthians, largely because the Seleucids were Hellenistic Greeks and successors to Alexander's empire. They also served as a convenient foil for the rise of the Roman Republic in the Eastern Mediterranean following the meteoric rise and fall of Antiochus III the Great. Unfortunately this attention given to the Seleucids by Greek and Roman historians did not extend to the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, the ending of which by the nomadic Yuezhi (who founded the Kushan Empire) had to be pieced together by using Chinese histories (namely the Shiji). The Achaemenid Persians who invaded Classical-era Greece are given a prominent place in Greek historiography, hence the reason why we understand so much more about them than the Parthians. The Achaemenids also clearly demonstrated that they wanted information on their rulers to be preserved for posterity judging by their rock inscriptions and mausoleums for their kings. This was a tradition carried on by the Sasanians, who continued the Achaemenid rock-carving art and royal inscriptions at Naqsh-e Rustam.