History channels.

[Abdülmecid I]

Although I am not familiar with every channel, my general impression is that they are fine, as long as you are either totally clueless or only have a superficial knowledge about the subject in question. For example, the issue of Kings and Generals is that the team cannot possibly cover the topic in a detailed and exhaustive manner. Their interpretation often tends to be quite simplistic, because a lot of their time is dedicated to describe the background of the events, while their explanation is also heavily vulgarised, in order to be more easily digested and understood by their audience. As a result, thanks to my total ignorance of Chinese history, I didn't particularly object to their presentation of the Cao Cao's struggle against Yuan Chao, despite the obvious mistakes already mentioned by Oda and co, but I was actually frustrated a bit, when they commented on Napoleonic warfare or Alexander's life. The Great War excelled, because the professionalism of their team and their weekly episodes allowed them to regularly produce qualitative content, which analysed the events in depth, according to the observations of the most recent bibliography, although many omissions still existed, especially in what concerned the somewhat neglected fronts of the war, for which not many English articles have been published.

Regarding Great War and WW2...I'm disappointed that Indy jumped ship and started his own thing with a handful of the producers. I liked his relationship with the Great War team, and I'm worried their jumping directly into world war 2 rather than waiting a year to build up support and such (and even waiting for the 80th anniversary) might hurt them in the long run.

Yeah, I completely agree. In my opinion, Indy dropped the ball in this case. I understand his need to start a new channel, whose prosperous future is guaranteed, thanks to his positive reputation in the Great War channel and the immense popularity of WWII, but patience is a virtue. The aftermath episodes of WWI would help maintain his image and would possibly even increase his followers and the potential fanbase for his WWII project, not to mention that 2019 would function as a much smoother anniversary than 2018. As a consequence of his abrupt departure, the Great War is currently in a hopefully temporary hiatus and I suspect that he didn't leave in the best of terms. Moreover, I believe he needed more time to organise the WWII channel, whose reliability is, for now at least, not up to the standards of its predecessor. To be honest, I have the impression that he's a bit too melodramatic sometimes and his descriptions feel a bit partial, presumably due to the fact that the majority of his sources ascribe to a specific historiographic movement. It's too early to judge, but I am really curious about how future controversial events will be described and interpreted.

[athanaric]

Although I am not familiar with every channel, my general impression is that they are fine, as long as you are either totally clueless or only have a superficial knowledge about the subject in question. For example, the issue of Kings and Generals is that the team cannot possibly cover the topic in a detailed and exhaustive manner. Their interpretation often tends to be quite simplistic, because a lot of their time is dedicated to describe the background of the events, while their explanation is also heavily vulgarised, in order to be more easily digested and understood by their audience.

I recently looked into a video of Kings and Generals (IIRC) about Iranian Empires and was a bit taken aback when they mentioned the "Aryan Invasion" and showed graphical clues that indicated an invasion coming from India. I would think that anyone who's done even the most basic research in Indo-Iranian history should be familiar with the Pontic/Central Asian origins of IE cultures and the Aryans in particular (unless you're in denial, like some Indian ultra-nationalists are. But somehow I don't think the team of that channel belong to the latter category).

[Commissar Caligula_]

Dan Carlin's podcasts are also pretty good. Not many of them are on Youtube though. https://www.youtube.com/user/dancarl...able_polymer=1

Sure they're not amazingly historically accurate, but they're better than nothing if you just want to dive into something that otherwise you'd never learn about.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

anyone who's done even the most basic research in Indo-Iranian history should be familiar

I don't think that most people who will be watching short YouTube videos have done basic research about anything. You mentioned IE cultures, do people even know what those are?
Videos talking about sequences of battles are fine, but if they veer into internal politics and economics it's best to take it with a shovel of salt.

[Love Mountain]

I don't think that most people who will be watching short YouTube videos have done basic research about anything. You mentioned IE cultures, do people even know what those are?
Videos talking about sequences of battles are fine, but if they veer into internal politics and economics it's best to take it with a shovel of salt.

It depends on the channels. Economic history is an incredibly tough field. For example, the study of Roman economics is a fairly well-known one, yet it is incredibly contentious. This is due to a lack of consensus on both economics and history. A mainstream economist will have a vastly different interpretation of Roman economic history from a classical economist. Et cetera. Quality of videos will also depend on what history they are covering it. The Roman Empire is fairly easy, covering the origin of Ukraine? Good luck. I don't think we will ever have an impartial and objective overview of that particular subject.

[Basileos Leandros I]

Thing is, with The Great War channel, they had to continue the project otherwise it would have been lost revenue and a lot of unhappy fans. And so they did continue - but also jumped ship immediately to WW2 to keep the momentum going.

[Love Mountain]

Thing is, with The Great War channel, they had to continue the project otherwise it would have been lost revenue and a lot of unhappy fans. And so they did continue - but also jumped ship immediately to WW2 to keep the momentum going.

I am skeptical. They gained a lot of credibility and publicity. There are a ton of revenue options for people who have accomplished as much as they have. If they didnt want to do a patreon thing, they couldve done a kickstarter. They could have found sponsors. They could have signed with a producer or a media company. There’s a ton of stuff they could’ve done.

I think they rushed the project and they wouldve been served better by exploring more options and waiting longer for quality control. I don’t know their financials so these things are hard to judge, but Im very sure that they had a lot of opportunity.

[Basileos Leandros I]

YouTube doesn't pay that much any more, that's the core issue at hand. And while Patreon was a significant source of income and generating over 10.000 USD / month in total, it's not a big sum compared to all of the work they have put in at T Great War. I think most of them are paid in royalties rather than salary / bonuses.

[athanaric]

I don't think that most people who will be watching short YouTube videos have done basic research about anything. You mentioned IE cultures, do people even know what those are?
Videos talking about sequences of battles are fine, but if they veer into internal politics and economics it's best to take it with a shovel of salt.

But my point is, I would expect the history enthusiasts who make these videos to do some basic research. Particularly in a video that addresses socio-economic, cultural, and political issues. It doesn't even have to be wizard level - I mean, I'm not some sperg who gets triggered when someone doesn't know minute details about Alexander the Great's biography (or some other sperg fetish) or something. But stuff that can be immediately looked up on Wikipedia and numerous other sites should be easy to get right.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Incidentally, have you seen this thread here?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-battles/page4

I don't watch a lot of these channels. I occasionally watch Kings and Generals but I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. Also seen a few BazBattles.
I haven't seen all of Great War but I'm really disappointed by their coverage of WW2. I find it to be much too... well normie or amateurish for lack of a better word. It is one thing to say "x and y happened" but it is another thing to really give in depth analysis about operations and strategy.

[Roma_Victrix]

Incidentally, have you seen this thread here?

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...-battles/page4

I don't watch a lot of these channels. I occasionally watch Kings and Generals but I find myself disagreeing with them more often than not. Also seen a few BazBattles.
I haven't seen all of Great War but I'm really disappointed by their coverage of WW2. I find it to be much too... well normie or amateurish for lack of a better word. It is one thing to say "x and y happened" but it is another thing to really give in depth analysis about operations and strategy.

Ah...my thread...thanks for the shout out, Oda.

Baz Battles is pretty decent, actually, but I'm not sure if you'd be satisfied with their balance of focusing on logistics and strategy versus individual battles and tactics. They do a better job of it than Kings and Generals, though. Historia Civilis is easily the best of all of these, but HistoryMarche is growing on me. Their narrator is kind of annoying, though.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I think some of the Kings and Generals videos are decent. Others are too general and don't go into enough detail. Pretty sure I'm subbed to Historia Civilis but I don't think I've seen to very many of their videos.

OP mentioned Military History Visualized. No idea who this is. It looks a bit too general for my tastes. I might watch some of their videos. But goddammit I want extreme detail, charts showing strength at least per Division, excel spread sheets with production and mobilization numbers, in depth analysis which assess the results of a battle, campaign and the likelihood of the overall strategy succeeding.

In all seriousness though, I find that any discussion about WW2 is pointless unless you have charts and lots of figures, and an understanding of the bigger picture. Read about what happened at Stalingrad it sounds like it makes sense, then look at charts about German mobilization and production for 1942 and then you go "wait, how the did the Germans lose Stalingrad". Then you realize that someone up the chain of command seriously fudged something up. But in the sources we do have, written after the war, someone is trying to cover up their mistakes.

Here is another example. How did Napoleon lose the war in Russia, midget had like 600,000 guys? They probably all froze to death I guess. But then you look at casualty figures and troop dispositions and you realize... oooooh between June and September of 1812 some 100,000 French troops died. At the time of Borodino the French only had like 120,000 troops on hand and after the battle when they took Moscow they only had like 100,000 troops and almost no supplies to keep the campaign going into the winter. Well in reality the French probably only invaded with just over 400,000... but only 200,000 were part of the main column in the center or front line strength. Another 100,000 or more were spread across the area carrying out their own local operations or being used as garrisons.

Or one of the most common examples. How did the Confederacy lose the Civil War? They won so many battles. Yeah well, they had low production, not a lot of manpower and most of the battles which they won were defensive actually.

[Basileos Leandros I]

Extreme detail and charts, excel spreadsheets... I am sure there are some channels out there to help you out, but most of them are more generalistic.

MHV ->

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I can't understand this guy's accent. This video is so specific that I don't even know what is happening.
What are the French doing? What are the other German Divisions doing? Is this during the north-west encirclement or after? Do they have air support?

"Guderian in 1941 was sacked for far less"... not really, Guderian was being so reckless he would have been shot if he was in the Red Army. The only reason people claim that Guderian's withdrawal was a good move is because their exposure to this incident comes from Guderian himself and other officers which agreed with Guderian. What Guderian did led to the loss of three whole Divisions, almost led to the Soviets punching a hole through 4th Army, which in turn would permit them to encircle and tear apart the German forces in front of Vyazma. It could have been avoided if he just had the guts to hold his ground.

[Morifea]

Read about what happened at Stalingrad it sounds like it makes sense, then look at charts about German mobilization and production for 1942 and then you go "wait, how the did the Germans lose Stalingrad". Then you realize that someone up the chain of command seriously fudged something up. But in the sources we do have, written after the war, someone is trying to cover up their mistakes.

Can you give me a hint on that? Don`t want to get too offtopic, a little reference for my own research would be helpful.

@topic: MHV is what his name says: Visualization. That´s where he excels (imo). Most data are solid and he does focus on Logistics.
The accent is what happens when an austrian speaks english....

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The guys in charge of OKH didn't send reserves to Stalingrad for some reason. Paulus never got the support he requested from his superiors. Then when he got encircled the German officers threw him under the bus. To some extent Manstein, but mostly it was Franz Halder and his associates. There is no reason for the Germans not to have attempted to secure Stalingrad. They could have simply not entered the city and drawn up the defensive line outside of it, but there are too many what ifs. The Sixth Army struggled outside of the city as well but this is barely given emphasis.

[Morifea]

@Lord Oda Nobunaga: Thank you, that were the points I thought about. This topic (Fall Blau) deserves a own Thread, therefore I don`t want to extend it further.

[Love Mountain]

Here's a pretty good channel I think, that I enjoyed.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I keep seeing this everywhere. Yasuke wasn't a samurai. He was one of Nobunaga's attendants. Sort of like his body guard combined with a man servant I guess. He didn't own land, he didn't have titles, he wasn't even of the warrior caste and as far as I know wasn't allowed to carry a sword. Although he was given a small house in Kyoto, was paid on occasion and given a ceremonial dagger. His actual title would have been something like sword bearing attendant or something of the sort. He probably never fought in battle either. The guy was only in Japan for three or four years. Though he wasn't a slave since the Jesuits didn't have slaves, he was technically a free man. No one knows what happened to him after that but he definitely was not in Japan. Probably went to Macao or Goa I would imagine, and kept working for the Jesuits.

[Ludicus]

Sticky thread please.
So much to read, so little time...

-----
A brief interlude, just for fun.
Medieval reality was extremely less sophisticated.This is unfortunately the harsh reality and those of us with romantic fantasies will just have to accept it.



---

the Jesuits didn't have slaves

Indeed. However, at the same time slavery is recognized as a legitimate human institution...
SLAVERY AND EDUCATION IN THE WORKS OF ANTONIO VIEIRA AND JORGE BENCI

Antonio Vieira’s sermons preached to slaves on a sugar mill in Bahia and Christian economy in the slaves’ government, by Jesuit Jorge Benci, and their pedagogical proposals are analyzed. The 17th century sermons of both Jesuit priests are in favor of slavery. Although Vieira undersigns the violence of the “sweet hell”, he fails to go against the institution and in his sermons endeavors to educate towards an acceptance of their lot. Contrastingly to Vieira, Benci preaches to slave owners and, using the model of the slavery in classical antiquity, tries to show them that slave punishments are excessive, labor is immoderate and treatment inhuman. Benci proposes a decrease in labor and in punishments coupled to a better treatment towards slaves. Although they have different opinions, both Jesuits fail to undermine the institution of slavery; rather, they endeavor to preserve it. Vieira tries to educate the slaves towards an acceptance of the slave institution and Benci teaches the slave owners the right manner of slave governance.