Certainly agree. Love the deeper analysis of the feudal system, in particular the ''real dark ages(viking+islamic raids on coastal europe) as well as the debunking of historical myths like barbarians --> dark age, crusades has ''landgrabbing'', medieval nationalism(which as he shows, did not exist!) and a bunch of other misconceptions. Good stuff.

And yes i started listening to History of England at the same at as the British History podcast. Interesting to see the same history told by 2 people, gives you a different way to see history.

I'm about 6 episodes in so far, and while I really like the depth with which he treats the Byzantine (I love that he properly calls it Roman) Empire, I'm a little disappointed at the lack of nuance with which he treats Islamic societies as unsophisticated barbarians, especially relative to the complexity with which he describes Germanic and Gothic societies. Part of this I'm sure is that it's a Europe-focused podcast, but I'm hoping that will change as the focus moves more toward the High Middle Ages, when the Islamic world more fully absorbed the Hellenistic and Persian cores of the East. I'd like to hear damaci's thoughts if he were around.

History of the International System from Stanford University on ItunesU is also very good. Covers the turn of the 20th century to today.

Good find. I will give it a listen.

Another good one is

History on the Run Its a bit dry but the info is really something you will not find anywhere else. Good stuff

You know, that's an excellent point. I didn't remember his take on the rise of Islam; I mostly remembered the Byzantine stuff and Charlemagne. This week I went through this again up to Charlemagne (I burned it to mp3 so I could listen instead of watch) and I think 'lack of nuance' is a pretty diplomatic and generous description of his treatment of Islam; I'd say it's plainly hostile to Islam. Still fascinating but it begs for a counterweight. Will have to pay extra attention to the crusades and after on this relisten to see if he's more equitable.

I agree. Ruthless on islam and refutes a whole lot of evidance on the whole idea that islam could have been at the basis of the renaissance, through Avicenna,Averoes, ibn khaldun... Im not saying that the whole ''aristotle at mt.st-michel'' is impossible, but to completely discard islamic influence on the rebirth of humanism is a bit stretched. Thomas aquinas was a gigantic fan of avicenna and quotes from him frequently, and thomas is pretty much the ''summa'' of middle ages philosophers.

Well to a certain extent I'm glad he doesn't engage in PC equivocating about the richness of Arabic culture in the 7th century, because certainly the Arabic conquests were brutal and bloody. But so were those of the Romans, the Goths, and the Franks. The Middle Ages were not a happy, feel-good time. They were violent as hell. But by the same token, I simply don't believe it's accurate to say that Islamic culture completely consumed and replaced Greco-Roman culture--indeed, with the integration of Egypt and Persia, the Islamic world essentially became the heirs of these cultures and the Western core. True, it was not until the Abbasids that much of this previous knowledge was made available--that's the main reason I say that I hope the treatment will be a little more nuanced in the future.

I simply get wary when the Battle of Poitiers/Tours is presented in the Gibbon cliche of Eastern/Islamic barbarism vs. Western/Christian "civilization." Yes, it's true that the heirs of European Christendom produced the Enlightenment, secularism, tolerance, and modern culture, but there was no way of knowing this if you were an 8th-century observer. In fact, were you a neutral 12th-century observer, I think you'd be far more likely to say that the converse was probable, as it was Islamic societies that were richer, more technologically advanced, and "tolerant" for the standards of the time.

Indeed. He borrows decently from Avicenna. He straight-up rips off Averroes. Other than meditations on the Trinity, there is barely an idea in Aquinas' writings that can't be found in Averroes.

I've finished the Crusades episodes of Europe from Its Origins and I've frankly had it. The podcast has just devolved into incessant Muslim-bashing for no particular reason. I get it, the Islamic warlords did all manners of unspeakable things to the hapless Christian pilgrims on occasions A to Z, and the Middle Ages were generally a miserable period for people at the mercy of bloodthirsty religious fanatics. And I get it--we shouldn't apply our modern sensibilities to the past, but it gets very obvious that Hogarty is making a fundamentally political statement with these episodes, since he takes the classic pre-1970 "liberal, enlightened values could only have come from Christian Europe, etc" viewpoint to its logical extreme.

I don't want anyone to go out of their way to be PC, and I hate revisionism for the sake of not hurting people's feelings or making apologies for colonialism. BUT when the episodes essentially stake out the position of "well the Christians and Crusaders killed a few people here and there, but let's not dwell on that massacre and instead get into the gritty details of three Islamic massacres against Christians for the next 10 minutes," I get bored, because any sense of balance or neutrality seems to be abandoned. Yes, like I said, the Muslims did terrible things. So did the Franks in their quest to Christianize Northern Europe. So did the Crusaders. Let's just get that out there. The Middle Ages were a frighteningly illiberal time. But to pretend that somehow the Crusaders' native societies learned tolerance from this while the Muslims languished in a thirst for conquest is just anachronistic. Almost nothing is said of the great writings of Avicenna or Averroes, of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, of the Golden Age of the Abbasids, of the relative state of tolerance in far-flung Islamic Spain under the convivencia. The podcast just seems like fodder for Daniel Pipes and other professional Muslim-bashers.

I've instead turned to Yale University's series on the Early Middle Ages from iTunes U (the good news is I figured out how to sync iTunes U to my iPod... I had to check an extra box in the iTunes settings... lol me).

Recent Good Stuff or Stuff I've DL'ed But Haven't Got To
Colonial and Revolutionary America - Stanford (this was really good; Jack Rakove is a really good political historian)
The Civil War and Reconstruction - Yale (highly interested since I'm teaching this course in Winter and haven't taken or TA'd for it in years)
Early Middle Ages - Yale
Hannibal - Stanford (looking forward to this when I have time)
Ancient Greek History - Yale (a little nervous since this is Donald Kagan... but I doubt there will be too much neocon commentary in an ancient history series, lol... even Victor Davis Hanson is tolerable when he sticks to the history)
Early Modern England - Stanford (Tudor/Stuart was one of my fields in grad school, so while I'm intrigued, this will probably be on the back burner)

Edit: 7000th post... I can live with this one as a milestone!

I forget in which episode but he wound up bashing Averroes.

Having gone through it twice, the first three episodes about late but pre-Islamic antiquity were excellent, but everything about Islam was one-dimensional and boring as you say. Some of feudal stuff and the Pope stuff was good too.

High point = there was some piece of troubadour music at minute 57:25 of episode 12 that was very pretty. In the style of this.

Islam bashing aside, i found it hands down the most researched piece on the mediaval world. I certainly agree that he blows out of the water the 19th century views of ''europe, child of the greco-roman world''. The truth is much more ''europe, child of latin christendom''. I understand the atheist movement since the 19th century but no reason to disregard religious heritage.

Well to be fair it's the child of both. The medieval period gets a bad rap thanks to Gibbon and crew; we all know it. I thought so until grad school until I was exposed to a talented medievalist (and subsequently did comparative medieval intellectual history for one of my reading fields... hence my sore spot at the disregarding of Islamic philosophy and its influence on the Christian West). Nonetheless, I've found monographs that present a more "balanced" view on the whole (though I feel a bit dirty using a word with such connotations, since history is often unbalanced by its very nature). I'm hoping the Yale course will be a little more up to date.

As bizarre as it sounds, being opinion-less and balanced is the new bias
As far as Yale goes, its interesting but i would say much less advanced then europe from its origins. The latter takes a ''counter'' point of view to history, while yale is much more of a narrative and less in depth course. But yale at least gives full credit to islamic scholar.

Actually europe from its origin could use a more dynamic reader, like dan carlin or even the guy from ''the history network(military)'' or the history of rome. I think that is what is missing the most from that series.

Is anyone aware of any good audio or video that would be good supplementary learning about the Balkans, in the interwar period and through WWII? Or Balkan genocides or ethnic cleansing during this period?

I'm reading a few books at the moment, but there's so much going on in this period, I just feel like I don't have a solid grasp yet. I'm struggling to tie it all together. TY.

New stuff I've been listening to:

Revolutions Podcast (new Mike Duncan project)
When Diplomacy Fails Podcast (if you like war/diplomacy stuff)
15 Minute History (great for short interviews on interesting subjects)

I have recently found "Hardcore History" and came to post my admiration for the podcast. Glad to see other recommendations too.

I second this. I listened to it in full twice and even emailed the professor who gave the lectures, he shared with me the syllabus for access to reference materials. Very good lecturer.

Check out Common Sense too.

Chiming in with the Dan Carlin love. Have listened to all the HH and CS available on itunes, and treated myself to the complete HH catalog for Christmas. $50

Will check "History of Oil" next, then up for grabs.
Not particularly a history buff, so need a high entertainment level.
Suggestions?
Pre 1600 and not of the religious bent. Gruesome deaths and general mayhem a plus

Great Thread. Bumping for new Hardcore History content over the last year. Blueprint for Armageddon has bey very good so far!

I've found it a bit dry tbh, but I'm only on episode 2.

"Stuff You Missed in History Class" is kinda fun on random topics, but can be a little elementary at times. It's fine for an overview of people/events you might not have heard of before, though.

Two new ones I've discovered this week, of particular interest to my area:

1. The JuntoCast, from the Early Americanists blog.
2. The History Carousel, same group with a different focus (more on connecting contemporary events to historical trends).

niiice!

sticky?

exactly what i came into this forum trying to find

Newest course from Yale I downloaded is "Epidemics in Western Society Since 1600." Hoping it will be a nice crossover of History and Science--will let everyone know if it's good, but I've liked pretty much everything else they've put out so far.

Sick course, man!

Any idea what they'll cover besides Typhus (17th century), Smallpox (17th-19th centuries), Yellow Fever (19th century), TB (19th and 20th centuries), 'flu (20th century), and AIDS 20th-21st centuries)?