• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Hardcore History |OT| New episode: Painfotainment

W

WascallyWabbit

Member
Has anyone who's listened to the Death Throes of the Republic series think it's a good lead-in to this Celtic Holocaust pod?
Probably going to pull the trigger and buy it but just wanted to hear some thoughts
 
Z

Zepp Twofist

Member
WascallyWabbit said:
Has anyone who's listened to the Death Throes of the Republic series think it's a good lead-in to this Celtic Holocaust pod?
Probably going to pull the trigger and buy it but just wanted to hear some thoughts
Click to expand...

It helps you understand the position Caesar and the roman armies were in at the time, but if you are already familiar with stuff like the Marian reforms and who Caesar was prior to this campaign it doesn't add as much.

Still my favorite series of his though.
 
W

WascallyWabbit

Member
Zepp Twofist said:
It helps you understand the position Caesar and the roman armies were in at the time, but if you are already familiar with stuff like the Marian reforms and who Caesar was prior to this campaign it doesn't add as much.

Still my favorite series of his though.
Click to expand...

Other than his name, haircut, and that he died on the ides of March, my knowledge of Caesar is pretty shit so i'll be listening to the other pods first
Thanks!
 
M

More_Badass

Member
Zepp Twofist said:
It helps you understand the position Caesar and the roman armies were in at the time, but if you are already familiar with stuff like the Marian reforms and who Caesar was prior to this campaign it doesn't add as much.

Still my favorite series of his though.
Click to expand...
Same. It's my favorite as well. I think it's one of his most well balanced series; Death Throes has it all: huge battles, Game of Thrones-style political machinations, betrayals, and assassinations, crazed mobs, master orators and badass quotes, larger-the-life characters and personalities, the rise, growth, and downfall of a city, fascinating details about the everyday Roman culture

WascallyWabbit said:
Other than his name, haircut, and that he died on the ides of March, my knowledge of Caesar is pretty shit so i'll be listening to the other pods first
Thanks!
Click to expand...
You're in for a treat
 
Z

Zepp Twofist

Member
Hari Seldon said:
I tried it when it started and the dude's super thick accent made it hard to listen to.
Click to expand...

I had the same experience. I normally don't have too big of an issue with accents, but his is so thick that when he pronounces words I'm not sure if it is a new term I've never heard before or just a very weird way to pronounce some word I already know so I gave up on it.
 
C

Calamari41

41 > 38
I would rather have my school-aged kid listen to Carlin's podcasts and read some supplemental material than send them to any actual class on whatever the topic at hand is.

These podcasts are a treasure and I hope he never stops putting them out. I would be very, very interested in seeing him tackle some of the topics that are taught more extensively in schools, specifically Western European history from the end of the Middle Ages through the industrial revolution. I'd kill for a series that takes us from Jamestown to the Revolution, too.

How would a Dan Carlin acolyte do on the AP European History exam versus the standard test taker? Very well, I would imagine.
 
ebullientprism

ebullientprism

Member
Zepp Twofist said:
I had the same experience. I normally don't have too big of an issue with accents, but his is so thick that when he pronounces words I'm not sure if it is a new term I've never heard before or just a very weird way to pronounce some word I already know so I gave up on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Same. English is my second language so its tricky enough as it is.

I really wish he would hire a narrator but I imagine its difficult since there isnt a standard script.
 
A

afroguy10

Member
Preezy said:
Just think how awesome a WW2 would be from this great man. One day, maybe. One day....
Click to expand...

I love WW2 as a history topic as much as the next person but I'm so glad we got Blueprint for Armageddon because WWI is an infinitely more interesting and complex topic in my opinion.
 
S

Septimus Prime

Member
So, I'm about 90% through this episode now (35 minutes left), and I think 6 hours is just a tad too long for runtime. Like, the first hour or so could have been tremendously condensed.
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Finished the episode. Thought it meandered a lot in the first hour, but it got rolling afterwards. My only question is, is Gaelic really that similar to the language used by the Gauls back then? Because the last bit doesn't really work if you consider how Latin evolved into the current Romance languages.
 
S

Septimus Prime

Member
Regulus Tera said:
Finished the episode. Thought it meandered a lot in the first hour, but it got rolling afterwards. My only question is, is Gaelic really that similar to the language used by the Gauls back then? Because the last bit doesn't really work if you consider how Latin evolved into the current Romance languages.
Click to expand...
I think the last bit is not to say that they're still dominant but that Caesar did not wipe them out completely in the long run.

I wonder if this is another standalone, or if there will be more.
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Septimus Prime said:
I think the last bit is not to say that they're still dominant but that Caesar did not wipe them out completely in the long run.
Click to expand...
Him asking which language is spoken in Italy today implies that the Celtic language outlasted Latin, which I find difficult to believe considering how language tends to change in the span of centuries, let alone two millennia. Afaik the only language similar to its counterpart from that era is Hebrew, and that's because of design.
 
S

Septimus Prime

Member
Regulus Tera said:
Him asking which language is spoken in Italy today implies that the Celtic language outlasted Latin, which I find difficult to believe considering how language tends to change in the span of centuries, let alone two millennia. Afaik the only language similar to its counterpart from that era is Hebrew, and that's because of design.
Click to expand...
I mean, I agree, as I took it the same way initially, too, but that interpretation doesn't make a whole longer of sense because if the reasons you pointed out in your first post. So, given the context of how it shows up in the episode, I still think it's meant to imply that they survived.
 
W

Wvrs

Member
I was undergrad in linguistics, and so I'll try clear up the language issue, as I did study languages in antiquity quite a bit. Celtic languages were spoken across western Europe before the Romans arrived, but when the people who spoke them were subjugated they were either driven out, or eventually abandoned their languages in favour of Latin, due to Roman policies of linguistic colonialism (which make speakers of minority languages voluntarily abandon their own languages in favour of the dominant variant, because doing so will give them greater access to resources, prestige, etc. A similar thing happened in Ireland when it was under British rule).

Over the centuries of Roman rule, there would have been some Celtic-Latin multilingualism, which would have led to there being loanwords between the different languages. Eventually, the Latin variants would have become dominant, although they were flavoured by the native languages of the lands in which they were spoken; this is why the Latin spoken across western Europe eventually evolved into the disparate Romance languages we see today.

English is a strange case, because 99% of the Latin influence in the English language didn't actually come from the Roman occupation. After the Romans left Britain, there would have been a Celtic-Latin hybrid of sorts spoken across the isles (in parts where the Romans ruled). Yet after they left, much of Britain (particularly, England and parts of Scotland) was invaded by Germanic tribes from northern continental Europe, and so the Celtic-Latin variants spoken in those parts of Britain eventually faded as their speakers either died, or assimilated into the new Anglo-Saxon culture. Latin influences in English didn't come until centuries later, after the Normans (who spoke Old Norman, which was a variant of Roman Latin which had undergone significant linguistic change over the centuries) invaded and had their language recognised as the high-prestige variant in England.

There are still some Celtic languages spoken across Europe -- these are called 'remnant' languages. Examples would be Basque, Breton, Irish, Welsh, and there are some others. It wasn't so much the Romans themselves who subjugated and eradicated Celtic languages in Europe, as it was their successors. Where I grew up in England, there was once a Celtic language spoken called Cumbric; I think even by the 1500s, it was long dead. The last speaker of Cornish died in the 19th century. Even today, in France, minority languages (including descendants of the Celtic languages originally spoken in the country) still have no legal protection, as it's very much a 'one nation, one language' policy.

David Crystal explains this far better than I can with what he calls 'the Celtic language puzzle,' highly recommend you give him a read if you're interested.
 
V

viciouskillersquirrel

Member
Wolvers said:
I was undergrad in linguistics, and so I'll try clear up the language issue, as I did study languages in antiquity quite a bit. Celtic languages were spoken across western Europe before the Romans arrived, but when the people who spoke them were subjugated they were either driven out, or eventually abandoned their languages in favour of Latin, due to Roman policies of linguistic colonialism (which make speakers of minority languages voluntarily abandon their own languages in favour of the dominant variant, because doing so will give them greater access to resources, prestige, etc. A similar thing happened in Ireland when it was under British rule).

Over the centuries of Roman rule, there would have been some Celtic-Latin multilingualism, which would have led to there being loanwords between the different languages. Eventually, the Latin variants would have become dominant, although they were flavoured by the native languages of the lands in which they were spoken; this is why the Latin spoken across western Europe eventually evolved into the disparate Romance languages we see today.

English is a strange case, because 99% of the Latin influence in the English language didn't actually come from the Roman occupation. After the Romans left Britain, there would have been a Celtic-Latin hybrid of sorts spoken across the isles (in parts where the Romans ruled). Yet after they left, much of Britain (particularly, England and parts of Scotland) was invaded by Germanic tribes from northern continental Europe, and so the Celtic-Latin variants spoken in those parts of Britain eventually faded as their speakers either died, or assimilated into the new Anglo-Saxon culture. Latin influences in English didn't come until centuries later, after the Normans (who spoke Old Norman, which was a variant of Roman Latin which had undergone significant linguistic change over the centuries) invaded and had their language recognised as the high-prestige variant in England.

There are still some Celtic languages spoken across Europe -- these are called 'remnant' languages. Examples would be Basque, Breton, Irish, Welsh, and there are some others. It wasn't so much the Romans themselves who subjugated and eradicated Celtic languages in Europe, as it was their successors. Where I grew up in England, there was once a Celtic language spoken called Cumbric; I think even by the 1500s, it was long dead. The last speaker of Cornish died in the 19th century. Even today, in France, minority languages (including descendants of the Celtic languages originally spoken in the country) still have no legal protection, as it's very much a 'one nation, one language' policy.

David Crystal explains this far better than I can with what he calls 'the Celtic language puzzle,' highly recommend you give him a read if you're interested.
Click to expand...
This is a great post, but I will point out that Basque is not a Celtic language. It's off on its own, a descendent of a much older (non-indo-european?) language family. Other than that, bravo.
 
T

tanooki141

Member
Wolvers said:
I was undergrad in linguistics, and so I'll try clear up the language issue, as I did study languages in antiquity quite a bit. Celtic languages were spoken across western Europe before the Romans arrived, but when the people who spoke them were subjugated they were either driven out, or eventually abandoned their languages in favour of Latin, due to Roman policies of linguistic colonialism (which make speakers of minority languages voluntarily abandon their own languages in favour of the dominant variant, because doing so will give them greater access to resources, prestige, etc. A similar thing happened in Ireland when it was under British rule).

Over the centuries of Roman rule, there would have been some Celtic-Latin multilingualism, which would have led to there being loanwords between the different languages. Eventually, the Latin variants would have become dominant, although they were flavoured by the native languages of the lands in which they were spoken; this is why the Latin spoken across western Europe eventually evolved into the disparate Romance languages we see today.

English is a strange case, because 99% of the Latin influence in the English language didn't actually come from the Roman occupation. After the Romans left Britain, there would have been a Celtic-Latin hybrid of sorts spoken across the isles (in parts where the Romans ruled). Yet after they left, much of Britain (particularly, England and parts of Scotland) was invaded by Germanic tribes from northern continental Europe, and so the Celtic-Latin variants spoken in those parts of Britain eventually faded as their speakers either died, or assimilated into the new Anglo-Saxon culture. Latin influences in English didn't come until centuries later, after the Normans (who spoke Old Norman, which was a variant of Roman Latin which had undergone significant linguistic change over the centuries) invaded and had their language recognised as the high-prestige variant in England.

There are still some Celtic languages spoken across Europe -- these are called 'remnant' languages. Examples would be Basque, Breton, Irish, Welsh, and there are some others. It wasn't so much the Romans themselves who subjugated and eradicated Celtic languages in Europe, as it was their successors. Where I grew up in England, there was once a Celtic language spoken called Cumbric; I think even by the 1500s, it was long dead. The last speaker of Cornish died in the 19th century. Even today, in France, minority languages (including descendants of the Celtic languages originally spoken in the country) still have no legal protection, as it's very much a 'one nation, one language' policy.

David Crystal explains this far better than I can with what he calls 'the Celtic language puzzle,' highly recommend you give him a read if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the context.
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
Wolvers said:
I was undergrad in linguistics, and so I'll try clear up the language issue, as I did study languages in antiquity quite a bit. Celtic languages were spoken across western Europe before the Romans arrived, but when the people who spoke them were subjugated they were either driven out, or eventually abandoned their languages in favour of Latin, due to Roman policies of linguistic colonialism (which make speakers of minority languages voluntarily abandon their own languages in favour of the dominant variant, because doing so will give them greater access to resources, prestige, etc. A similar thing happened in Ireland when it was under British rule).

Over the centuries of Roman rule, there would have been some Celtic-Latin multilingualism, which would have led to there being loanwords between the different languages. Eventually, the Latin variants would have become dominant, although they were flavoured by the native languages of the lands in which they were spoken; this is why the Latin spoken across western Europe eventually evolved into the disparate Romance languages we see today.

English is a strange case, because 99% of the Latin influence in the English language didn't actually come from the Roman occupation. After the Romans left Britain, there would have been a Celtic-Latin hybrid of sorts spoken across the isles (in parts where the Romans ruled). Yet after they left, much of Britain (particularly, England and parts of Scotland) was invaded by Germanic tribes from northern continental Europe, and so the Celtic-Latin variants spoken in those parts of Britain eventually faded as their speakers either died, or assimilated into the new Anglo-Saxon culture. Latin influences in English didn't come until centuries later, after the Normans (who spoke Old Norman, which was a variant of Roman Latin which had undergone significant linguistic change over the centuries) invaded and had their language recognised as the high-prestige variant in England.

There are still some Celtic languages spoken across Europe -- these are called 'remnant' languages. Examples would be Basque, Breton, Irish, Welsh, and there are some others. It wasn't so much the Romans themselves who subjugated and eradicated Celtic languages in Europe, as it was their successors. Where I grew up in England, there was once a Celtic language spoken called Cumbric; I think even by the 1500s, it was long dead. The last speaker of Cornish died in the 19th century. Even today, in France, minority languages (including descendants of the Celtic languages originally spoken in the country) still have no legal protection, as it's very much a 'one nation, one language' policy.

David Crystal explains this far better than I can with what he calls 'the Celtic language puzzle,' highly recommend you give him a read if you're interested.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I wish this forum had a rep button.

Edit: in other news, seems like there's a Dan Carlin / Mike Duncan episode of common sense in the works: https://twitter.com/mikeduncan/status/896876810025259008
 
Head of Vengarl

Head of Vengarl

Banned
Oh baby, nothing like returning from a month-long trip to find out there's a new HH episode waiting for me! I'm pumped, especially because it seems like a really interesting topic.
 
V

Vincent Alexander

Member
Just finished this newest episode today and I must say it wasn't that great. It felt like a bonus episode from Death Throes of the Republic, and by itself didn't make many strong or interesting points. In fact, I found the opening into the episode dragged out, and the ending wrapup way too abrupt. And for an episode with Holocaust in it's title, he didn't lay out a strong foundation for the severity of what terrible fate was befalling the Celts. He definitely told us lots of them died, but he needed to step back more often and lay out a larger picture of how extensive Rome's destruction of the Celts and Gauls was. He kept comparing to Native Americans and Zulu as if that would serve as a good frame of reference, and it did at times, but he did it way too often.

I dunno. Like...listening about battles is always awesome. So at the end of the day, I enjoyed it even though I say it was one of the weaker ones. However, it left little impact and I won't remember much of it in a week or month.

Anyone else feel this way or am I way off?
 
F

frontovik

Banned
I feel the same way.

Dan initially gave the impression that the Romans embarked on some genocidal campaign against the Celts in the premise, but it turned out to be more of an aggressive expansion campaign.

He framed the Romans as opportunists who intervened in Gallic affairs, and whose decision to settle in Gaul sparked these massive uprisings. Naturally there were acts of slaughter and enslavement during the Gallic Wars, but the historical sources don't suggest that Caesar was inclined to exterminate Celtic culture, but rather to "civilize" them through Roman culture and institutions. It is completely far from the "cultural cleansing" that the Nazis attempted in Poland and Ukraine centuries later...
 
B

bomma_man

Member
Yeah I think the constant call backs to native Americans were forced, and without a compelling central idea tying it all together it was a bit of a drag.
 
C

CassSept

Member
bomma_man said:
Yeah I think the constant call backs to native Americans were forced, and without a compelling central idea tying it all together it was a bit of a drag.
Click to expand...

I guess this might be because of his abandoned plans to do conquest of Mexico episode, he must have done quite some research on the topic so the parallels naturally occurred to him since the native Americans were still fresh on his mind.

I'm not exactly feeling the episode, I'm halfway through it and it's decent, but not exactly his most riveting stuff.
 
B

BrassDragon

Member
I'm with the mildly disappointed here; super glad that Dan is publishing again but I didn't learn many new insights and interesting details here after Latin teachers forced me through huge parts of De Bello Gallico.

I would have liked more from the Celtic perspective but I now realize everybody always goes back to the same authoritative source. No matter how much Dan tries to add shades to it, ultimately the narrative suffers from having to go back to the same well all the time unlike his extraordinary recounting of WW1 or nuclear weapons policy.
 
M

Martian

Member
Cool episode! I really enjoyed it, even though it didnt have too many pondering moments. Its amazing how Dan makes a world feel so close with just his voice. Great performer.

Best episode yet is still Prophets of Doom IMO. Such a great setup for a story
 
T

TwntyOneTwlv

Member
I definitely thought it was kinda not great. I felt like the episode lacked any kind of point or big theme to tie the story together. It was just six hours of "this happened, then this happened, then that happened." I was bored and waiting for it to end the entire time, which is disappointing to say the least.

I know almost nothing about Roman history, so maybe if I had some kind of background I would have found the episode to be less bland? As is, I think it's my least favorite HH episode yet, and that's saying something, because King of Kings was awful.
 
B

bomma_man

Member
TwntyOneTwlv said:
I definitely thought it was kinda not great. I felt like the episode lacked any kind of point or big theme to tie the story together. It was just six hours of "this happened, then this happened, then that happened." I was bored and waiting for it to end the entire time, which is disappointing to say the least.

I know almost nothing about Roman history, so maybe if I had some kind of background I would have found the episode to be less bland? As is, I think it's my least favorite HH episode yet, and that's saying something, because King of Kings was awful.
Click to expand...

Yep. There was no thesis or context tying it together beyond some references to Native Americans that were never expanded on.
 
Z

Zepp Twofist

Member
TwntyOneTwlv said:
I know almost nothing about Roman history, so maybe if I had some kind of background I would have found the episode to be less bland? As is, I think it's my least favorite HH episode yet, and that's saying something, because King of Kings was awful.
Click to expand...
Are there episodes that you do like? Because if you think Kings of Kings was awful and you think this was worse than awful I have a hard time thinking you enjoyed the show in the first place.
 
S

Sulik2

Member
Liking this episode but I agree it's not one of his best. But then again the WWI series and the nuclear episode are amongst the best history books ever created so maybe it's a bit tough to keep up that level of quality. King of Kings was better too.
 
G

Gaz_RB

Member
Amazing episode. I love the military stuff.

Bought Rubicon cause I wanted to dive a little deeper into the fall of Rome.
 
V

Vincent Alexander

Member
So, I decided to go back and start listening to old, old Hardcore History, since I first began listening at Death Throes of the Republic. I'm going to start at the very first one, and work my way through.

Dan is way louder, in this over-the-top kind of way in this first episode.
 
C

CrocMother

Banned
Septimus Prime said:
His Plan A topic was probably Cortez and Montezuma. He's not doing it because History on Fire is, and Daniele actually starts his series by apologizing for making Dan change topics.
Click to expand...

Idk, after listening it seems he was more interested in this because the Celts actually had a fighting chance.
 
S

Septimus Prime

Member
CrocMother said:
Idk, after listening it seems he was more interested in this because the Celts actually had a fighting chance.
Click to expand...
Seems to me the indigenous people in the other story actually had a really good chance, except for some dumb decisions and bad alliances.

That series actually just wrapped, as well, and there were plenty of times Cortez could have lost but got extremely lucky.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PS Plus Essential November 2023: Aliens Fireteam Elite, Mafia II: Definitive Edition, Dragon Ball: The Breakers
News 2
58
3K
dreamstation replied
Foamstars Season 2 introduces new character
News Platform
11
513
mitch1971 replied
Outcast: A New Beginning | Review Thread + |OT|
|OT| Analysis Review 2
51
3K
Gordon Freeman replied
Silent Hill: Ascension to Feature Season Pass, Microtransactions
News Business Cringe 2 3
126
7K
Deerock71 replied
The Orville: New Horizons | OT |
2 3
118
7K
Denton replied
Top Bottom