Great look at a small slice of the Revolutionary War

The old episodes are better than now, after they sold out to advertising and sped up the dialogue. It’s sad when the Gen X cool nerds change for the tik tok generation.

If you’re gonna talk about Alvin C York you need to learn how to pronounce the community where he’s from.

I always enjoy listening to this podcast and get a lot of good ideas about book's to read. I didn't know anything about the Barbary wars until this podcast. I also really like James Early, James and Scott are a good team!

Wanted to like this show, but just like EVERYTHING else, leftist/liberal orthodoxy has to be shoehorned in at any & every opportunity. In the "160 minutes to save the Titanic" episode, the author has to cram in some variation of "patriarchy" or "straight white male" at every opportunity possible, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. With this level of personal political opinion, why would or should I be interested in anything this chilidish idiot has to say? He's obviously more concerned with his own political agenda then actually presenting objective and factual history. Liberals have NO self control and ruin absolutely everything. Congratulations.

OKish podcast, I never don’t learn something. It’s a bit heavy on military history, which imo is the most pointless and yet most emphasized subfield. I would say that it’s impressive that Scott has wrangled so many historians in order to defer to the proper experts who’ve done the research on the wide-ranging topics. But this is tempered by Scott’s incessant urge to draw pointless parallels between the past and his petty quips with his actual targets in the present — “the left” (whatever that means anymore). There’s definitely a lot academic inbreeding going on between Scott and his guests, at least the ones I’ve heard so far. With US history and Western Civ material, there’s a fair amount of omitted perspectives and evidence. I really tire of historians who take sides. They’re just activists in disguise, and they give the open activists exactly the type of biased “academic” material that makes them feel like bona fide intellectuals. If I didn’t already have a deep background in historical and anthropological research, I wouldn’t pick up on Scott’s obvious biases so much. But the preacher-choir dynamic is, in the end, obvious. Sadly, that’s what many audiences like. The Dubois WW1 episode was mindbendingly simplistic and inaccurate, it would have to have been deliberately limited to be so lacking in scope and perspective to point a Dubois story in such a bland and conservative way. The Harding apologist was quaint and naive. The opening to the Anarchists episode straight up says that they started the Haymarket Affair, a statement that no serious historian would make. It was strenuous listening to Scott attempt to squeeze the history of American anarchism and oppressive 1st Amendment jurisprudence into his twisted brand of conservatism. Thankfully that historian (finally) didn’t take the bait. Ok, here’s the gist of Scott’s go-to question at some point in every interview: “So, here’s this incredibly stupid, ill-informed and naive view that most people have about this issue, but could you broadly explain why I’m right about this and then speak to some of the particulars that might omit any potential evidence to the contrary?” Ok, another update. Scott’s mispronunciation of basic word’s like “Levant” and “Marseille” is killing me. How does one get a PhD without addressing these things?

Really !!! What’s next? Confederate Presbyterians!!! Confederate Catholics!!! What’s your point? Antisemitism disguised as history, maybe? Goodbye

his biases and own sense of knowledge (he who knows knows he knows nothing etc not the case here) really show out if you have even a cursory knowledge on topic in question

Good topics, great guests, and Scott asks really thoughtful and intelligent questions

Discusses well known and lesser known stories from history with author and historians.

As a self proclaimed history nerd, I appreciate the educational aspect of this podcast. The wide range of topics keeps me entertained as well. Recently, I listened to the Hiroshima first hand account episode and the awful and horrific accounts from survivors. I would have liked to hear that it all could have been avoided if Japan had not attacked the US in the first place. The author was surprised he did not feel resentment towards America when interviewing the survivors, but again, the US was not the aggressor.

The episode on the Christian Bible is simplistic and misrepresented. Codex and printing were dependent upon literacy originating with the Jews. See Botticini, et al. “The Chosen Few” for a more accurate history. Jewish communities had 90 o/o literacy whereas early Christian had 10o/o. The book in conversation through the Reformation was the Hebrew Bible or Torah which influenced the antagonism and hatred of the early Church beginning with Constantine. Later the Dutch Republic and the American Puritans focused on Torah not Christian Scripture. Likewise with other cultures in North America.

I've learned about so many moments in history that I was never taught in school or college. I look forward to every new episode and enjoy going back 4-5 years to episodes I had not yet listened to. For example. The recent story on General Geoffrey Keys, was such a moment of learning. I enjoy these on my long commute to work.

I do like the podcast a lot. From time to time it goes a little left for me in revisionist history, CSA for example. Well, nice educated Englishman seems to make some good well-rounded points but seriously an ancient 15 hr. work week is ridiculous. Has he ever been camping / survival trek like the Indias did for Brave initiation, alone with limited supplies or no food. It’s sunup to sundown work. Utopian & socialist academic stuff. However, great point on effective tasks being focused, done quickly in one fell swoop. Yes indeed. Agree, being in an office tower at a desk for 9 hrs. is not healthy for us.

One of my favorite podcasts . Scott possesses a broad knowledge base of subjects with refreshing, varied views on the interesting topics covered in the show.

I love this podcast! Each episode provides research-based information about historical events, giving not only facts but context in which the events took place. I particularly appreciate the author interviews. I’ve listened to every episode, and I’m always happy to see a new episode pop up in the latest episodes feed! Keep up the great work.

Wow. Let’s interview a guy who wrote a book called “The Case for Trump” about statue removal. Absolutely done with this podcast.

I got hooked on this a few weeks ago with the series that they did on the Revolutionary War. It’s an excellent podcast that gives nuanced perspectives that are needed when reporting and analyzing history.

Worst background music on the entire internet. Plus the background music is playing behind the host’s introduction, obscuring everything he is saying. Sounds like a Yankees game instead of a podcast

So obviously a right-wing crank. Its cute.

I agree with others You talk to fast but I love your topics. Don

I enjoy listening but agree with other reviews that you speak too fast!

The February 27 episode was an example of the new DEI enhanced history

The abrasive “Hey hon!” Commercials set my teeth on edge.

Always very interesting!

I loved listening to this podcast to get a more fully rounded view of history. I was shocked however when I got to the authors absurdly racist take down of the 1619 project. History is messy and painful truths are often hard to stomach, but we have to. Just because something makes someone uncomfortable, as the 1619 project clearly makes the author, is not a reason to denounce it. For every historian he has claiming to debunk the project, there are 5 more who applaud it. A fair and balanced approach would have been to have BOTH sides of the argument on. But that would mean letting go of deep seeded implicit bias, which the host seems unwilling to do ehhchbis a shame.

I like your show very much. It would be great if you could slow down you’re speech , particularly when reading, so we can take in everything you’re saying. I tried listening at three-quarter time, but you sound drunk in that mode. 🤣

For lack of better words I love this podcast. It is so in depth while also focusing on the important things. Scott is so good not only in this but all of his podcasts. It’s amazing how many experts come on and show what they know. LOVE IT.

H.W. Crocker, Scott’s “expert” on Lee, swoons over the Confederate general with very little regard for the facts. Lee “managed” nearly 200 slaves, owned a few, and arranged for the severe beating of more than one who sought freedom. Slavery was wrong, plain and simple, and no “great man” emerges in its wake. I’m a native Virginian, distantly related to Lee, with a slave legacy of my own. I can say with confidence that Crocker is a fool.

I listened to the Oct. 10 episode on Robert E. Lee. I did learn something about this historic figure. But the guest was patently biased and uninformed and almost gleeful in exposing his unchallenged personal opinions. Lee may have been against slavery and torn between his allegiance to his roots and his country. But the loser doesn’t have a right to statutes in the public square. Those statutes of confederate characters were erected post reconstruction, some 40 or more years after the civil war. The purpose was to further the oppressive atmosphere of the Jim Crow era. Black residents were subjected to this ugly reminder - that they live in places that fought for their enslavement. Next, Crocket threw the term “critical race theory” around a lot. But he clearly does have a clue what CRT is about. It is not a generic term to be used loosely. It is a subject taught in law schools that explores the fact of structural racism (which is real). I listened because I try to keep an open mind. But your guest’s lack of serious intellectual rigor made it difficult to get to the end. Please either schedule other academics on the topic or be prepared to challenge biased nonsense.

Overall a good history podcast however I do not understand why Scott didn’t ask even a few tough questions during the Robert E Lee fanboy episode. I actually do appreciate Lee’s many positive attributes but criminy he was the military leader of a war against the USA which makes him a traitor. I understand the guest is firmly entrenched in his point of view but I think it’s the interviewer’s responsibility to question and have a hearty discussion vs a very one sided white washing of history. Do better.

This is one of the better history pods. The host is engaging and well-versed on each topic. I try to listen to each episode - including the few where I find myself in personal disagreement with. Today was one of the episodes I took great issue with - the interview about the legacy of Robert E Lee. I think the host could have asked more probing questions. I don’t need the lens of critical race theory to perfectly understand that Lee was a traitor to the country. Would most Americans be pleased with giant statues of Benedict Arnold proudly presented in town squares across Southern America? This episode was an advertisement for the Lost Cause. The guest’s comment about CRT to dismiss modern criticisms of Lee were especially galling and unquestioned by the host. One doesn’t need to view American history from a CRT lens to understand that Lee was a traitor. Period. I’ll continue to listen in each week, but with slightly less anticipation. You are typically much better than this.

Robert E Lee fanboy episode was shocking. Painted Lee as “abhorring slavery” when he held slaves and fought in Cort to keep slaves from his father in laws estate. Absolutely no pushback from hoast. Shameful.

H.C. Crocker offers nothing but a intellectualized justification of white supremacy. If Lee was so principled he would have rejected the evil of slavery & commanded the Union Army. Being courtly does not equate to righteousness. Please.

This podcast seems to trot out a new boomer week after week to espouse racist propaganda and quite frankly it’s getting old. Stop giving these people a platform.

I give you 5 stars because of your content but your ad with all the rhyming makes me want to unsubscribe. Seriously it’s quite irritating.

This helps me sleep at night thank you so much for making this!!!!!!!!!

Highly biased and feather vapid.

Great episode!! I just ordered the book

Always enjoy these podcasts - lots of great overviews and good conversations with guests.

Enjoying the variety of subjects. Just enough information for me to consider reading more about them!

Scott is excellent at telling the stories from History from both side and remembering the time the events took place in and not judging by today’s standards and look forward to each new show . Keep up the great podcasts. John Yonkers New York

Just found this show, listened to the first episode, now I’m hooked! Very well done, great storytelling, and interesting history. Thanks for the show!

Ronnie Reagan was an idiot and a placating puppet.

Excellent podcast!!! Scott is fantastic and asks insightful questions that get to the substance of a topic. Great guests. Among others, I loved the 1619 Project episode. So refreshing to get insights that are well researched, factual and substantive and not just flavor of the month history. Love this! Thank you!

This guy is one of the worst interviewers it’s painful

For several years, this podcast had fairly interesting topics, presented in an accessible way for a mass audience. But in the last couple years the host has increasingly become an open and strident rightwinger. Hard pass.

One of he very best podcasts I’ve ever listened too. The depth of Scott’s knowledge is profound, and his ability to synthesize info to cover these diverse topics is truly amazing!

Used to love this podcast. Unfortunately, like most things nowadays, politics and ideology have interjected themselves into what was once an enjoyable and educational experience.

Too often, the objective is to present a political objective. It is what tone expects from the CCP or a theocracy.