Nine r/badhistory Youtube history channels
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 июл 2024
- This is a tier list of nine of the largest and most active RUclips history channels, based on criticism at r/badhistory and other platforms, and what I consider to be best history RUclipsr practice. Channels scored C or D can still be useful for learning history; they just don't do it as well as I think they should. Channels scored E or F should be avoided, in my opinion.
__________________________
Timestamps
0:00 Start
00:07 Introduction
11:39 Simple History [some bad history, oversimplification, plagiarism, insufficient sources]
15:38 Extra Credits [bad history, plagiarism, insufficient sources]
24:45 Kraut [bad history, strong political bias, insufficient sources]
31:06 Overly Sarcastic Productions [bad history, insufficient sources]
37:10 Kings & Generals [bad history, insufficient sources]
45:39 HomeTeam History [some bad history, speculation, some bad sources]
1:00:49 Whatifalthist [very bad history, strong political bias, insufficient sources, racism]
1:15:53 History Buffs [bad history, strong political bias, lack of sources]
1:22:11 Mark Felton [bad history, plagiarism]
1:28:05 Channels I didn't cover [not a history channel, too small, lack of activity, lack of presence on r/badhistory]
1:36:12 Conclusion
_______________________
Discord
/ discord
_______________________
Patreon | / veritasetcaritas
_______________________
Sources
veritas-et-caritas.com/index....
_______________________
Videos cited
Creating content: Making content accessible
• How to make accessible...
Should RUclips Historians Be Held to the Same Standards as Academic Historians?
• Should RUclips Histori...
The Monsieur Z/Emperor Tigerstar Incident (All Tweets & Full Analysis)
• The Monsieur Z/Emperor...
Response to HomeTeam History on the Ishango & Lebombo bones #1 | arithmetic & symbolic numeracy
• HomeTeam History on th...
Response to HomeTeam History on the Ishango & Lebombo bones #2 | Lunar calendars
• HomeTeam History on th...
__________________________
Recommended channels
/ @emperortigerstar
/ @samaronow
/ @asianometry
/ @atunsheifilms
__________________________
Relevant subreddits
/ badhistory
/ askhistorians
__________________________
Media sources
constable.ca/caah/
marinamaral.com/
imgur.com/t/colorized
www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000...
www.archives.gov/research/mil...
www.flickr.com/photos/iknowth...
At 12:54 I accidentally identified the Maginot Line as a fortification of World War I, when in fact it was built afterwards and used in World War II.
Bruh, but is good to give the correct answer.
@@helioslegigantosaure6939 honestly I'm pretty impressed that was the only slip I made in a 100 minute video.
@@veritasetcaritas yea you can be you make a great job
@@veritasetcaritas You also refer to the reddit post at 1:16:25 as being from 2006, and address it multiple times in the video as if it was a critique that is actually from 2006. It's impossible for that to be the case, the History Buffs video criticized is from 2016, and the channel itself was created in 2015. The graphic shown onscreen that says 2016 is correct.
@@elipticon7369 yes I caught that one after I uploaded the video, but I wasn't concerned about it since the citation on screen is correct.
Appreciate the surprisingly merciful take on my channel lol. Interestingly my maps while yes being visual based were ironically conceived as an idea to help learners who may need a visual thing to better understand an auditory lecture in class or to grasp the significance of an event in a documentary in more presentable terms. So while they aren't universal across all learners in effectiveness, I was in a way trying to fill in a gap I remembered noticing when I went to US public schools or seeing stuff online.
They certainly meet their use case.
And about the sources?
@@veritasetcaritasI disagree about the part on kraut being an islamophobe. he used to be part of the so called "skeptic community" but then realised just how toxic and awful they were. this was years ago. this doesn't justify or excuse his actions, but he has tried to put his past behind him and clean up his act
Learning style, which you are referencing here, is pseudo-science.
@@sylviamontaez3889can't find the image link but kraut wished death to islamic people in a deleted tweet saying "good, i hope they kill as many muslims as they can"
How many points do I lose if my source is “I made it up”? Asking for a friend…
One of the greatest citations in academia; "This was once revealed to me in a dream".
pbs.twimg.com/media/DWRAknGW4AAVjxo.jpg
@@veritasetcaritas I’m putting this in my description from now on 😂😂😂
@@veritasetcaritas now that is funny.
@@CalvinNoire I even have a link from r/historians explaining the background!
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y7k78d/comment/isvd6b2/?context=3
The Senator Armstrong method of research.
Bold move.
Debunking Whatifalthist is a genre of its own.
It's such low hanging fruit it's almost embarrassing to do.
@@veritasetcaritas Given his reach, debunking his content would be useful in my opinion.
@@marc7248 that's true.
You can't "debunk" him. He's a social critic. You can't "debunk" a opinion.
@@Anton2046gfkn when he makes false claims about history, those can be debunked. When he makes false claims about social and political events, those can be debunked. Additionally, when he expresses an opinion which is unsubstantiated by evidence, it can be demonstrated that the opinion is unsubstantiated by evidence. That doesn't debunk it, but it does show the opinion is unwarranted.
S tier is of course reserved for the most trustworthy, reliable and unbiased history channel: Dovahhatty
Yes the most Unbiased history ever
For me it's Sam O'Nella
A V E C H A D D I C U S M A X I M U S D O V A H A T T Y
not a single biased history, yay!!! (tbf hes better than whatifalthist lmao)
TRUE
While I defiently agree that pretty much all history themed RUclips channels severly lack proper sourcing, I can't quite ignore the irony that this video relies entirely on reddit posts as a source.
Well of course I'm citing Reddit posts, since this video is about how r/badhistory criticizes these channels. I can't make claims about how r/badhistory criticizes these channels without citing the posts in which they do so.
However as I mention in the video, I only cite Reddit posts which were written in good faith, which cited reliable sources, and which were supported by other posters who also supplied evidence they were correct. So there's no irony here. Some of the Reddit posts are several pages long, and quote or cite half a dozen sources, making them far better quality than the average history RUclipsr.
As I also mention in the video, I rejected r/badhistory posts which were poor quality, not well sourced, criticized by the community, or in bad faith. It's all about verifiability.
Additionally, my video doesn't only rely on r/badhistory posts, but my own criticism of these channels using verifiable data which I actually cite, identifying my sources.
@@veritasetcaritas Well I'm afraid it is ironic. Because - again - justified as your main criticism is, it comes across as a little _unimpressive_ when your source list is just a bunch of tweets, reddit posts and YT videos which - at best - would count as tertiary sources. You seem to take a very _style over substance_ approach on a sourcing, wherein as long as a piece meets the _formal_ criteria, you seem to consider that good source work with little regard to the actual quality of sources. While some of your sources do cite several -mostly- secondary sources (which is obviously good but something every Wikipedia article does) other of your sources only cite a single sencondary source one or none at all. So I'm not to impressed with your quality assurance, to be completly honest.
To bring it on one formula: The irony is that your video wouldn't score too high on your own scale... which I also think has issues. Especially category 4 rather seems to be a meassure of how well known a RUclipsr is and how much fun it is to post a take-down of them.
I think you have great potential, because you habe an eye for how good research _should_ be done, but you'll have to excuse when people point out you don't meet your own standards either.
@@noradrenalin8062
"your source list is just a bunch of tweets, reddit posts and YT videos which - at best - would count as tertiary sources."
They're secondary sources, since they are commenting on primary sources. Additionally, in their commentary they cite both primary and secondary sources to substantiate their critiques. So this is not "just a bunch of tweets, reddit posts and YT videos". This is verifiable evidence for the claims made.
"You seem to take a very style over substance approach on a sourcing, wherein as long as a piece meets the formal criteria, you seem to consider that good source work with little regard to the actual quality of sources."
No. I explicitly identified several criteria for assessing the quality of sources. I deducted points for:
* Irrelevant sources
* Outdated sources
* Unreliable sources
Those are all aimed specifically at the quality of the sources. I don't ever credit a channel simply for listing sources regardless of the quality.
As I've pointed out more than once, I applied this same principle to the Reddit posts and other criticisms I read online. I read through literally dozens and dozens of post on r/badhistory and other platforms, and sorted through them selecting those which made a verifiable case. I didn't select them simply because they used sources; I threw out many which did cite sources.
As I mentioned previously, I dismissed critiques which I thought were in bad faith, which were poorly or inadequately sourced, which were personally biased against the channel in some way, or which were explicitly critiqued by other commenters on r/badhistory. In my video I mention this repeatedly, citing posts I quote which were supported by additional posts on the subreddit, posts which often also provided their own sources. So this is not at all a matter of style over substance.
"hile some of your sources do cite several mostly secondary sources (which is obviously good but something every Wikipedia article does) other of your sources only cite a single sencondary source one or none at all."
Yes, but you need to assess whether the claim made required more than one source to substantiate. That's how research is done. Some claims don't require more than a single source for validation. Many claims don't even require a primary source for validation. You need to weigh the strength of the claim to assess the burden of evidence required to support it. If you're familiar with scholarly literature, especially academic book reviews, you'll find reviewers commonly dismiss claims of books they're reading by citing a single source, because that's all that's required.
"Especially category 4 rather seems to be a meassure of how well known a RUclipsr is and how much fun it is to post a take-down of them."
No, as I said it's more about their online reputation. I specifically mentioned that this is about reputation because a poor reputation doesn't necessarily mean the channel is bad. As I said in the video more than once, even a low score on this tier list doesn't mean the channel is bad. It just means that the channel doesn't follow what I consider to be good history RUclips practice.
I appreciate you taking the time to both watch the video and critique it, but the critique would have more force if you could demonstrate that the criticisms of these channels are poor quality and inaccurate, rather than simply implying this is the case.
Additionally, it would help if you could demonstrate that my own video here doesn't cite sources, or doesn't provide full citations, or only cites sources which are irrelevant, outdated, or unreliable. Then you could show that my video doesn't meet my own criteria.
@@veritasetcaritas I can't help but notice that four of the seven critiques you cite in the section on Whatifalthist are sourced from one user: u/UpperLowerEastSide.
That's over half of your sources on one topic coming from a single Reddit user.
And if you only glanced at that user's post history, it would be enough to confirm that their beliefs place him or her squarely in opposition to WIAH in terms of politics and ideology. The critique that you unscrupulously admit at 1:11:58, for instance, betrays the user's bent toward historical materialism, a Marxist theory of history. While there is merit to the user's analysis of how WIAH represents contemporary historiography, much of the content of that screed is also dedicated to simply criticizing WIAH for having a non-Marxian view of history and politics.
If you had properly evaluated that user's posts, the conflict of interest resulting from personal bias would have been obvious. From these observations of your overreliance on an unreliable source, it is consequently hard to trust that you did a fair job of assessing the quality of your selection of critiques.
I also think it is fair to call these Internet posts tertiary sources. Many of them (including the one previously mentioned) rely solely on secondary source material to support their claims.
👀
WhatIfAltHist truly is a unique individual. I remember deciding to check out a QnA video he put out, and about halfway in, he straight up said he doesn't like reading books "written after the 60s". This was years ago, and it's still etched into my brain.
Why doesn't he read books written after the 60s? To me that's really stupid
They're too "woke"
@@MD71198 Yeah, pretty much. I believe this was after his weird rambling about how "western civilization" is exceptional wrt harm reduction.
@@MD71198 Anything that changes his reactionary world view is "woke". Regardless of the validity.
@@Zane-It If I remember correctly, he claims books "comparing civilizations" stopped getting written as an overcorrection from Nazism.
I am continually embarrassed to realize how ignorant and easily tricked I am.
So am I. Throw some geopolitics into your viewing habits and it gets even better. So much bad content, unfortunately not always obvious from the start.
you not now :D
how do you know this channel isnt trying to trick you?
@@Maussiegamer because if you had some based understand about history and watch those channel you know they suck
@@Maussiegamer How do I know YOU are not trying to trick me?
Learning history from youtube should NEVER be your ONLY option. I love learning history on youtube, but I also like reading books and online sources.
Yeah, but those are for nerds.
Have you considered that not everyone can afford books.
@@abnerdoon4902 as one of those people, if you have an internet connection it is pretty easy to get free books since libgen & scihub exist
@@abnerdoon4902go to the fcking public library if you live in a relatively wealthy country (which most people on here do). Tons of history there
@@abnerdoon4902I take it you havent heard of open library?
I largely agree with everything you said, however I think people forget that many of these channels are made up of groups of individuals, not just one guy. Kingsandgenerals, for example, has a large number of writers, but if you look at the videos of theirs featured on r/badhistory, they're all written by the same one or two individuals. That's why their quality varies so much.
Cool you have multiple writer and you know what they do on today I found out Simon finds out somebody's making up shit? Oh they FIRE them.
My source: Karl Smallwood who was encouraged to make his own channel due to his writing style and success with one particular video
Karl Smallwood is such a cool guy
I think what if althist needs to just accept that he is a polical commentator that talks about history, rather than an althistory channel or a history channel, that would avoid alot of confusion
Good points.
Yeah but he doesn't even get the political stuff he talks about right. I'd even be fine with him being a political commentator except he just lies about the political history and makes shit up. In which case, he'd be a fantastic politician but still. Critiquing an ideology without fully representing and yourself understanding that ideology, adds credence to it, no matter how stupid or bad it is. Even if one is to think Communism is the worst ideology ever made (which he certainly seems to think) one should still accurately represent it so as to attack each argument made in good faith and not throwing baseless criticisms against it or insults like hOW StuPiD IS THiS iDEoLOGy!? Yet that's all I've ever seen from him
@@gaybowser4967 Communism should be treated with nothing but ridicule and all who followed it publicly shamed for the idiotic believes. Althis has said incorrect things in the past and is very bias, though Communism is an absolute evil there is no doubt of that. The whole twenty century is filled the the failures of that ideology. Millions of people died at the hands of those who followed it blindly and sadly it is still being taught like it will work. It is just envy, a sin and nothing more. I am glad Althis has the nerve call it as such, few "historians" have the balls or are communist shitheads themselves.
He doesn't talk about history he talks about a parallel past that exists in his head which he uses to make a political point. This is insanity.
@@Kaiyanwang82 that's a good way to put it.
One thing I've realized over the years is to be very critical of channels that cover a large variety of history.
Specializing and not commenting on topics outside of your expertise is something very few history buffs do
Yes, as I mention in the video specialist history channels tend to do better.
Drachinifel is the the GOAT for this. He covers the naval history of WW1 and 2 (with a bit of age of sail and steam), has a backround in engineering, and is extremely well sourced.
That is definitely a problem, I think. I'm an historian and host a history podcast, so I fully understand the desire to make content. But I would rather take more time to research something more diligently and also stick to something that I know, rather than just "put something out there."
@@veritasetcaritas Do you have an opinion already on the "Fall of Civilizations Podcast" channel? They go for extremely long-form documentaries, only have less than a dozen such uploaded, but strike me as rather good production quality.
They are of course a generalist channel, and given the lengths+breadths of each of the videos, sourcing would be difficult.
I only heard of /rbadhistory first today here, so I have no idea if the channel even came up there before.
@@Enyavar1 I have followed them for at least a year. I have noted that they go to some lengths to use good sources, especially primary sources, and since they're mainly descriptive rather than analytical (with some exceptions), I think they're pretty reliable in general.
I think using r/badhistory for reviews isn't a really good idea. Critiques seem far more emotionally driven than just pointing out inaccuracies. I would just compare information on their videos directly to a trusted primary/secondary source.
I don't think that's true of most critiques, but in any case, as I explained in the video, I only used those critiques which cited proper scholarly sources which were verifiable, and rejected low quality, unsupported, or bad faith criticisms.
I agree with OP, true history isn't determined by consensus or popularity
@@goatcheezius2399 History doesn't have absolute truths. Our sources rely on if pliny the elder was telling the truth.
@@pulsar2049 well, either things happened or they didn't and that truth won't be found by reddit's horde of emotional midwits
@@goatcheezius2399 of course it isn't, but it's not decided by internet randos making unsubstantiated claims either. The importance of academic consensus is not that "this is how history is determined", or "this is true because many people say it's true", the importance of academic consensus is how it's formed. When it comes to historical analysis it's always easier to demonstrate a case is weak or false than to demonstrate it is true. So history RUclips channels need to make a greater effort if they want to substantiate their case. Many of them don't even try, making them easy to debunk.
As we all know Redditors are the end all be all in any matter.
Thought the same 😂 as if reddit is more believable
Most redditors aren't worth listening to, but some are subject experts. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary.
@@veritasetcaritas I don't mean any offense, but you must understand that from the outside looking in it all seems a bit 🤓🤓🤓(the subreddit itself I mean). Then again I'm not exactly sure if historians have anything better to do with their time.
I have a question now, what the hell do historians actually do, is it just like a hobby for some people?
@@ijoel6747 most historians are employed either at educational institutions or in academia. Many historians are highly interested in correcting false impressions of history, especially pop history, and spend their time doing so online. A few of them have free blogs, RUclips channels, websites, or twitter accounts for this purpose. There are several professional historians on RUclips.
Damn, these reddit historians are so judgemental. We all know Whatifalt is a black hole from which no sanity can escape, but some of these other channels seem to be getting some undeserved shade...
They are redditors, never give them too much trust
Well they do provide evidence and sources, it's not like they're just providing personal opinions.
@veritasetcaritas even so, a lot of the criticism comes off as "they didn't present the info the way I would've" which comes off very uppity. (Or like they huff their own farts)
@@shakachoarroyomost complaints I see with presentation on the subreddit are about how it misrepresents information. And imo misrepresentation may as well be misinformation.
@@The_Wei-a-natorQuite a bit is also redditors who complain about time spent on different topics, such as the quote that was used to criticize Blue's history of medieval India. While skipping topics such as the tripartite struggle can be valid, complaining about the video being so short and not going in depth on the broad history is essentially being uppity.
As someone who used to watch a lot of whatifalthist, I really appreciate videos like this! I think my 'wakeup call' so to speak was when he was talking about how marrying distant relations had some advantages, and said he was considering making a dating app specifically tailored to find your third cousins 😅
Yikes!
Shelbyville Manhattan : I tell you, I won't live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!
Honestly my wake up call to stop watching whatofalthist was the vaush debate and also because one of my friends told me and other ones a bunch of his bad history
@@Mercury29477 I have to say, if someone comes off bad in a Vaush debate, they're certainly not doing well.
He was joking you are being bad faith
While I can't argue that Overly Sarcastic Productions do sometimes get history wrong when they deviate from their wheelhouses, I can argue that I've never seen Blue make an error in terms of Greek literature or mythology. I can also say that Red's analysis of literature, namely her Tropes series, is incredibly knowledgeable, well researched, and well structured. This is perhaps why people should stick to their wheelhouses in terms of attempting to educate others.
That being said, kudos for this video. It must have taken weeks of research. I'm new to your channel, and I'll definitely be checking out your other work.
Yes I think it's very important for people to stay within their area of skill. And yes, this took me over six months to prepare, and the video went through six editions before I completed it, and even then I still wasn't entirely satisfied. But you can't make "perfect" the enemy of "sufficient for purpose". Thanks for your support!
@@veritasetcaritas additionally OSP’s history section to my knowledge is solely created by Blue, with few exceptions. To my knowledge, with the exception of the podcast where a friend acts as an Editor, the videos are made, researched by Red and Blue individually depending on the type of video (I.e. if it’s a story or myth summarisation or an analysis of tropes in media, it’s all Red and if it’s a History video, it’s all Blue), with the exception of guest videos. This structure seemingly only functions because each of them get two weeks total to make the average video, not counting “detail diatribes”, which are used to free up space in their schedules). To some extent I think within that sort of structure their faults are understandable (which note: doesn’t excuse problems) and even as someone who is a fan of the channel, I see blue as being a bit weaker (which as your video touches on slightly, is probably because the sheer timescale history can take place on makes it hard to summarise in into an average RUclips video).
@@Emery_Pallas thanks for the detailed comment.
Yeah, Red and Blue aren't malicious or disengenious like others
Rather, I think they portrait history as they do myths, with morals, a hero and a journey, instead of a complicated series of events with usually no right side or a lesson
@@jesusramirezromo2037 right, I think it's partly due to their interest in tropes and myth, that they gravitate automatically to more pop history narratives which sacrifice accuracy for storytelling. Not intentionally, but just because they're used to thinking in that way so when they read pop history it makes sense to them so they accept it rather than critiquing it. But that's just a guess.
OSP has put a lot of their videos including the classical warfare video into a delisted playlist called Bad History.
That's a good decision.
@@veritasetcaritas Regarding the other videos mentioned, I believe the Byzantine Empire video might be in it. You also referenced a post listing classical history videos that were inaccurate, I haven't looked at the post yet but there are a lot of classical history videos in playlist so I assume there is some crossover. I don't think the video on the Ottomans you brought up was in it.
Edit: It was the Persian Empire video that I was thinking of. The Medieval India and the Crusades video is also not in the playlist.
As an historian, the issue with all of these channels and reddit comments is that history is naturally argumentative and controversial.
What makes sources reliable is not always consistent, and simply because a Reddit poster is sourced doesn’t mean they’re anymore correct than the YT channels they’re criticizing.
As a historian you would know that unsourced claims are less reliable than sourced claims, peer reviewed scholarly literature is more reliable than the personal opinions of non-scholars, and scholarly consensus is a good guide to which arguments and controversies are regarded as substantially settled. I don't think all of history is just a wild grab-bag of arguments, controversies, and personal opinions all of the same value. Surely you as a historian are better informed and reliable than a RUclipsr without any formal training in history providing nothing more than unsubstantiated personal opinion.
I agree that "simply because a Reddit poster is sourced doesn’t mean they’re anymore correct than the YT channels they’re criticizing". But when a Reddit poster is using a credible source, and the RUclips channel they're criticizing is using no source at all, or using a demonstrably poor source, then I'm going with the Reddit poster. Their claims are verifiable.
The man above gives a FAR more kinder view on your comment than I myself would. History and its research is ANCHORED by SOURCES and specifically PRIMARY SOURCES. This is History 101. The fact that you were so willing to disregard what someone said regarding history, not due to the lack of sources, but due to them being REDDIT user yet the "RUclips Historian" who has made NO reference to sources and is largely talking from is --- is not just telling, but bewildering
Kraut is not perfect but he does admit when he’s wrong. However these are in the comments and most people won’t notice. In fact after the danube video, he made a community post about how he got it completely wrong and the pinned comment on that post is a comment critical of him. Even if he’s not perfect, he generally seems to respond well to criticism.
Yes I'll definitely grant him that.
@@veritasetcaritas I definitely can’t give that to whatifalthist though. He just claims that criticism against him is just the “woke leftists” targeting him for speaking the truth
@@kaiservonpanzer213 yeah he absolutely has a conspiratorial persecution complex when it comes to criticism. But of course he thinks the universities have all been "taken over by leftists".
His danube video made me unsubscribe from his channel so it is good to hear that at least he acknowledges his mistakes
@@_TkiT_ I heard that video was a big turn-off for quite a few people.
Seems like hometeam history intentionally withhold informations to make African civilizations look "better". That's too bad, because they provide information on lesser-known topics (to me anyway).
I'm much more forgiving of channels like K&G which makes errors out of ignorance or lack of care, rather than intentionally misleading viewers.
Yeah I think HomeTeam has a tendency towards that.
A scary thing is if we learn a educator or reporter was blatantly wrong months or years later, I can't just go into my memory and figure out what misconceptions I have from them and erase them.
Yeah misinformation can be perniciously influential.
Really? I do just that, go over what they taught and flag it up in my head as unreliable or false. A lot of learning is correction as there is a lot of nonsense out there, including in textbooks, popular history and media about history. Though I'd agree it is preferable to avoid it in the first place.
Called the “law of primacy” in the “laws of learning” I had to memorize to be a flight instructor. The material we learn on “how to teach” is so old but it’s still what popped up in my head when I read your comment.
Trust me bro, we down voted it on Reddit.
LMAO.
Shoutout to Crash Course World History’s “Swedish doesn’t sound like Russian so the Rus’ couldn’t have had anything to do with vikings” implication and Extra Credits’ butchering of the map in their episode on the Volga Rus’ where they describe going west northwest upstream as “North of Volga Bulgaria”.
Also depicting Cleopatra as a girlboss who adeptly manipulated Caesar, Octavian; and Antony to her own ends even though she didn’t do that at all and dies in the end.
They really said all that? I remember checking one episode and nopeing right out. It was cringe and full of forced memes 😮
Except she absolutely did. Obviously she ultimately failed but the reason there’s so much overcorrection when it comes to Cleopatra is because how so much of academia has focused solely on how she was this super hot temptress, when she wasn’t.
@@simoneidson21 ,how did she manipulate them? I don't know much about history, but reading Augustus' biography didn't make her seem all that important.
@@kregy7509 augustus was her political opponent, so there is a bias there
How much she "manipulated" is hard to say, but she was without a doubt a very influential and important ruler during that time. Egypt was one of the major powers in the Mediterranean, and Cleopatra played an important role in politics.
@@simoneidson21has "so much of academia" really focused so much on "how she was a super hot temptress"?
Isn't that hollywood/ pop culture that has done that?
Ah, yes, Reddit, that magnificent peer-reviewed journal...
This video doesn't represent Reddit itself as equivalent to a peer reviewed journal. The point it makes is that the r/badhistory criticism quoted is always based on scholarly literature which the critics actually cite. So if you disagree with the criticism you're not simply up against Reddit, you actually are up against peer reviewed literature.
@@limbitsafe6620 what you've written shows you don't understand how peer reviewed literature works, or how it is used by academics. I've learned the historiographical method at college level, and have undergraduate and post-graduate experience with using peer reviewed literature. I've also been published in peer reviewed literature myself. Neither r/badhistory nor this video are about simply seeking out information to support personal biases. If you have a specific objection you need to provide evidence for it, preferably from, you guessed it, peer reviewed literature.
@@limbitsafe6620 I don't simply take peer reviewed literature at face value. I learned the historiographical method at university, and I was taught the social historiographical method, which is exactly the "man on the ground" perspective you're talking about. This has been standard in the historical academy for years. If you think you've made "major mistakes on the deeper understanding of history", by all means point them out with evidence.
And no, I did not say "teams who run other channels are bad because of minor issues". I certainly did not call channels bad for minor issues. I didn't say anything like that. I explicitly mentioned that minor issues don't make a channel unreliable. In fact right at the outset I said explicitly that my criticism of these channels doesn't mean they are necessarily bad or you can't learn good history from them. I said this.
"A low score on this tier list doesn’t necessarily mean the channel is so bad you shouldn’t watch it. It typically means the channel has received a lot of criticism at r/badhistory, and has fallen short of best practice for producing historical content."
Friendly fire spotted? Mr 3 arrow conformist you do realize redditoids are on your side?
@@GAMER123GAMINGlefties genuinely think reddit is a bunch of white male sexist racist basement dwellers. They eat their own for not being radical enough
I want to believe you, but I sadly have to stop because of your description. I don't trust anyone from reddit, but even worse when they come from r/badhistory
You don't have to trust anyone from r/badhistory, but you should pay attention when they cite mainstream scholarship and academic consensus. When they do, you're not arguing with some internet rando, you're the internet rando arguing with scholarship and academics.
There's something extremely ironic about critiquing channels by using Reddit comments as a source that often are highly biased/politicized
It's not accurate to say I cites Reddit as a source. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary.
For example, r/AskHIstorians is recommended by the American Historical Association.
www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/have-a-question-about-the-past-askhistorians
@sigan7208 the people I take the sources from are typically centrists or liberals, not leftists. The sources they cite are typically likewise centrist or liberal.
what is the difference?@@veritasetcaritas
@@tago3860 are you asking what the difference is between an unsubstantiated opinion by a random internet person, and an evidence based statement from mainstream scholarly literature? The difference is in quality, editorial control, peer review, factual basis, and level of education.
@@veritasetcaritas" the people I take the sources from are typically centrists or liberals, not leftists. The sources they cite are typically likewise centrist or liberal."
- u quoted
I keep hearing people differentiating between liberals and leftists so what do you think differentiates them I have a general idea but I don't really know
Really interesting to hear about Kings and Generals as my Middle Eastern professor (both Middle Eastern himself and a professor of it) often showed us their videos and said how well made they were. Perhaps he meant in reference to maps and not necessarily the content itself.
I think it's also fair to say they generate so much content covering so many topics that it would really take some close examination from a specialist to identify the serious issues. The production value also gives a strong impression of profesisonalism.
@@veritasetcaritas I would agree with that, and despite one Reddit comment having an issue with a Persian history episode, perhaps we can say for the most part the Middle Eastern videos are well made. My professor is half Arab and half Persian and a created his own textbook about the region, so I'd say he is fairly trustworthy in his praise of that channel.
@@sevelofficial2696 yes there's no doubt that some of their videos are indisputably better than others. They're definitely not a junk channel, just inconsistent.
The are certainly inconsistent and I've criticised them for it in the past, however to be frank reddit is a cesspit not a reliable source, I doubt anything the critics made would be anywhere near as good as to be frank most of these people know nothing about history. If you asked 4 Chan about politics you'd also get citations but likewise they wouldn't necessarily mean anything and one would have to doubt if they had read the things in the first place. I'd recommend asking a historian with a reliable track record online like historians craft rather than relying on people who are almost certainly heavily biased on multiple levels.
@@vorynrosethorn903honestly, as a history bachelor, on the topics I was informed about, Kings and Generals tend to be pretty up to date in which sources they use
I remember Whatifalthist mentioning how a friend stated that his videos were completely logical and based on reason, so would be an accurate prediction of the future. What got me was that he responded by saying it was also due to his readings and knowledge of the past, but never mentioned how his predictions were incredibly unlikely. He seems overconfident in his beliefs, knowledge, and reasoning.
This sums up his "main character syndrome". I really get the vibes that in the groups of friends he hangs out with, he's the only one who is into history and so to they see him as being inherently knowledgeable on the topic because he has read some history books, albeit only those that validate his own beliefs and he just accepts it.
A comparison is how Ben Shaprio and Stephen Crowder would debate college freshman or random people on the street who aren't as "knowledgeable" on a certain topic so they framed it as those people being dumb while they were smart. And thats also why they cant debate people who are actually knowledge on the issue because they'd lose. That is who Whatifalthist is
WIAH absolutely talks about himself as if he's the main character.
@@Spongebrain97Ben Shapiro's only purpose in politics is to be an Israeli shill and trap evangelicals into mindlessly supporting Zionism.
No in every prediction video he says he could be wrong as he is betting against God.
I’m sorry he doesn’t say this at all he says his predictions are logical but stuff likely wrong because of how the world is very complex.
You criticisms of King and Generals are fair imo even I if I do love the channel for introducing me to history
I have collaborated with K&G, and I really think they make a strong effort to produce good history. They also select research staff based on their subject knowledge. However, with the sheer volume of content they put out, with such a tight deadline, and on so many subjects, and typically only covering them in 20 minutes, it's inevitable that their content will be uneven in quality.
@@veritasetcaritas yeah. It obvious that when they have the time they make amazing stuff as shown in their alternate history of mongols invading Europe which take a month or more to make
As a history grad I don't "mind" K&G. Even most textbooks written by historians gloss over stuff or give inaccuracies.
A thorough historiographical deepdive on even a minor topic can easily take up to 12 months of intense reading.
Then there is also the issue of very unreliable sources (do we really know what happened when the crusaders took Jerusalem?) which leads to varying opinions between historians which each being able to make a good case.
K&G does storytelling, and does it well.
@@daarom3472 yes I like them myself. I've even collaborated with them on a history video project. I mainly marked them down for sourcing and citation practice. They would have received a significantly higher score otherwise.
@@daarom3472What is your view of K&G? From what I’ve seen, they are good in other topics, but not so much in others. I’m feeling concerned, conflicted and I don’t know what to think atm (I’m kind of in the middle). Sorry if this seems odd or something.
Kraut is fairly well in hiding his inadequacies. He has been in good terms with yt algo, his videos are prominently recommended.
Sadly true.
Man, I remember when Extra History was good. They actually got me going down the history rabbit hole for like 5 years of my life.
I think they're still good as an entry point to the field, they themselves admit that they aren't fantastic historians, but it's much more interesting than most historians, largely only talking over a plain background.
From what I've seen their quality hasn't changed much over the years. They remain a good entry point for history and an entertaining channel but taking streight facts from them is and was never a good idea.
@@amerifatcheeseburger yep they choose a very weird hill to die on with that video
Still watch their myth series though
@@amerifatcheeseburger why? All the alt-rightoids got very mad at this, but they have a good point from a gameplay-narrative perspective. I think they know about making games a lot more than these chuds
@@chh2010 no, its not weird, it got all the 4channers mad and out of their woodworks
Seeing as this is coming from Reddit of all places I only really buy whats said about whatifalthist. Literally one of the criticisms for OSP reads "Blue did this, this, and that wrong, but Red is cool" like its not obvious when a redditor is simping.
That's true, but I didn't say that means Red is good, and I identified weaknesses in Red's content too.
Sources cited: Reddit, HOI4
Sources cited, mainstream academic commentary quoted by people on Reddit, some of whom are professional historians or subject specialists.
@@garblites yes some. But they ALL cite mainstream academic scholarship, sometimes a dozen sources, and that's why they're reliable. I'll always trust mainstream academic scholarship over a random RUclipsr rehashing a Wikipedia article in a 10 minute video without any attention to standard historiographical method.
But isn’t r/badhistory or “Ask historians” tainted by the flaws of Reddit becoming a echo chamber. And just because you have a degree or call yourself a historian doesn’t mean the person verifying it doesn’t brings a motive for modifying the history or did so for a political reason which both are unethical way of handling the historical record.
I haven't seen any evidence that either of those subreddits is an echo chamber. On the contrary, especially at r/badhistory as soon as you make a post there people will start critiquing it. Some posts are removed completely because people think they are unwarranted criticism, inaccurate, in bad faith, or unsupported.
Sure just because you have a degree or call yourself a historian doesn't mean you don't have a motive for modifying the history. But the burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate such a person is modifying the history.
@@veritasetcaritasthey do have a clear left wing slant, and are anglosaxon biased. I would not trust them on for instance Belgian or French history, as many of them cannot read french or dutch properly
@@immortalituss I haven't seen any evidence that they are "angosaxon biased", especially since a number of them are not even European. I don't know how many can read French of Dutch properly, but I don't know if you can know either. Regardless, no comment there is worth trusting unless it is supported by reliable verifiable scholarly sources.
@@veritasetcaritas well I have studied both the Dutch East Indies and the Congo Free State, and noted they only use english sources, while many invaluable sources are in other languages, which can cause a gap in knowledge.
@@immortalituss do they only use English sources, or do they also use English translations of sources in other languages?
The fun part is, if any of those redditors (including the expert historians) made videos, they would be criticized for the very same reasons they hate those youtubers.
I seriously doubt that, especially with regard to the expert historians.
@@veritasetcaritasyou seem rather confident in the abilities of redditors.
@@veritasetcaritas because reading a lot about one subject doesn't translate to the ability of teaching it, and even less to making a 10 minute video for big audiences.
Also, they are redditors, the same people who thought they could buy an island and create their own country with Elon Musk and Keanu Reeves as gods. I wouldn't trust no one who says they are an expert in something over there
@@falman40 I am confident in the abilities of redditors who demonstrate subject knowledge and who cite mainstream scholarly literature, and I am even more confident in the abilities of redditors who are also professionally trained historians.
@@veritasetcaritas If their sources are so reputable why are you citing reddit posts instead of their sources? You may as well argue Wikipedia is your source because trained historians contribute to it and it cites scholarly literature. And it does it a hell of a lot more reliably than fucking reddit. You fail your own criteria.
I also feel bad for a guy like Kraut, who probably doesn’t even have a team who helps him work on his beautiful animations while diligently researching his information.
Kraut actually has people working for him who do his graphics. He's very careful to credit them too, and he pays them.
@@veritasetcaritasWould've been more suprising if he didn't pay them.
I actually watch a couple artist that he's credited because they are actually also countryball RUclipsrs
Right, it also feels a bit wrong for Kraut and Extra History to be right next to each other, when their scope and general angle in every history video is so wildly different (even if there are legitimate criticisms).
@@eX1st4132 that is why I explained at here that two channels being on the same tier doesn't mean they're both of equal quality.
ruclips.net/video/V7qV7QBxmTE/видео.html
>cares more about soources than historical accuracy
>redditor
checks out
I don't care more about sources than historical accuracy. I marked several channels down for poor accuracy despite marking them higher for using sources.
,
@staeins Simply making up a lie is not a counterargument.
@@happygofishing There are two ways to be an "NPC" (a nonthinking individual): one is to blindly accept what one is offered (by peers/authorities one trusts/w/e), other is to blindly reject what one is offered (by people one doesn't like or w/e). Though these two in actuality tend to go hand in hand, at least here you're presenting yourself as (at least) engaging in the latter form.
A criticism is valid (or not) based on its merits, not on where it happened to be posted (or you encountered it).
You rejecting a criticism because "it was posted on Reddit" is basically the ever-so-slightly more mature version of "girls have cooties": a proclamation of your own immature emotional biases.
'soources' are how you ensure historical accuracy my guy.
this is the dumbest comment i have seen so far
"Kraut is a islamophobe"
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
yes
Yah, it’s not good
Saying " the earth is flat" vs saying "the earth is spherical and I don't think islam is compatible with europe" doesnt make the first argument better so....i'll let u think.
In spanish we have a little joke for the people who say bold things without good sources
"Fuente: de los deseos"
That's excellent. Reminds me of perhaps the most infamous footnote in an academic publication, "This was revealed to me in a dream". Some source!
@@veritasetcaritas Really? That sounds extremely goofy I can't believe it. It sounds almost like a shitpost
@@Doodles00312 it's a fact. To be fair, the person writing was a mystic who said he had gained an insight while asleep, so it's not quite the same as making a claim of fact based on a wild vision.
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y7k78d/what_was_the_context_of_the_famous_this_was_once/
>uses reddit as main source
>Immediately mine the Himalayas for grains of only the finest of salts
It's not accurate to say I cites Reddit as a source. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary.
On kings and generals - if I recall, for some of their series, they do hire specialists for scriptwriting (see their mongol series, largely written by TheJackmeister). So, not always one guy. Don't know if this influences other major projects though.
Also, your French pronunciation is funny.
Thanks. I noticed one video in which they identified a specialist, which I cited in this video, and after I had made this video one of the members of my Discord server advised me they don't always have the same researcher for every video, though they only have one researcher for one video, which doesn't seem like enough.
My French pronunciation is funny because I'm not French and only ever learned a very little in school, so I don't speak it well.
In fact, the criticism on K&G is kinda moot. Firstly, the channel improved significantly but r/smuhistorians didn't change their opinion on it. Secondly, some of the criticism in the video are absurd. "Attract nationalists" is a dumb criticism and shows the bias. K&G ofter tackles non-westerner stuff that could attract all sort of people from everywhere.
@@Kaiyanwang82What do you think of K&G? There are things that are good, while other things aren’t. I don’t know who to trust with the criticisms, and I’m ending up in the middle, filtering the perspectives and such.
@@drakehashimoto685 I just said. Not perfect and many imprecisions are there, but they improved and have their heart in the right place.
I prefer people take a grain of salt in this video, just as the guy critics the people in the video he himself cites Reddit as source.
Search the fact yourself and make a conclusion based on that, history channels are basically crash course that should be treated as gateway to historical learning trough valid works done by actual historians.
And in my personal opinion, fun is an important thing when trying to get into history and youtubers exactly are doing that.
It's not accurate to say I cites Reddit as a source. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary. I agree that history channels on RUclips are generally more entertainment than historical education, but as I point out in this video many of them position themselves as serious and credible, and advertise themselves as providing a genuine historical education. When they do that, it's valid to critique them on the basis of the claims they make for themselves.
@@jacobgriggs9673 reddit isn't a person. I cited people who used scholarly literature. This is how academic study works.
@@veritasetcaritas nobody on Reddit is a verified historian from any legitimate institution of higher knowledge.
this is essentially "which history youtuber has the most upvotes"
@@largin386 you would be more credible if you cited evidence for your claims. But in this case it's trivially easy to prove you wrong. To take r/AskHistorians as an example, that subreddit is recommended by the American Historical Assocation precisely because it has members who are real historians.
www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/have-a-question-about-the-past-askhistorians
Here are some of the professional historians at r/AskHistorians.
1. Roel Konijnendijk.
www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/spartans-war-myth-vs-reality/
2. Mike Dash.
mikedashhistory.com/2019/01/18/ask-mike/
3. Alex Wellerstein.
www.askhistorians.com/2020-keynote
4. Benerson Little.
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fpy0w/wednesday_ama_piracy_from_antiquity_to_the_present/
It really has been interesting seeing how many of the creators I watch have different levels of historical standards, and to consider how I should take in that content.
Thank you, that's my aim.
Is r/badhistory even a reliable criterion, and if so please explain why the individual complaints shouldn't be gone through with context in mind
I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary. And yes, verifiable academic commentary is a reliable criterion.
I agree the individual complaints should be gone through with context in mind. As I mentioned in this video, I examined the individual complaints and rejected any which were in bad faith, which were critiqued heavily by others, which didn't provide any evidence, or which seemed to misunderstand the video they were critiquing.
@@veritasetcaritas Thank you, for someone not familiar with Reddit, it could be necessary to explain it. I admire you're quick response, and you're lengthy explanation. Keep up the good work, and greetings from Denmark
BTW this was not a criticism but a question, I am new to the channel so I was confused
@@davidcoquelle3081 thank you. The r/badhistory subreddit actually has some members who are professionals or subject specialists, and the rules of that subreddit require posters to support their arguments with relevant sources from reliable scholarly literature.
You should do this more but I’m with a bigger amount of youtube like oversimplified, Armchair historian, and the Cynical historian to name a few
I think armchair and oversimplified would be D because they don’t cite sources from what I know I haven’t watched their videos in a while so I could be wrong. Cynical historian cites his sources pretty well but I think the only criticism you can make of him is he oversimplifies some issues but that’s kinda rare I’ve never heard any egregious errors from him so probably A or B it helps he’s an actual historian lol
@@saadsachwani2837 yeah even if I don’t like how some of Cynical historian treats criticism and is bias towards the left
@@saadsachwani2837 I think Oversimplified being C makes sense since they do pop history but it’s obvious they are not a reliable source and are making infotainment
@@board-qu9iu do you know what channel are you on ?
@@stanisawkasprowicz5947 yeah why ask me yhat
Whatifalthist is certainly a league of his own.
Would love to see you review Fall of Civilizations, History Time, History with Cy or Jabzy.
I like FoC, he sticks with one thing and does it very well, in particular very respectfully to the cultures he's addressing.
I love fall of civilizations. I started watching him because of his Songhai video.
@@veritasetcaritas he does sometimes make factual errors though, which makes me feel like he's more focused on telling a good story than getting it right. But i'm saying that as a fan who listens to his work a lot, so, like, still solid B tier imo.
what about Epimetheus?
@@pantalaemon I was really really into Maritime History at one point. Like ocean liners from the 1840s to the 1970s. Relatively small time in history.
But loads of generic history channels would talk about these ships and get stuff wrong or not mention stuff or just talk about something I never heard of. Kinda made me realize how difficult it can be to find right sources with any topic. Especially if you are being broad with entire civilizations from thousands of years ago
I feel like it's more a leftist appreciation of history Channels on RUclips than anything else.
Well virtually all of the criticisms I quoted are from non-leftists, and the framework I created for assessing the quality of each channel has nothing to do with leftism. If this was a leftist assessment I would have used criteria specific to leftism.
Ooh yeah, I realized most of these channels aren't wholly accurate after beginning my undergrad in history. With that said, some of them make for good entertainment when you're doing something else, like making dinner. Just take most things with a grain of salt, and know what you're probably gonna have to do your own research for any deep dive into a certain topic. I will admit that Simple History's Sengoku Jidai series led me to research heavily into that period myself, and I was able to pick things out in that video myself later on. I still believe they have worth as an introduction to a topic at first, gotta get people interested in history, or the STEM fields will completely overrun us lol.
Yes that's a good way to look at them.
Also to be fair with a few of them they don't really claim to be an authority to the field of History Nor claim to be any sort of expert, which is where History Buffs, OSP, Simple History ect but at the same time that doesn't mean that mistakes shouldn't be corrected because thats how any Field of Education works.
History Buffs fall into a lot of the Same Myths prevalent in the pop space he claims Braveheart does for example a lot highlighted here but for the KOH Review his main Fail was presenting it as some sort of Purely Spiritial/Religious Conflict ignoring fairly Political reasons for it (though tbf if we are talking about the "Average Person" from the Medieval Period they would probably answer with something similar even though thats not really the case, especially when you look at it from the top.) I myself am not a historian and did fall for this myth years ago but a mistake is a mistake.
I would love to have seen a review of the very active and large channel "WW2" that covers the second world War week by week ,,.... Given how their content is framed in a very professional manner, it would be interesting to see how they stack up to scrutiny my r/bahistory, and others
Hostility toward Ottoman empire? Oh, no, who would ever be hostile toward maniacs that built towers out of human skulls (go ahead, google ćele-kula) ...
Man, I remember back when whatifalthist was just a niche alt history youtuber with some cool and funny alt history content. Nowadays he just posts "end of times" videos on his channel and is entirely dedicated to future historical speculation. This was a big turnoff for me. I very much like some of the points he makes in his videos but I will say that I've lost respect for him as time has gone on, even going so far as to unsub from him. I hope Rudyard figures out how to find his old channels magic again whilst continuing to make the other historical content that he enjoys as well.
I’m pretty right wing and study history and economics… the good points he makes are jus the very slightly below the water in depth right wing talking points. It’s insufferable to listen to when he makes dumb claims like “slavery was good for the economy!” (It wasn’t, it hindered it) or “the Nazi economy was good actually!!!” When it was worse than its communist neighbour… relied on slave labour… was built on a fundamental lie of a loans program, then on pillaging innocent nations. Sources? Oh yea just list about 50 books without page numbers for a 40 minute video. That makes sense.
Ironic you say this considering his most recent video is about how the 2024 election will cause a civil war
This isn't a measure of quality of history, just a Reddit Popularity contest.
Sorry, no. It's random RUclipsr making historical claims with no sources, which are easily proved false by well informed people, some of them actual historians or subject experts, using mainstream scholarly literature. The r/Ask Historians subreddit is actually recommend by the American Historical Association for its accuracy.
@veritasetcaritas I'm sorry but I don't exactly have anymore faith in Redditors to get stuff right than the youtube channels. Especially people on reddit claiming to be experts.
@@bobchipman4473
Bad as redditors are at least they ones on the subreddits in question cite numerous scholarly sources. The channels in question most of them don't cite anything lmao. You let your own bias blind you ironically
@@bobchipman4473then why are you so pressed about this video?
@@veritasetcaritasboth do the same. Even here in this video You said You had to filter posts and comments made out of spite and bias against the RUclips channels. So at the end, both are equally unreliable, with only few accurate examples
"I checked 30 WhatIfAltHist videos"
Christ, I'm so sorry, your recommendations list must be even more nightmarish than usual.
It was very interesting to see which channels he was connected to though. He has more of a reach than I expected.
@@veritasetcaritas
I was sorry to see that Cody from Althist Hub has collaborated with him.
Every video Asianometry releases seems to be a fantastic deep dive. Initially ran across them while looking for the larger picture of the history of electronics production (I worked in that field, and have always had an interest in it) and they did not disappoint. So much more detailed than I thought could viably exist on this platform.
Yes I have been very impressed with his research.
There are many points in his videos where I just lose him, because of how heavily technical it is about chemistry, physics and electronic engineering
But then again, I'm not in that field, just a tech enthusiast.
Asianometry is on of my favorite channels for sure.
Great video and an important topic. That said you've managed to create a tier list that doesn't adequately demonstrate the qualitative difference between some of these channels. It's similar to (but the reverse of) ranking a bunch of things 1-10 then using criteria that results in everything being a 7 or 8, often for vastly different reasons.
Again, I found the discussion of these channels to be enlightening, but the tier list itself to have little meaning outside displaying the channel pictures.
Thanks for the compliment. The tier list is based on the qualitative difference between the channels which I describe in detail in the video. The qualitative differences are identified using my four main criteria, all of which have sub-criteria.
I explain how each score relates to each tier list, and I explain that while channels in tiers D and above are still worth watching for history, channels in tier E and below are not. So the tier list itself is a visual shorthand for the qualitative differences I've identified between the channels using my detailed criteria.
I have listed all of the assessment criteria, individual scores, and how they relate to the tier list, here.
veritas-et-caritas.com/index.php/2023/01/04/a-bad-history-youtuber-tier-list-scoring-nine-of-the-largest-youtube-history-channels/
Also, he straight up fucked the historical Internet standardised the tier list lettering system.
"Source?"
"It was revealed to me in a dream."
Most history RUclipsrs.
Thank for this very well make video.
I know, I’m stating the obvious here but I do believe OSP and Extra History video quality can be improve if they drop the weekly video release and give more time for research. Dou I don’t think that Extra History gonna be able to do that considering how many sponsors they take.
Thanks! I totally agree that some of these channels are really making it hard for themselves with their release schedules, but that is a choice they made. I guess when sponsorship money is on the table it's h hard to say no, and some teams probably grow to the size at which they feel they need to prioritise cash flow.
What an embarrassment of a video. Was actually interested to see what criticisms there were from historians of Whatifalthist and there were some legitimate criticisms like a lack of sources or quotes. Yet the main thrust seems to be that his videos cater to a right-wing audience (so right-wing bad) and he quotes from Thomas Sowell, who in your own biased words is a "shill" for the Republican Party - which highlights your own bias - whereas you didn't criticise what Thomas Sowell actually says.
I thought this would be a criticism of Whatifalthist's history, not his political views
"These channels are bad"
Source: Reddit
Lol
thank you saving us almost 2 hours of bullshit
@@galaxietab2carlos How can you tell it's bullshit if you don't watch the video. That's like talking about history without having sources
@@jecko980 can you confirm Reddit users are expert historians and not just a nerd with his own bias towards certain themes?
@@rafaelzamudio354You ever seen the Insider Ancient Warfare Expert videos with Dr. Roel Konijnendijk? The ones where he talks about digging ditches to win battles? The guys a verified Redditor on r/AskHistorians, going by the name Iphikrates. Guy's got a PhD in Classical Greek History.
It's unfortunate you didn't consider "Metatron." It's not a historical channel per se, but his videos usually touch on historical subjects in depth with a focus on medieval weapons and armor, like a more serious "Shadiversity." Maybe you could critique a video like his "Is the Shroud of Turin real?"
Metatron didn't meet my criteria; not enough criticism on r/badhistory, and not enough history. But I do intend to look at his Shroud of Turin video.
@@veritasetcaritasdo TIK next! His videos are enormous and packed full of quotes and references...however he has a heavy selection bias towards the materials he supports (despite always showing the opposed opinion and authors) and sometimes make somewhat dumb conclusions and interpretations about the materials he cites. Would be a great critique!
@@detectordegados5292 I already have a couple of videos taking down TIK's argument that the Nazis were actual socialists, though I don't name him specifically; those videos address not not only his claims but those of other people making the same case. However I am starting to prepare a couple of videos responding specifically to TIK's historical claims about Gnosticism and ideology as religion, and I want to critique his overall approach to history. He has a tendency to find one source with a radical claim which appeals to him, and then trust that source blindly regardless of its quality and any evidence to the contrary.
Metatron is good though
@@coh2conscript851 he can be, but I would still like to see him use sources more critically.
Hometeam history is afro-centrist who will often twist facts or hide truths in favor of black Africans. I would personally put him lower. I think you already addressed this in some way, but the ranking isn't reflective of that.
An example would be, misleading people that north-africa was historically black, even though geographically doesn't make any sense.
Another thing he does regarding north-africa is unnecessarily separating north-africans from the rest of the Mediterranean, even though for most of its history north-africa was always linked and even united with Southern-Europe under the Roman empire, Carthagians, phoenician trade colonies, Greek trade colonies, partially under the Greek empire, Ottoman empire. And other empires and cultures of course as well. I mean, the link between Constantinople and North-Africa cannot be understated, wether it be in the Byzantine or ottoman period. There's even a city in Algeria named Constantine and many other influences from that region in north-africa. Anyway...
This is obvious because of the proximity between north-africa and southern-Europe. You can see Spain from northern-Morocco. However to reach sub-sahara Africa from the same Morocco you have to go over the atlas mountain range and over the sahara dessert. Good luck... Yet, the channel will pretend as if for some magical reason (because it's "Africa") north-africa had little to do with the rest of the Mediterranean. But was somehow always linked with the rest of "Africa".
Even the concept of "Africa" is inherently a European colonial concept. There was never an "Africa" in history, except for people in the Maghreb that were called Africans under the Roman empire and after it, named after a Berber tribe in coastal Tunisia.
Watching the videos of hometeam history, I keep sensing this push to make the viewer believe in favor of black Africans. Everything achieved in north-africa was somehow black achievements, even though north-africans aren't really black. And the none-black Africans are seen as "just Europeans and Arabs who colonized Africa". He'll even argue in some of his videos that the Tuareg people are the "true" north Africans, even the literal history of Tuareg people is north Africans that went south and did slave trade of black Africans and mixed with them,. making them inherently a mixed people and thus never "original"
And this is just north-africa....
I don't even want to begin about east-Africa and how its link with the middle-east is completely minimised like with north-Africa and the Mediterranean.
And ow yeah, bro for debunking Whatifalthist you need an hour long video on its own 😂😂😂
As I've mentioned elsewhere in these comments, this video was made nearly a year ago, and the script was written in 2022, so it's based on HomeTeam's earlier content, which was only just starting to take a bad turn. I still rated him only 1/5 out of historical accuracy, saying he is an unreliable source, but these days I would also mark him a lot lower on the other criteria.
When’s the badhistory subreddit poster tierlist. How else can I talk about how ByzantineBasileus is often fine when focusing on his own areas of expertise (even though he reads things extremely uncharitably) but when posting about anything outside of Persia and the Byzantines he just comes off like he’s whining about modern politics or whatever.
Frequently see him in the “we can’t make any moral statements about the past at all” -10000 graveyard.
Then there’s that guy who kept posting about how the British Raj wasn’t that bad and then you look at his profile and his banner is the Order of British India.
There's a reason why I was very selective in my use of BBs r/badhistory posts. I ignored quite a few of them for that reason. To be fair he does get a lot of push back from the subreddit too. I like the fact that the sub is critical.
@@veritasetcaritas The posters that speak so often outside of their fields of expertise amuse and confuse me - though I can understand the desire to post more in these circles. Some day I hope to be able to post to r/badhistory or write more top-level responses on r/askhistorians - unfortunately, the areas in which I've done reading of multiple primary reliable sources/have a good deal of experience in are very niche, and so it's very rare someone asks a question relating to them or I see claims regarding them that need debunked.
I'm glad there's somebody out there that has faith in Circle Jerk: the website
As this video makes clear, I don't have any faith in the site. However I do have faith in the mainstream peer reviewed scholarly literature cited by specific members in specific subreddits. The American Historical Association actually recommends r/AskHistorians as source of reliable history.
Sadie Bergen, “Have a Question about the Past? AskHistorians. | Perspectives on History | AHA,” Perspectives On Hiistory, 1 February 2010, www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/february-2016/have-a-question-about-the-past-askhistorians.
@@veritasetcaritasYou do know they retracted this in 2019? I'll go make sure on the source but will edit the comment if I remembered incorrectly
@@th3ch0z3n if you have any evidence that they retracted it I would be interested to see that. The article is still on their website with no evidence that they retracted it at all. In fact since that article was written the American Historical Association has continued to collaborate with r/AskHistorians, hosting them at the AHA conference in 2020.
www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dfyw3k/askhistorians_at_the_aha_american_historical/
Reddit when you don’t make a detailed 2 hour documentary every week
Uhm, source?
UHM ACKTUALLY
for real some of this stuff criticized cant even be known without going into these dudes heads. also pop history should be engaged with and not dismissed the reason people dont know real history and we get stuff like guns germs and steel is because of academics not engaging with bad ideas in a public format also some pop history is good and dismissing all of it is kind of elitist
Great video! What I was missing in the summary of each channel is what they did well. You listed when they got points substracted, but I would have preferred if you also mentioned where they did not lose points. Throughtout the video, I was constantly switching back to the intro to check the full list of possible point reductions to find the ones they did not get a reduction for.
Thanks! You're right, that would have been better. There are so many things I would do differently if I made this video again.
If this tierlist is meant to be a measure of a channel's reliability and not a measure of its damage, then I believe that features like criticism frequency in one subreddit have major flaws. Some of these channels are going to be more notable than others, and even I haven't heard of a few of them.
As a result, especially with professional historians who only make these critiques after thoroughly combing through the video, a less notable channel might score higher on this criterion than a more notable channel. Or, if there is simply more enthusiasts and subject matter experts in one channel's field than another's.
As I mentioned, criticism frequency was not simply based on how frequently the channel was criticized only in one subreddit, but on other platforms as well. I provided several examples. Additionally, I explained this was simply a rough metric of reputation. All of these channels are massive, with over 500,000 subscribers, so the idea that they are not notable isn't likely. Additionally they were all criticized significantly on r/badhistory and other platforms.
Random RUclips recommendations strike again. Very interesting video. Maybe my biggest issue is that I was somehow expecting a channel to end up with a good ranking XD
Thank you! I thought "r/badhistory" might give away the fact that there aren't any very good ones here.
@@veritasetcaritas Indeed, something I somehow failed to realize hahah
Frankly there are few history channels I would really recommend, but Fredda is definitely one. He uses proper sourcing.
youtube.com/@FreddaYT
True, reddit is by far the best place to learn history especially r/askhistorians with its 1.6 million professional historians
As I point out in my video, it's not that every single member of these forums is a professional historian. It's that people are required to cite standard scholarly sources to validate their claims, and there are sufficient professionals and subject experts to moderate people accordingly. Meanwhile other people will say "Those redditors are worthless" while praising a 60 minute unsubstantiated rant from a 20-something RUclipsr they call a historical genius, despite the fact that he provides absolutely no sources whatsoever.
While I somewhat disagree with the approach used to create this tierlist, mainly the scoring method, I think it’s a very good early “benchmark” for history channels on RUclips.
As others have mentioned, relying mainly on r/badhistory is gonna generate some bias, which I believe would make US-based youtubers more likely to appear on the list. But again, you gotta start somewhere, and r/badhistory might as well be one of the better easily accessible online places to do that.
I’d like to also mention that given the method you’ve chosen to critique these youtubers, I’m very glad that you kept a mostly neutral and honest analysis.
By the way, very cool of you to state clearly that you were critiquing the content and not the creator’s personal view on politics :)
Thank you! You might be interested in my upcoming video on the reliability of reddit as a source for history.
ruclips.net/user/postUgkx8CFcRLJeHww3dRDmg5ETm9Ksq1dHxNyr
1:31:51 Wait.. WHAT?? What an absolutely bizarre criticism “his videos are bad because blind people can’t watch them because there’s no voice over….” They’re videos about maps, I’m all for making things more accessible but what a strange thing to say. I guess video games suck too because blind people can’t play those
I didn't say his videos are bad. On the contrary, he's literally on my list of recommended channels. Emperor Tigerstar and I are friends and have collaborated previously. I just said I am not a fan of him presenting his timeline videos (which is only one category of his videos), with only visuals and no commentary, since it makes them unaccessilbe to p;eople who aren't viewing them. That includes myself, and I am not blind. I am in favor of making history videos as accessible as possible. Video games are often great at providing for the unsighted, because they have audio cues.
Always good to know which history channels to tell RUclips to stop recommending.
3:20 Assessment criteria. 📝
8:55 HomeTeam History is a clear favorite for the simple reason of citing sources. 🌟
19:41 Feels over reals.
51:35 Hmm...getting reminded of the Qur'an somehow having advanced knowledge of embryology. It sort of does, if you squint hard enough.
1:14:30 A negative score...
1:28:44 Crash Course, good for secondary-level history.
1:39:09 Recommendations.
As a brazilian i went to check the top scorer HomeTeam History, and found a very recent video titled "African monarch claims region in Brazil as Yoruba Territory", the video itself is the basic oversimplication and mystification of contemporary black brazilian, their roots and what's preserved of it, but the worst part was, founding in the comment section, a complete alienated idea of the brazilian society and history, i think that channels like this are more harmful than helpful in learning about african sociology, and history, and the narratives that they make are harmful, specially to those who aren't familiarized with those americanized concepts, such as us, Latin Americans.
On the other side, on Extra History series about Brazil, they present a very solid narrative, wich are 100% mainstream in our universities history courses.
With Home Team as the winner, i can't trust the rest of the tierlist, it's impossible that all of those below would present such bad history videos.
@@oole0111 He honestly does a good job at telling African history but I agree that sometimes he mystifies it but that's probably because of his fervor to present African history which is an understudied topic, well besides North Africa.
@@jarellwilliams7287 I like videos about african history, the problem is when they carve out of other cultures to make points, it's a recurring thing in pan african channels, specially when Latin America is the subject, quite annoying to be honest. But it make's sense now that they got a high score, since many of their videos use documentaries and publications about african history, wich are more verifiable than others, although some things are partially used and added to make a narrative. In a way or other, history is no more than that: narrative.
did you check if all the criticisms of the channels were actually correct against sources? just thinking if you didn't it would be hypocritical to just trust reddit posters but you probably checked them im guessing
When collecting criticisms I first made a long list of comments and then went through them, throwing out any which didn't have sources, throwing out any which seemed in bad faith, throwing out any which made statements I already knew were weak or untrue, and throwing out any which were critiqued by other commenters. I threw out a couple of pages of comments on Kings & Generals in particular which weren't worth including.
I didn't need to check any which already provided reliable sources, and which were also supported by other comments which also provided sources. But I did check sources.
I see your channel is growing good job dude keep up the good work.
Popularity = bad
It's funny that Reddit gets so mad at youtubers when Reddit itself is easily the worst place to learn history. Generally Reddit "historians" are all politically motivated on one side or another and r/badhistory has some of the most hilariously bad book long rambles attempting to take down either single sentence comments or things that aren't bad history at all.
I am going to need a citation for that.
@@veritasetcaritas Well you for one, you're a LOLarchist
You seem to not have much in the way of substantive arguments, just hating on reddit itself. Do you have a real basis for this backed up with evidence?
@@OhNotThat isn't it interesting how these people are totally ok with random history channels pumping out videos without any sources or verifiable evidence, while complaining about professional historians posting on Reddit using their expert knowledge and experience.
You're not upset at "political motivation" you're upset that they, like most academics, tend to be left leaning, that's why you need to invent random reasons to dismiss them
I think Caspian Report would be cool to see an analysis of. I got inspired to look into some of the history he covers, however, was disappointed when the description didn’t provide any sources 😅specifically his video series covering the Islamic Golden Age.
Yeah I stopped watching Caspian Report when I realized I was hearing a lot of narrative without verifiable evidence being provided. The lack of sources in particular concerned me. I am wary enough of history RUclipsrs, and even more so of self-styled political analysts on RUclips.
Caspian Report seems more like a geopolitics channel than a history one. Of course he does talk about history to illustrate the picture better, but barely. He seems quite biased though, and has shady sponsors.
I only listen to his videos when I'm doing something else, merely because I enjoy his narration 😂
@@hardlo7146 yeah he's definitely more into geopolitics than history, though I wish he would provide sources and some solid basis for his analysis.
Caspian Report is not the worst geopolitics channel out there in terms of history. It's also necessary to give them some sort of break, since geopolitics channels necessarily have to cover a wide array of areas and societies.
That doesn't stop people like Peter Zeihan from getting practically everything wrong sometimes.
@@jevinliu4658 I certainly have more respect for Caspian Report than for Peter Zeihan.
This is my “the tooth fairy isn’t real” moment
Sorry about that!
Laughably bad tier list, then I checked your other videos and about page and understood why.
I'm surprised you didn't covered History Matters considering how big the channel is and how bite-sized the content is and also how frequently they upload.
It was because that didn't have a sufficient presence on r/badhistory. This video is the r/badhistory tier list, not history RUclipsrs in general. But I might do a video on them in the future.
@@veritasetcaritas Oh I see, thanks for responding though.
@@helloimskip you're welcome.
I came across this on accident. It was a good video and helpful to someone like me. I enjoy history casually and have only limited knowledge but enjoy the subject.
I see a lot of bad paleontology videos out there and wish i had the time and ability to do this with those channels.
Thank you!
I'm only forty minutes into the video, so maybe this will come up in the end, but what are some good RUclips history channels? I'm specifically interested in American and European history. I know RUclips shouldn't be my only source, but I think videos can be a good starting point.
It seemed like you took a couple of opportunities to take slights at WhatIfAltHist for his political and religious beliefs.
You say it's funny that he is a conservative, right-wing RUclipsr, but is also a quaker, because quakers are "traditionally known for their anti-authoritarian, non-conservative and even progressive views" like you either hold all the beliefs of something or none of them (you also don't state what those views are.) That's like saying it's funny for a libertarian to be a Catholic because Catholics are *generally* known for having pro-authoritarian, conservative views.
Then you also summarize him by saying "I would not recommend it for anything, unless you're interested in looking into the mind of a _conservative, right-wing Christian_ , with very little understanding of history", like being a conservative right-wing Christian is a point against him.
Mate, religious people are openly hypocritical
I think the owner of this channel is a Christian unitarian anarchist I believe.
Quakers and Unitarians aren’t Christian, even though they claim such.
Could you make a video discussing which RUclips history channels can be considered trustworthy? I'm a history buff and understand that for the best possible depiction and explanation of historical events, one should go to good historical sources (i.e. books written and revised by historians); but how history is depicted on some of these channels is engaging and help better perceive history. In a nutshell, I would like to know where someone could learn some stuff and later feel like they were fooled based on attracting an audience.
This was a very useful video that I wanted to better explore who could be trusted, but could only find who shouldn't be trusted. This is still very useful, but it would be nice to know what sort of historical RUclips channels are worthwhile.
Thanks, mate!
Thanks! I'm actually starting a series on the historiographical method and how to differentiate between good and bad history channels. That should be what you're after.
In general I recomend don't using youtube or any social media for reliable sources
@@angelmatesmolan in general, I agree with you.
@@veritasetcaritas Sounds exactly what we could all use when watching history videos, thank you!
@@christopherbakyta3506 I posted a thread on Twitter demonstrating the difficulties involved in interpreting historical events when sources clash.
twitter.com/caritas_et/status/1657638270954786816?t=KXkit76mMzBtqIbi9a890A&s=19
I’m always afraid of having the incorrect APA citations (been considering doing history videos for quite a while now). Is that irrational (considering that this isn’t for academia)?
I don't think it's irrational. If you're feeling that concerned I'd say you have the right attitude and you're doing your best. I try very hard to ensure citation accuracy in my own videos, with a three stage process of checking, but typographical errors happen, and sometimes even a source like Google Books has wrong publication date information, or a wrong title or author name. You need to be very careful when cross-checking.
A very interesting and good video. While I do watch channels like Extra History and Kraut it’s still interesting to hear the critic of their methodology and historical claims.
Atun-Shei is as you say an amazing channel and I would recommend Knowing Better if you aren’t already aware of him (which I suspect most people are by now).
Yea those two certainly aren’t extremely biased.
@@SputnikRX History is all about viewing things from different perspectives. Look at his King Philip's War videos.
Never have I felt genuinely insulted for some dumb reason that don't even involve me than when I saw Extra History and Simple History below B (context they helped me out a lot in history exams and helped me become interested in history)
As I say in this video, they can teach good history. However those video assess how well they follow what I regard as good history RUclips practice. You can learn good history from a channel which doesn't post sources, recycles pop history, and commits plagiarism, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not following good practice.
@@veritasetcaritas yeah but when I first saw the thumbnail and before prior dialogue
@@diegode415 fair enough.
Aight aight, let me drop his here
Extra Credits called Gamers, Nazis... just because they played on the German side during WW2 Shooters...
They straight up said "You didnt ask for this, you didnt choose this, yet there you are, fighting for the nazis"
Tl;dr: Extra Credits are extremely stupid, and full of dumb shit
13:54 who gives a shit what commenters on the channel said? plebbitors can't tolerate anything that doesn't align with their groupthink and thinly veil their criticisms as academic critique as usual
Well dang, this is a rather eye opening video and honestly makes me feel a bit bad about myself for not looking more critically at my favorite creators.
Like for example without hearing your explanation and just glancing at the tier list I agreed with where you put OSP but to see Kraut on the same level as Extra History (a channel I regard as especially inaccurate) came as quite a shock.
hearing your detailed explanation however I now fully agree with how low you have placed Kraut on the list, and part of me almost sees OSP as deserving to be on that same level after hearing your in depth explanation of their channel to.
There might be a pain of guilt in my chest now for liking both those channels so much, but at the same time I have to honestly thank you for pointing out their fallibility.
Thanks for your praise. I admire your intellectual honesty! I don't mind telling you I was initially impressed by Kraut, until I started wondering where he was getting his information from, and realized he cited a paucity of sources.
@@veritasetcaritas It's people like you that remind me what is at the heart of learning new things in the first place.
have a good day dude
👍
@@charlieterry8506 thanks so much!
No need to feel ashamed, it’s part of the learning process! I also figured that Kraut was good because of how his research seemed good, but sometimes the devil is truly in the details.
Thanks for this very detailed commentary on some of the main-stream history youtubers out there. I appreciate how you care to mention that your critiques or praises are coming from your own perspective, and how you do not try to "take down" bad history youtubers but show recognition of their strengths and weaknesses even if they might deserve harsh critique, given that you clearly state your disapproval of some of their political ideas. Its important to keep emotion at bay when discussing history, especially today when many commentators fail to do that, even if their statements might be true.
Thanks, much appreciated.
Even without reviewing their sources, what is good to look for is if the person provides "metadata" to his information: there is more ideas about this; this is how people came to this conclusion etc. (+ you need a sense for sound reasoning and argumentation)
Yes, very true. Many RUclipsrs make bold claims with little more than handwaving rather than actual logical argumentation.
Love how this channel criticise others for being biased while neglecting his own bias at the end.
You are literally subscribed to a nazi revisionism "history" channel LMAO
@@BrainGodGenius amazing
A huge amount of your grading is based on reddits opinion of a channel. Very weird and subjective way to grade in my opinion. Simply a bad rap on /r/badhistory can outweigh up to 5 categories of good source usage?
This is not simply a matter of "reddit's opinion". It's a matter of people citing mainstream scholarly literature, writing critiques which are sometimes pages long, and some of the writers are historians or subject specialists. If you think it's wrong to judge the accuracy of history RUclips channels against mainstream history scholarship then I have to wonder why. I don't know what you mean by "Simply a bad rap on /r/badhistory can outweigh up to 5 categories of good source usage", since that doesn't happen in this video.
I’ve joked before that WhatIfAltHist seems like some of his videos are just HOI4 games in RUclips format, and that some vids seem to suffer blatantly from Paradox-brain.
Yeah he's a right wing fantasist.
"Kraut is a Islamophobe"
Is that supposed to be a bad thing?
yes
Listening through again and have to say Kraut’s current citation practices remind me very much of Shaun’s video regarding his use of the XY Einzelfall map back when Kraut was buddies with Sargon & co.
I assume you caught the thing where you incorrectly assert that a comment was made in 2006 when it was made in 2016 as per your citation w/r/t HistoryBuffs. That “10 years later” was 9 days later.
Would note Atun-Shei also has a background as a tour guide for what it’s worth.
Holding history youtubers up to academic standards is a bit silly. And simply reading up a reddit comment saying this history is bad, is not informative. And the fact that a source was used for multiple videoes is not necessarily a bad thing.
I don't hold history RUclipsrs up to an academic standard. I held every channel up to the standard it claims for itself. I couldn't read or even describe all of the reddit comments I used, but I placed them all in my list of sources, so you can be fully informed.
veritas-et-caritas.com/index.php/2023/01/04/a-bad-history-youtuber-tier-list-scoring-nine-of-the-largest-youtube-history-channels/
I agree that using a single source for multiple videos is not NECESSARILY a bad thing. However, in Kraut's case I explained why it was a bad thing.
Historia Civilis sparked my interest in history, am a bit disappointed that you didn't assess him.
I only know of r/badhistory to look for youtube history channels reviews. But you mention other websites throughout the videos without saying their names, what other websites could you point me to where I could find reviews of Historia Civilis content?
Sorry for my English and thank you for the extraordinary amount of time that this video must have taken to produce.
Your English is excellent, don't worry! The most serious critiques I found of Historia Civilis on r/badhistory were these two from three years ago. That wasn't nearly enough for me to warrant a review, especially given the channel is so inactive. I haven't found Historia Civilis critiqued significantly elsewhere.
www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/dmuqim/historia_civilis_the_battle_of_agincourt/
www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/cuogv2/debunking_the_clusterfuck_that_is_caesar_as_king/
He has received some good comments elsewhere on Reddit, such as r/history, but they were from years ago. He is discussed on Quora but I don't trust Quora as a reliable source.
www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/35a2ta/historia_civilis_a_youtube_channel_of/
@@veritasetcaritas thank you so much for the links and the informative response
@@ProvencaLeGaulois you're very weclome.
Afrocentrist channel gets a C?💀💀💀
Overall yes. But he only scores 1 out of 5 for historical accuracy, so he is identified as unreliable. The position in the tier list isn't an indication of simply how accurate they are.
very well-made and enlightening video. i really like emperortigerstar and was glad that there wasn't as much to sharply criticise him on. shame on all the malicious channels and their principles!
by the way, i'd be interested to know what you think of potential history and 戦いのヒストリア? honestly, i fond both of them a li'l sketchy but i'm also biased and haven't done due investigation
Thank you! I'm not familiar with either of those channels unfortunately. I think EmperorTigerStar is a great channel.
I don't really understand the metrics here. Criticism frequency being the stangest, it's essentially a reverse popularity contest for which channels draw the ire of the /r/badhistory subreddit.
Here are the metrics and the way I describe them in the video.
* Historical accuracy: extent of historical accuracy and the use of reliable, relevant, and up to date sources, without pop history
* Source verifiability: use of sources, sources revealed in a list and/or on screen, sources cited in full
* Citation integrity: sources cited accurately without misrepresentation, sources assessed critically and selected without bias, and a wide range of sources used
* Criticism frequency: how frequently the channel has been criticized on r/badhistory and other forums, and how serious those criticisms are; I mentioned this was basically a measurement of reputation
This video isn't dependent on the opinions of posters on r/badhistory. I cite people on Reddit who are actual historians, or subject specialists, who in turn cite mainstream scholarly literature. I didn't cite anyone on Reddit who wasn't in one of those categories, so my criticisms aren't based on simply personal opinion or internet randos, they're based on verifiable academic commentary.
Hence why the rightwinger is at the very bottom, since he makes plebbitors the most booty blasted, whilst the we wuzzer gets a C, and the annoying progressive film critic + arrogant fat German liberal got Es. Hell, Felton sounds almost like a criminal plagiarist, and he still gets a D.