What'd y'all think of Caesar after listening to it? Seems like he was doing what was best for Rome at the moment, even if it was for his own self interest as well. Definitely one of the most interesting human beings in history.
Yeah, I definitely don't see him as evil as I did before. I mean he was a fucked up individual but so was all of Rome. Hard to fault him for the dictatorship he set up, seemed the only way to deal with the circumstances.
The biggest change for me was how I viewed Sulla, who is now one of my favorite Roman figures. I think Sulla and Caesar are very similar with Sulla actually maybe fitting the category of doing what he thought best for the Republic over his own interests better than Julius Caesar fits that mold. I don't know if you guys remember studying ancient history in Jr. High/High School, but the really short summary of Sulla was always something like "Romans in the day of Caesar remembered with great anger and fear the days of Sulla, who had marched on Rome and declared himself dictator." So, I always just connected him with being a tyrant and an evil figure... In reality, Sulla is complex- Having been a great servant of Rome under the command of Marius and Catalus and obviously wicked to anyone that opposed him by the time he finds himself dictator... I THINK Carlin used the line that perfectly describes Sulla- "No greater friend, no worse enemy"
I've always loved him. He's as complex as it gets... Brilliant general, war criminal by modern standards, champion of the people, tyrant, whatever else you want to label him with. However you view him, he's an awesome character in the story of history. I could read or watch documentaries about Sulla, Caesar (and his boy Antony), Augustus, Trajan, Aurelian, and so many more every day of my life. Roman history is just the best. Pompey is also incredibly underrated. I think Carlin gave him his just do in Death Throes, but his work under Sulla and in the years before his fateful showdown with Caesar is as impressive as it gets. One of the best parts about the Death Throes era is the overlap... The fact that Sulla, Pompey, Caesar all knew each other is too cool. Sulla trying to kill Caesar only to be talked out of it and warning everyone that he would end up being more dangerous than Marius always makes me smile.
He quotes his epitaph: No friend who ever served me, no enemy who ever wronged me, who I've not repaid in full (this was by heart so im sure i got it somewhat wrong)
1 Blueprint 2 DeathThoes 3 Khan 4 Punic Nightmares 5 Ghosts of the Ostfront 6 King of Kings still enjoyed king of kings a good bit though
Did anyone else notice his change of tone on Will Durant in the last episode? He talks so much shit about him throughout his podcasts, but in part 3 he goes "and you know I love Will Durant."
The only reason I noticed is because he uses durant all the time, but he talks shit about him constantly for tying morals into everything.
If you remember his episode about toughness i think he just likes to use durant as the example of a type of history of years gone by. Maybe a bit too moralistic but still important to look at.
Late to the party but I'm listening to Blueprint right now. Whats so staggering to me is not just the absolute carnage of World War 1, but that they managed to do this entire thing again 30 years later. How were there even enough people to fight like this? Also, how shitty is Germany at picking allies?
Stumbled across 2 pods that look promising. Presidents are People Too - covers the personal lives of the presidents Fall of Rome - pretty self explanatory. Haven't listened to either, but both sound great. Listed to the first 5 min of Fall of Rome. Sounds pretty dry and lecture-y like Mike Duncan's stuff, but Im sure he'll lighten up like Duncan did a long the way
One of my favorite stories is how it was like a celebration when French troops left their towns at the beginning of WWI compared to the feeling of a funeral when they left for WWII. Never mind the physical toll, the fact that they could get up mentally and emotionally is amazing... That's why I hold no ill will toward the French, they showed up for WWII after losing more people in 5 years than the United States has lost in its entire military history... The allies part is funny, though. Austria and Italy were just completely worthless in both wars. The Japanese brought the Americans officially into the war. I'm not sure there was any opportunity for them to choose different allies, but what they ended up with was basically Germany vs. the world. It's still impressive as hell how well they fought in both wars. The Germans are an incredible and terrifying lot. As Carlin said, they were just never able to get the PR right lol
First- I apologize for getting anyone's hopes up, but Dan Carlin recently tweeted that he's working 7 days/week on what everyone wants him to be working on (I assume this means Hardcore History and not the launch of his gay porn career). Second, Merica and I restarted Blueprint for Armageddon. I can't even put into words what a masterpiece this work is. I'm blown away by it every time I listen and the facts and stories still carry the same impact as the first time I listened to it. I only wish that Carlin could get these out faster :( My favorite stats of the day- It's estimated that more soldiers were lost on multiple single days at the Battles of Verdun and Tsomme than were lost in the entire 19th Century worth of European warfare. It took 20 days of combined losses between the United States and Britain from D-Day on to match the losses Britain sustained on the first day of the Battle of the Tsomme (20,000 deaths, 60,000 casualties total) WW1 was wild, yo
I can't begin to imagine being a soldier in verdun. It's hard not to see similarities between this moment in history and the lead up to wwi. It's basically a moment in time where we say good bye to the old world. Hopefully we do this peacefully, then I remember Donald trump is our president.
My black lab listens to dan carlin all day while I'm at work. It seems to keep him calm, he also may become they greatest historian dog ever
the similarities are scary. I wonder if we'd be anymore prepared for all out war than they were or even if you can be prepared for something like that.
That's an interesting question/concept to think about. On some levels yes and others no. It's amazing the shit we've skated through in just the last 100 years.
I can't remember if Carlin mentions in Blueprint that the French public was completely absorbed in the news around a political murder trial throughout July 1914 and had no clue that war was being threatened in the Balkans. The papers only covered the trail. Cliffs: Joseph Caillaux is the former French Prime Minister, current Minister of Finance, and one of the leaders of the liberal party. A paper publishes a letter he wrote to his ex-wife suggesting in the past he didn't support the progressive tax he was trying to get passed at the time. His wife Henriette Caillaux puts on a fur coat, drops by the store to buy a pistol, then goes down to the newspaper and demands to see the editor. He isn't there, but she waits hours for him to show up. The editor agrees to met with her because she is a lady. She walks in says something to him, pulls out her gun and shoots it 6 times hitting the editor 4 times and killing him. She doesn't try to escape, but won't get in the police car because it is beneath a woman of her station. So she has her driver take her to the police station. She claimed she was only trying to scare the editor and pointed the gun at the ground and closed her eyes when she shot, but the editor dropped down when he saw the gun. She was found not guilty. Joseph Caillaux would lead the peace party during the war. There is a very small chance had Joseph Caillaux not been embroiled in the scandal he could have help prevent war.
This is a great YT channel to follow for WW1 enthusiasts. Basically gives a 10 minute lecture each week based on the corresponding week during the war. Started in 2014. Just 1 more year left https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar
Yeah I found it a couple of months ago. Wish I was aware of it from the jump. There's so much content
Reading A World Undone... The leadup to WWI is the most ridiculous thing in all of history. You have two peoples with a legitimate beef: Austro-Hungary and the Serbs... Austro-Hungary had on several occasions leading up to the war attacked the Serbs, who are an unhappy part of their multinational empire... On each occasion, the Russians were unable to come to the aid of their Serbian friends because they had suffered during and after the Russo-Japanese war.... BUT this time, the Serbians call for help and the Russians declare a light version of mobilization and then fucking full mobilization that includes dozens of divisons that could and would directly threaten Germany. Germany is always painted as the bad guys, but they seemingly do everything possible to avoid declaring their own mobilization, France does the same and even pulls troops like 6 miles away from their borders with Germany/Belgium to show that they aren't intending to attack anyone. The Tsar and his good friend/cousin Wilhelm are sending each other cables that are literally crossing as they are being sent. Wilhelm is pleading with the Tsar not to mobilize, the Tsar is telling him in like the most respectable and loving way that he has no choice... Britain doesn't want war France doesn't want war Germany doesn't want war So, why is there a war? Mobilization- Russia calls up something like 4,000,000 reserves... Germany waits really until the last minute because they know once they start mobilization, it's on. But maybe the most ridiculous notion of all is that once mobilization begins, it can't be stopped. It's wild. And, the Russians cant do a half-mobilization (so as to not threaten Germany), it's all or nothing. So, who do you blame? I mean, it seems like you can assign equal blame to Austro-Hungary, Russia, and of course the Serbs for lighting the powder keg in Sarajevo. The Germans had legendary plans for war, but they didn't want it and neither did the French. But, Russia declaring mobilization because they couldn't stand letting their Slavic (Serbs) friends down again sets everything in motion. Still, it's insane that you have the worst war up to that point in history started when the major nations didn't even want to go to war.
Cliff notes: WWI is arguably the most fascinating and ridiculous event in history. It's almost, and possibly more, intriguing than WWII because it has so many more layers AND there is suspense from pre-war through the conferences that end the conflict. It's wild
Have you read Guns of August? Just finished it yesterday. If not, I bet you'd enjoy it. But I'm guessing you have based on the apparent depth of your interest in WWI.
Could the French have just forsaken their alliance with Russia and declared they would not get involved? If they didn't want war, it seems they would have been able to sit this out.
plan to start these, listened to the Khan ones a long time ago best bet is just buy the whole set right? listen in chronological order of release?
But they didn't attack France for no reason. France was allied with Russia and was going to come to their aid once Germany declared war from my recollection.
It's tough to envision France being able to avoid being dragged into the conflict eventually. The entire German plan (a modified version of the original Schlieffen Plan that had been in development and modification for almost a decade leading up to the war), was predicated on quickly crushing France, then turning to the east to deal with Russia. You could argue that Germany may have abandoned that plan if France unequivocally reneged on it's obligations to Russia and Belgium with some sort of statement of sitting out. Without analyzing the magnitude of inaction would have been for France from a military and political perspective at the time, we see that even in the days and hours before Germany invaded Belgium (which was really the point of no return), Wilhelm was having second thoughts about invading Belgium, but his general staff led by Von Moltke told him that the German military machine was too far along to turn back (based on rail schedules, logistics, and etc.). This, of course, was not true. It could have been stopped (at some cost, of course), but the German high command was unwilling to deviate from their carefully laid plan. So I believe that you can extrapolate from that action that even if Wilhelm had been firm in insisting that Germany not invade Belgium in August 1914 sealing France's involvement (again assuming France was willing to not enter on Russia's behalf), I believe it can be taken as inevitable that Germany would have eventually attacked France sooner or later. This is reinforced by later German behavior in WWII, where Hitler and the Nazis again placed a priority on vanquishing France as their first "major" opponent (no offense to Poland). The mutual animosity between the two countries ran at least as deep as the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. My understanding of Prussian/German attitudes of the first half of the 20th century are that for Germany to rule Europe, they had to eradicate (or at least cripple) both France (to the west) and Russia (to the east). I think a real interesting question to ask is what would have happened if Germany had simply attacked France directly in August 1914, as opposed to going through Belgium. Do the British enter the war on France's behalf absent Germany's invasion of neutral Belgium? Even if they do, do their troops arrive in enough force quickly enough to stop Germany from overtaking Paris? Germany wasted precious time and manpower going through Belgium (who put up an unexpected and heroic defense), and also gave Britain time to get troops in place to have a meaningful impact in the First Battle of the Marne. Without those factors, could France have resisted Germany on it's own in that early stage? If not, how does the whole course of the war change? If Germany had dealt France an early knockout blow, it is fascinating to consider how the course of the war (and the course of history in the 20th century) might have been very different.
This post pretty much nails everything as far as I understand WWI. Von Moltke (the younger) was determined to follow the Schlieffen Plan, or rather his modified version, which reflected 1914 realities. Interestingly, his much more brilliant uncle Von Moltke had devised a plan by which Germany would defend the border with France while first taking out Russia. The animosity between France and Germany is perhaps the key to everything. The French and Germans both had plans for attacking each other, and there were people within France that would gladly have taken any opportunity to attack Germany and at least retake lands lost in the 1870s. So, essentially, once Germany was threatened by Russia, there was really no way that they could trust the French not to attack them. Thus, the French being the closest in strength to the Germans, they couldn't afford to expose their flank while focusing on Russia. In response to buy_dont_lease , I don't think Germany could have defeated France in a two front war by attacking directly along the French-German border. It was too fortified. Germany's experience in Liege hints at what it would have faced against the French fortresses, but with a 1.8 million man army on the other side. I think the Germans did everything and really the only things they could to win the war. It's astonishing that a land army was able to make it to Paris in a month from Germany. As Churchill said, fate just intervened and the Germans missed their chance to finish the French.
Side note, if anyone is interested. Two museums (One chain) in London if you get there or have the chance. It's on my list, hopefully this summer. http://www.nam.ac.uk/contact-us National Army Museum Royal Hospital Road Chelsea London SW3 4HT Imperial War Museum http://www.iwm.org.uk/ IWM London Lambeth Road London SE1 6HZ United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)20 7416 5000 IWM North The Quays Trafford Wharf Road Trafford Park Manchester M17 1TZ Telephone: +44 (0)161 836 4000 IWM Duxford Cambridgeshire CB22 4QR Telephone: +44 (0)1223 835 000 Churchill War Rooms Clive Steps King Charles Street London SW1A 2AQ United Kingdom Telephone: +44 (0)20 7930 6961 HMS Belfast The Queen's Walk London SE1 2JH Telephone: +44 (0)20 7940 6300
Germany tried to feel france out and see if they would or wouldn't attack if Germany declared war on russia. Germany wanted the keys to the marginot line to ensure France not join. France basically told Germany that they would do what's best for france.
There is also an amazing amount of irony. Lots of smart people leading up to 1914 were theorizing that man, or at least the Europeans, had evolved beyond war because it had been so long since the last major war in Europe. Then comes the worst war imaginable.
That's one of my favorite parts as well, and among the more interesting aspects of the war is the fact that three of Queen Victoria's grandchildren occupied the royal houses involved in the conflict (Britain, Germany, and the Tsarina in Russia)... So, people not only thought that humans had moved beyond war, but that peace would be guaranteed by the link between Queen Victoria's grandchildren. Add Bismarks web of alliances and it seemed like war would be suicidal. But, even with everyone warning that the war would end Europe's golden age, they all marched to a war that didn't have to happen.
-At the time of WW1, the King of Britain, Russia, and Germany were all first cousins. When asked about WW1, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany sarcastically remarked, "If my grandmother [Queen Victoria] had been alive, she would never have allowed it."