The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

In Switzerland, the French speaking part is named 'Welschland' in German and the Romands themselves the 'Welsche'.
Which I find quite awesome.

[Threviel]

Swedish has it in rotvälska, meaning language spoken by foreigners.

BHP podcast improved vastly with the anglosaxons. I'm by no means an expert, but I find that the podcast handles them expertly. The host even seems to order doctoral theses to base episodes on. In my mind very credible and as deep as an audio show can be. And even though he overdid it he had some valid points on Rome.

So get over the anti-Rome bias and give it another go.

I think I tried the english history podcast, but it seemed shallow in comparison.

[Duque de Bragança]

In Switzerland, the French speaking part is named 'Welschland' in German and the Romands themselves the 'Welsche'.
Which I find quite awesome.

The word welche, French spelling, exists but is seldom used nowadays. I have seen in road signals at the Lorraine/Alsace border indicating a "musée du pays welche".

[Syt]

Swedish has it in rotvälska, meaning language spoken by foreigners.

Rottwelsch in German.

[Habbaku]

Is that the excellent, extremely slow and Rome-hating podcast made by a ex-lawyer from the US?

Yeah his Rome hating was really stupid. I mean nothing he said was wrong (well not technically, he had an annoying habit of saying vast generalizations that were not untrue but very misleading...which annoyed the fuck out of me) but dude get a grip. It made me doubt I was going to get much quality out of him with such an annoying bias and I could see it repeating with the Normans and whoever else he thought were icky and bad. So I checked out. I vastly prefer David Crowther.

Can you think of some examples? Trying to assess whether his over-the-topness is too much for me or not based on what you guys are saying.

[Legbiter]

Traffic jam on the top of Mount Everest.

every year this gets worse... sort of like my commute.

It's like a long line at a local tourist trap. Just needs a souvenir stand.

[Threviel]

He framed Rome in Britain as an imperialistic plantation slave state where almost everyone was worse off from before or after.

Which might be entirely correct, I'm not well read enough to say really. He did not overly stress any positive things with Rome.

A clear anti-Rome bias, but that is the only bias I have clearly identified. The podcast aways seems well read and quite deep.

His episode on gender and sex in anglosaxon britain I found especially interesting. But I haven't listened for over a year since it's a thing I do when commuting, so I can't really point to any other good example. Last I listened he was just finished with Alfred.

[Valmy]

He framed Rome in Britain as an imperialistic plantation slave state where almost everyone was worse off from before or after.

Which might be entirely correct, I'm not well read enough to say really. He did not overly stress any positive things with Rome.

A clear anti-Rome bias, but that is the only bias I have clearly identified. The podcast aways seems well read and quite deep.

It is not entirely correct. It is not entirely wrong either. Just like if he said the Anglo-Saxons were a bunch of ultra-violent warlords. I mean that is not untrue but that is a very simplistic and misleading way to frame it. And he is very detailed and pro-Anglo-Saxon. So I could sense an anti-Norman thing coming. Now someday I will go back and check out my prediction, but while I expect a certain bias in my podcasts He was simplifies everything about the Romans and spins it in a negative light because he has a visceral dislike for them. Now there are many things to dislike about the Romans. They existed a long time ago with very different values than our own so it is not surprising he would dislike them. But dial it down a bit dude. You can have an anti-Roman bias and still tell a great history of Roman Britain. He just took it way beyond simply a bias. Him comparing Roman Britain to 19th century European African colonies was especially cringe-worthy.

Is that the excellent, extremely slow and Rome-hating podcast made by a ex-lawyer from the US?

Yeah his Rome hating was really stupid. I mean nothing he said was wrong (well not technically, he had an annoying habit of saying vast generalizations that were not untrue but very misleading...which annoyed the fuck out of me) but dude get a grip. It made me doubt I was going to get much quality out of him with such an annoying bias and I could see it repeating with the Normans and whoever else he thought were icky and bad. So I checked out. I vastly prefer David Crowther.

Can you think of some examples? Trying to assess whether his over-the-topness is too much for me or not based on what you guys are saying.

Yeah. There was one episode where he was doing some kind of comparison between the Celts and the Romans and basically pointing out how much more enlightened and pleasing to modern sensibilities the Celts were compared to the Romans. He made this point about how gender progressive the Celts were because women could inherit property while the Roman women did not. I found that claim very misleading because the Romans had this weird family structure where extended families would be under this Pater Familias and inside that weird structure women had all kinds of access to property and there were specific institutions designed to protect that property from her husband. But yes, technically, a woman could never be Pater Familias. So I found his simple statement that women never held property and never inherited it rather misleading.

[Habbaku]

Thanks, Valmy. It's just that sort of surface level reading of history that I'm trying to avoid of late. Think I'll steer clear.

[Duque de Bragança]

Swedish has it in rotvälska, meaning language spoken by foreigners.

Rottwelsch in German.

dict.leo.org says argot or slang for Rotwelsch 

[Threviel]

Valmy, did you listen enough to get a feel for his non-roman history? We know he has an anti-roman bias, but the rest I find top notch for a podcast.

[Camerus]

[DGuller]

  Is that how you declare independence in 21st century?

[Valmy]

Valmy, did you listen enough to get a feel for his non-roman history? We know he has an anti-roman bias, but the rest I find top notch for a podcast.

Yeah once he gets to talking about the groups he approves of he does a great job. As I said if he gets to the Normans and it is not another trainwreck I will follow him again, I am just really worried. I was a regular listener of his for awhile also.

I was listening to an Indian history podcast and I had a similar problem because it was amazing and then he started flipping out about the Greeks because the Greeks were so mean to the poor Indians. I mean yes the Greeks had certain ethnic stereotypes about people who lived to east of them but geez dude chill out. And I could sense a similar outrage was going to be directed at the Muslims and the Mongols and the British. So I eventually dropped him as well. The actions of the "baddies" in history speak for themselves. You need to keep your shit together or it just gets bad for a podcast listener.

[Josquius]

Wow. This seems big. What's going on here. Account hacked?

Would be amazing if things finally kick off there over gay marriage and tweets