History Unplugged Podcast
For history lovers who listen to podcasts, History Unplugged is the most comprehensive show of its kind. It's the only show that dedicates episodes to both interviewing experts and answering questions from its audience. First, it features a call-in show where you can ask our resident historian (Scott Rank, PhD) absolutely anything (What was it like to be a Turkish sultan with four wives and twelve concubines? If you were sent back in time, how would you kill Hitler?). Second, it features long-form interviews with best-selling authors who have written about everything. Topics include gruff World War II generals who flew with airmen on bombing raids, a war horse who gained the rank of sergeant, and presidents who gave their best speeches while drunk.
Hosts & Guests
15 hr workweek
Jun 10
I do like the podcast a lot. From time to time it goes a little left for me in revisionist history, CSA for example. Well, nice educated Englishman seems to make some good well-rounded points but seriously an ancient 15 hr. work week is ridiculous. Has he ever been camping / survival trek like the Indias did for Brave initiation, alone with limited supplies or no food. It’s sunup to sundown work. Utopian & socialist academic stuff. However, great point on effective tasks being focused, done quickly in one fell swoop. Yes indeed. Agree, being in an office tower at a desk for 9 hrs. is not healthy for us.
Wow, really good!
3 days ago
Good topics, great guests, and Scott asks really thoughtful and intelligent questions
Decent
5 days ago
OKish podcast, I never don’t learn something. It’s a bit heavy on military history, which imo is the most pointless and yet most emphasized subfield. I would say that it’s impressive that Scott has wrangled so many historians in order to defer to the proper experts who’ve done the research on the wide-ranging topics. But this is tempered by Scott’s incessant urge to draw pointless parallels between the past and his petty quips with his actual targets in the present — “the left” (whatever that means anymore). There’s definitely a lot academic inbreeding going on between Scott and his guests, at least the ones I’ve heard so far. With US history and Western Civ material, there’s a fair amount of omitted perspectives and evidence. I really tire of historians who take sides. They’re just activists in disguise, and they give the open activists exactly the type of biased “academic” material that makes them feel like bona fide intellectuals. If I didn’t already have a deep background in historical and anthropological research, I wouldn’t pick up on Scott’s obvious biases so much. But the preacher-choir dynamic is, in the end, obvious. Sadly, that’s what many audiences like. The Dubois WW1 episode was mindbendingly simplistic and inaccurate, it would have to have been deliberately limited to be so lacking in scope and perspective to point a Dubois story in such a bland and conservative way. The Harding apologist was quaint and naive. The opening to the Anarchists episode straight up says that they started the Haymarket Affair, a statement that no serious historian would make. It was strenuous listening to Scott attempt to squeeze the history of American anarchism and oppressive 1st Amendment jurisprudence into his twisted brand of conservatism. Thankfully that historian (finally) didn’t take the bait. Ok, here’s the gist of Scott’s go-to question at some point in every interview: “So, here’s this incredibly stupid, ill-informed and naive view that most people have about this issue, but could you broadly explain why I’m right about this and then speak to some of the particulars that might omit any potential evidence to the contrary?”
Always learn something news
Oct 3
Discusses well known and lesser known stories from history with author and historians.
About
Information
- Channel
- CreatorHistory Unplugged
- Years Active2017 - 2024
- Episodes926
- RatingClean
- Show Website