Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast has completed its chapters on the English Civil War and the American Revolution. How well does his reporting align with historical fact? Is it safe for a non-historian to consider themselves 'historically informed' on the basis of these podcasts alone?

by annoyingstranger

Apologies if this is the wrong sort of question; mods, feel free to remove if needed.

Link to the podcast

I discovered Duncan's popular History of Rome podcast around the time he was wrapping up, and I've listened to the entirety twice. I've also been following the new Revolutions podcast closely.

I'm wondering if he's a reliable resource for amateur enthusiasts like myself, or if he presents more political bias or factual inaccuracy than I'm accounting for. Maybe it would be better just to ask what other audio media exists for me to get a more well-rounded view of these conflicts?

It just seems like he's trying to paint a picture about how revolutions work to achieve some contemporary political goal. Is this absurd of me?

Edit: I did find this thread, which addresses some of my questions. Please, again, feel free to disregard this post if it seems useless or out of place.

zophister

"It just seems like he's trying to paint a picture about how revolutions work to achieve some contemporary political goal. Is this absurd of me?"

IANAH. But...having listened to the entire run so far, what political goal or point do you imagine Duncan's driving at? Or what broader point is it that you think he's trying to make?

I just don't see it. He's spent a lot if time over the podcast's run going over back and forth ( particularly in the case if the English civil war) for a guy that's trying to make you think x y and z about... Anything.