He is as accurate as anybody else who is dealing with general history. By general history I mean someone who is not an expert in the field. History is based on interpretation, especially when you consider a podcast that is made by a non historian. Is Dan Carlin bad? No, not at all but he is using variety of secondary sources to make his argument. Most of the time he doesn't have an argument that a historian would go for, it's more or less an idea that Dan is exploring. He does use a variety of sources, most of them are easily obtainable on Amazon. His niche is in popular history for entertainment. I am not saying he is wrong but every now and then he might state a thing or two that will contradict the mainstream thought. There is nothing wrong with it because when it comes to history there are multiple versions of things and everybody has their bias. Understand one thing about Carlin and his podcast, it's about entertainment and general overview of certain events. There is no secret that he likes to make a spin for a story, and that's good too, who doesn't like a good story. The good thing is that he does publish his list of sources so you can make a better judgement or read them yourself. But I do like his podcast and frankly I've met countless historians who make errors too, nobody is perfect. Some of my professors were great but I did catch them sometimes in misrepresenting the facts. Did they do it on purpose? No, they were great. It was an honest mistake most of the time. The same goes for Dan Carlin. His podcast is not meant to be used as a source for an academic paper but it's a good general overview of some events. I certainly like his work and it helped me to ask better questions.