Sorry if this has been asked before, I haven't seen it. I have heard mixed reviews on his methods. Many, myself included, think his podcast is wonderfully done and brings a lot of life to topics that can often be dry, at least in its presentation. Others criticize him for perhaps taking a little too much leeway in some cases, and doesn't always make it clear what is more on the speculation side of things and what is more on the documented fact side. I'd be curious to know what actual historians think.