There is nothing inherently wrong about blending history and fiction for entertainment purposes. Most of the time you'll see Youtube history channels and so on get called out for inaccuracy on this sub is because users have specifically asked whether their content is accurate or trustworthy, not because we all have a vendetta against them. To my mind, it's important that people have some awareness of the limits of the information they receive - don't assume you're now an expert on Japanese culture because you watched the Last Samurai, and don't trust an internet video called "The Ten Tricks Ancient Greeks Used to Stay Fit - Number 6 Will Shock You!" unconditionally - but that doesn't mean that you can't watch and enjoy them. If your newfound interest in samurai or Greek abs inspires you to read more non-fiction or seek out resources like this sub to learn more, then that's all to the good.

Speaking a bit more broadly, I think being angry at popular uses of history would be somewhat hypocritical. Few historians these days will claim that their work represents cold, hard fact - we all rely on our own interpretations and narratives to make sense of imperfect source material. There are always going to be some errors, and certainly room for debate and differences of opinion between historians about the past. That's without even getting to the question of whether historians have the right to act as moral guardians of the historical record - we aren't, or shouldn't be, gatekeepers that prevent other people from using or discussing history. That doesn't mean that historians need to shut up and sit in a corner, but rather that if we're concerned about the public use of history, these interventions shouldn't be 'I'm a historian therefore I'm right', but make their own case for why the way history is being used is problematic. The absolute master of this in recent times is Kevin M. Kruse - I don't want to explain why for fear of crossing the line between the 20 year rule and discussion of historiography, but you can check out his twitter feed if you like.

​

There is no consensus. The best you will find is that everyone thinks some inaccuracies are bad/unethical/extremely unhelpful, and some inaccuracies are completely harmless or enjoyable, but everyone disagrees on which are which.

On one level, historians must all be aware that whatever led us to our interest in history as a child, teenager, or young adult was most likely significantly inaccurate in some respect. Therefore, we are living proof that the enjoyment of an inaccurate piece of entertainment or pop history book can lead to a more meaningful engagement with the subject - and we should appreciate that future historians may be inspired by the same entertainment. Even beyond that, we should be aware that it doesn't actually matter if watchers come away with the idea that back-lacing gowns existed in the 13th century, or that a certain type of gun was in use in the 16th. It's important to us, but not really that vital.

At the same time, there are certainly inaccuracies that can be classed as unethical and more problematic. While people always say that fiction is fiction and "nobody takes it seriously," when the world of fiction and popular history reiterates certain inaccuracies over and over, the audience typically does assume that those inaccuracies are correct. The whiteness of the corpus of cowboy movies, for instance, teaches watchers that the Old West was racially homogeneous, and that a more accurate piece of fiction is trying to stuff an anachronistic multiculturalism down their throats. The focus of popular science history (and movies based on it) on individual white men discovering and inventing erases the contributions that everyone else made, such as the West Area Computing Unit of NASA or the women of Bletchley Park. Even more intentionally progressive media, positioning its disadvantaged heroes/heroines as fighting to take on a role that is apparently unthinkable for someone of their status, often unintentionally erases the real contributions that other disadvantaged people made or were making at the same time, because the barriers were not quite as strong in reality as the plot demanded.

Speaking of the Extra History series on the Sengoku specifically, as the person who picked out its inaccuracies (or outdated) all I really wish is it had a much better lies episode, where they actually own up to their mistakes and said "we lied" and "yeah this isn't true" and "we messed this up". Or heck don't have one at all.

Having a "Lies" episode lulls the audience into thinking the series is more accurate and more authoritative or authentic than it is, and this is made worse by the fact that the "Lies" episode doesn't actually go over any of their significant mistakes, but instead a pat on their own backs on how much more they could've included.

I watch a lot of historical dramas and can see every episode the liberties taken with recorded history. But I couldn't care less, because they are not trying to fool me into thinking what's shown is what happened. In fact I got into Japanese history because of the historical dramas.

In short, if Extra History hadn't pretended to be authoritative, I would've ignored them like I do most of the other videos I come across (unless someone asks). Or watch and think they're great storytellers.