Some of our flairs have discussed Dan Carlin's podcast series here, which gives a good idea of Carlin's flaws, but I'm not familiar with the others.

Of the YouTube channels, I've not watched many videos from them, but Invicta does hire historians to research the topic of each video and work out a script. In some cases he seems to deviate somewhat from what they have recommended or has oversimplified, but effort has been made to ensure each video is based on up to date scholarship.

I have watched videos on Crecy and Poitiers produced by Kings and Generals and have to say that I wasn't particularly impressed. The Crecy video includes, for instance, the myth that Edward III's claim on the French throne was rejected on the grounds of Salic Law - this objection doesn't appear until the early 15th century - rather than legal precedent established by Philip V. Similarly, K&G completely gloss over the siege of Aiguillon and the Flemish attacks on France in 1346, which constrained Philip VI's ability to react to the English invasion and the speed at which he could act. The fact that most of his ready army was in Southern France, his allies from Germany hadn't yet arrived, his Genoese allies hadn't yet arrived and that his treasury was nearly empty are very important in understanding why the French acted the way they did.

When discussing the battle, K&G make the oddly common mistake of not realising that men-at-arms and knights served the same roles in battle and had broadly the same equipment, class the mounted archers and hobelars as just hobelars (the mounted archers were probably the largest proportion of the mounted infantry) and generally inflates the size of the French forces. The channel appears to have been unware of Sir Philip Preston's survey of the battlefield, which demonstrated that a steep natural bank prevented any advance from Fontaine-sur-Maye, and the view of most historians since the early 2000s that the English incorporated their wagons into their defensive position.

Overall, taking their Poitiers video into consideration, the biggest drawback of K&G is a lack of knowledge about current scholarship and an inability to correctly contextualise information, such as when they implied that the sack of Caen happened after the city surrendered rather than concurrently with a street by street defence, or when they present a single interpretation of the Battle of Poitiers with no acknowledgement that others exist (there are at least 3 mutually exclusive interpretations of the evidence).

What I do suggest is checking the accounts of universities on YouTube for lectures, as there are quite a number available when you start looking for them. This playlist should get you started for Ancient History, while this playlist is a good start for Medieval History.

This is a bit late, but I think I can help with sharing my perspective.

​

I haven't given Kings&Generals much thought, until recently when I stumbled upon their video on the battle of Fraustadt. While their production quality is very high as far as Youtube channels are concerned, and they manage to get general course of the event right, the video had a multitude of small errors, simplifications and untold details on both strategic and tactical layer. It is not a catastrophe, and overall assessments and verdicts are primarily correct.

​

Despite this, they are seemingly unaware (or didn't bother to double check) of minutae of overarching picture, which leads to persons on global map randomly disappearing and reappearing at random moments in time (Augustus II and Menshikov), incorrect assessment of smaller events (there was no big pitched battle at Rauge with "intercepted" Russian forces - only a series of small clashes at multiple locations, and Russians were actual attackers), incorrect conclusions (saying that there was no opposition to Russians in Ingria after Erastfer is completely wrong, because Shlippenbach would engage them again at Hummelshof in July, and with a bigger army under his command), troops staying for way too long/staying in wrong places between big events, incorrectly appointed commanders (leader of Russian troops at Hrodno until late January was Georg Ogilvy, but they erroneously display Menshikov even before Hrodno was besieged), incorrectly displayed possessions of different sides on the map (Warsaw was taken by Augustus in February of 1706, yet it still bears Swedish flag), many locations simply missing (which consequently leads to errors in displayed maneuvers, because makers of the video clearly had no clue where armies were actually going), oversimplification of different parts of the battle, dubious numbers (very clearly taken from Wikipedia) and some small nitpicky errors in troops' dispositions.

​

This leads to the video's general quality being only decisively "OK", and primarily because of really high production quality and nice Total War footage. Which is also admittedly somewhat hilarious, because it contains one of the most grievous mistakes: allied uniforms were RED, not white, and it's clear they just placed each of in-game nations' troops on the map without doublechecking it.

Overall my opinion is very similar to u/Hergrim: K&H seem to primarily lean into fancy graphics and entertaining narrative, and I have a strong feeling they don't go much further than English Wikipedia. Their video is not totally wrong, but there are enough small errors I'd advise against consulting with it to learn more about the period.

I find Dan Snow's History Hit to be an excellent balanced look at history across ages and would recommend that highly. As someone with a history degree and quite a bit of specialisation in some areas, there's very little I'd dispute in the pods which covered my areas. Some of the findings are remarkable and have made me re-think my long-held beliefs (see castle design and spiral staircases for example!).