That's not true.
However, I would agree that Hardcore History leans more towards the entertainment side, so while the overall picture is inline with what historians say (Cyrus the Great as a leader vs Darius or the effects of the Gracchi brothers), the specific stories that Dan Carlin says may have other interpretations or other versions.
Obviously, it would interrupt the flow to say "Oh but XYZ disagrees and says this specific story actually happened 5 years earlier", so Dan prefaces it by saying that it's one interpretation.
Saying that "AskHistorians thinks Hardcore History is really innacurate" is completely false.
>...Saying that "AskHistorians thinks Hardcore History is really innacurate" is completely false.
I think the overall opinion is quite a bit more nuanced than that and in general historians appreciate anyone who helps get people more interested in history. Though, in terms of accuracy, as one commenter wrote:
>...Not only doesn't Carlin do sufficient research with the appropriate sources, but he tends to approach his episodes with an endpoint in mind, and then focuses on ensuring his research fits that narrative rather than building a narrative from the research.
