Consolidated reviews of old episodes

[See archived introduction at the bottom]

I've hit the character limit unfortunately, new reviews are in a reply down lower, I've currently finished up to the end of death throes of the republic.

Archived Episodes

Episode 1 - Alexander versus Hitler (16:47)

Topic: How alike were these two historical figures?

Rating: D

Comment: A barely listenable attempt at some historical revisionism, suggesting that on one reading Hitler's motives may have been more pure than Alexander the Great's. Even if there's something to the thesis (which I don't think there is), the argument was made so succinctly and without any solid supporting information that this podcast comes across as nothing more than a piece of immature provocation.

2. Guns & Horses (34:56)

Topic: How much does culture influence martial success?

Rating: F

Comment: Dan makes an incredibly strained argument that the reason for the decline of the "east" (by which he means essentially the middle east and central Asia, ignoring Japan, China and east asia in general other than a small reference to Vietam) in military prowess over the past 200 years is due to a cultural preference for a more mobile, nimble, fighting style. Without going into it in too much detail, the argument is made with barely any consistent supporting evidence (maybe I'm thick but I find it hard to see a "cultural" connection between Roman phalanx formations and modern battle tanks) and completely overlooks perfectly obvious technological and economic counterarguments. Bonus marks for trying to suggest a genetic racial basis for horse riding prowess (and then drawing a link between that and Fallujah???).

3. The Organization of Peace (34:56)

Topic: An examination of the tendancy to try to organise for peace after horrific wars

Rating: B-

Comment: A welcome improvement in quality, this discusses that a central failing of the League of Nations was that it assumed a degree of rationality among the nations which failed in the face of Fascism. Somewhat light on detail, it was still an interesting look at this institution and touched on a lot of interesting themes.

4. Romancing the Tribes (31:44)

Topic: Tecumseh (Native American) and Vercingetorix (Gaul)

Rating: C

Comment: Both of these are interesting stories, but the podcast itself suffers pretty badly by Dan's overall attempt to demonstrate the parallels between the two. Too often Dan will describe the actions or situation of one of the figures and then say "the same thing also happened with the other". It really breaks the flow of the narrative and feels forced. Bonus points for the first, unrefined, iteration of the Dan "quote voice" - the previous episodes were sorely lacking in direct quotes from historical sources.

5. Meandering Through the Cold War (48:34)

Topic: The cold war

Rating: C+

Comment: Some interesting ideas here, eg. how recent history is hard to extricate from politics which is both a good and a bad thing. There's also some interesting examination of the forces that lead to the start of the cold war, the pressure that the apocalyptic threat put on the players in the war and the different ways that it's interpreted. Too much of the podcast though was focussed on two assertions made by Dan - The cold war changed America more than any other historical event (whatever that means), and that Stalin was almost solely responsible for the cold war (referencing the "great man" theory of history). Both of these assertions were essentially left at that, with little supporting evidence or analysis to back it up, which very much detracted from the episode overall.

6. Shield of the West (59:10)

Topic: The Persian invasion of ancient Greece

Rating: A+

Comment: Solid episode, clearly a topic close to Dan's heart. This contains a good military history description of the key points of the war and an entertaining amount of colour - love the Spartan quotes. Probably focusses a little to much on the "saved western civilization" angle, but not a fatal flaw.

7. The X-History Files (31:58)

Topic: Alternative histories

Rating: D

Comment: Beginning with the Napoleon quote "History is a set of lies agreed upon", Dan takes a complete left turn and gives an overview of various truly out-there alternate histories, mostly those that came out of the counter-culture in the 60s/70s - aliens, pyramids, atlantis, nostradamus etc. I'm very disappointed he didn't refer to the [New Chronology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko), which is untrue, but fascinating because it forces us to recognise how little understanding most people have of the actual evidentiary basis of our history. He protests that he doesn't believe any of this stuff, although to my ear he protests a bit too much but that's neither here nor there. The episode totally missed the mark for me, though. By focussing on such extreme alternate histories, Dan doesn't really do anything to give credence to Napoleon's quote which he is purporting to provide support for so the thesis is pretty easy to dismiss. He also missed a potentially fascinating angle for this discussion - he constantly mentiones the Bible and Israelite exodus from Egypt, without mentioning that many (mabye most) historians believe that most of the biblical account of Israeli history is incorrect ("The archaeological data do not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story: there is no evidence that Israel ever lived in Egypt", Wikipedia). In various comments Dan just accepts the biblical story as, broadly, true while missing an interesting historical angle that it may have been wholly invented.

8. Scars of the Great War (40:38)

Topic: The legacy of WW1

Rating: C+

Comment: There's an old adage in writing - "show, don't tell". Stories are more effectively told if the audience isn't simply presented with the conclusions but is provided with details which allow them to draw those conclusions. Contrasing this with the Blueprint for Armageddon series is a great lesson in "show, don't tell". Unfortunately, to "show" WW1 Dan had to take almost 19 hours instead of less than one, so I can understand why he initially resisted doing a narrative history of the conflict, but that doesn't change the fact that this episode is very much presenting broad brush conclusions of WW1 with minimal supporting detail. The point about the fundamentally different character of the participants in WW1 to what you would find today is well made though, and I'd proably have enjoyed this more if I had listened to it before Blueprints, but it suffers so much in comparison that it's hard to rate it too highly.

9. Darkness Buries the Bronze Age (33:46)

Topic: What caused the Bronze Age collapse?

Rating: B

Comment: Dan presents an interesting mystery here, and the narrative framework he uses to do it makes the presentation interesting. Unfortunately because so much of the subject matter is unknown (which is the whole point!), it limits the inherent appeal of the story. Detail is interesting, so having so little of it here makes this somewhat less interesting. The two contemporaneous quotes he uses though are excellent and he does a good job of whetting the appetite to find out what happened, even if no one really knows.

10. The What-Ifs of 1066 (47:36)

Topic: Key turning points in the year 1066

Rating: A

Comment: Proof of the fact that detail is interesting, this is a much smaller and ultimately less eventful slice of history than the collapse of Bronze Age civilisation, but it's a far more interesting episode. Dan does a great job of unpicking the key turning points here, he perhaps leans on the "what if" framework a little heavily, but it's a good way of presenting the story. An excellent episode.

11. Thoughts of Churchill (53:45)

Topic: Winston Churchill

Rating: C

Comment: It's inevitable that a storyteller's biases will influence the stories they tell. And it's usually not a problem as long as these biases are made clear and so long as the biases aren't not taken too far. On the former, this episode passes - Dan is very obvious about his love of Churchill. And that's a fine bias to have, he did a lot of good things and is a truly great historical figure. But the episode in my opinion takes Dan's hero worship too far. I like the comment in this article - "For anyone who bothers to think about him critically and in detail... that pivotal [1940] motivational role in saving the country from Nazism inevitably clouds everything else about him." Dan seems to fall into this trap.

The most out there example of Dan's hero worship is the claim that Churchill got America into WW2 which is a big claim on the face of it seeing as how Germany was the party which declared war. I could only find support for this proposition in the darker (yes, that David Irving) and more conspiratorial corners of the interwebs which is obviously not what Dan had in mind, but it points to the idea as being a pretty out there one and very far from mainstream. Also, while acknowledging Churchill's faults, Dan does a disservice by not even mentioning some of the really big ones, in particular his attitude to "primitive" peoples and Churchill's personal involvement in the Bengal Famine. He also touches on the German bombing controversy, while avoiding the opportunity to detour a little in the firebombing of Dresden which otherwise has all the earmarks of a Harcore History-type story (mentioning a controversy without giving it any colour is the exact opposite of what Dan does with other historical figures like Ghengis Khan). Overall, without wanting to get too SJW, this episode shows that a lot of Dan's views about history - things like "progress", "western culture" and "great men" (emphasis on gender) - are somewhat old school, and those all combine to make this an episode with some interesting facts stymied by an overly biased viewpoint imo.

12. Steppe Stories (58:34)

Topic: Steppe peoples from central Asia throughout history

Rating: B+

Comment: A nice little episode that begins setting the scene for the excellent Wrath of the Khans series. Unlike Scars of the Great War which largely duplicates the themes of the Blueprint for Armageddon series and suffers for the comparison, this episode does a nice job of acting as a teaser for the full series by giving a broader perspective. I enjoyed the discussion of the way in which various steppe tribes being pushed west created pressures at a number of times through history (even if I still don't understand why inner Mongolia was such a "wellspring" for new and more powerful tribes) as well as the discussion of how consistent this story had stayed over time. The deep dive into the ice tombs was also really interesting. I would have liked a bit more discussion about the religion of the steppe peoples, which was a fascinating angle brought out in Wrath of the Khans and, I think, could have been a feature of this discussion. Ultimately, this was a teaser rather than an immensely strong episode on its own, but a good one.

13. Bubonic Nukes (47:30)

Topic: The Black Death

Rating: B

Comment: An interesting look at the plagues that struck Asia and Europe in the 1300s, through the framing of "this is similar to what things would be in a post-nuclear apocalypse". The framing was a useful way of telling the story and the episode generally well done. Dan examines the context and social implications of these plagues, using a good amount of contemporaneous colour from historical sources. As an aside, I actually take a slightly different take than Dan on all this - he emphasis how much change and social upheval resulted from the plauges, I'm honestly amazed at how much remained the same. With the near apocalyptic effect that the plagues had on some parts of the world, I would have thought that something like the failed christian socialist peasant uprising would have taken hold somewhere, or at least a couple of monarchies or church systems be immediately overthrown, but European society at the end of the 1300s seems to have been recognisably similar at a very broad level to that at the start despite the massive human impact of the plagues. There was no Mad-Max style system collapse or Bolshevik/Nazi-style regime change out of the ashes. Even theologically or philosophically speaking, there was no broad movement (that I'm aware of) like existentialism or a broad Nihilisic or even Atheistic movement, any of which could have been understandable. I enjoyed the connecting thread of the plagues to modern times at the end. Overall, a solid though not spectacular episode.

14. The Macedonian Soap Opera (49:23)

Topic: Successors to Alexander the Great

Rating: B+

Comment: Solid historical storytelling, the scope is narrow but the information is well presented. I learned lots of interesting things here, I enjoyed the focus on Olympus (although no mention of her, um, rumoured sexual proclivities?) and generally found the ins and outs of the civil war-esque situation to be interesting. I find that I enjoy Harcore History most when I'm learning things, and I learned things here - solid episode.

15. Desperate Times (41:57)

Topic: The Great Depression

Rating: C+

Comment: The episode is sprinlled with interesting facts, such as the failed (and possibly overstated) "business plot" against FDR and Steinbek's amazing depression-era reporting. Not Dan's fault, but the recency of these situations meant I already knew about them but it was still good to delve into. My problem with this episode was in the framing around the positive effects of this type of hardship on the affected populations. This framing feels very myopic from both a geographic and temporal perspective. Geography wise, many parts of the world today are living in conditions which are at least close to if not mirroring or worse than that went through by western populations during the great depression. It feels somewhat obscene to speculate about the "positive" effects of such suffering when people are going through it today. Also, I don't know enough about the specifics of living conditions throughout history, but my sense of it is that what western populations went through was a period of living conditions that was more similar to the way that most people have lived throughout most of the history of the species. I'm sure some of the extremes in the great depression were worse than "normal conditions", but such extreme situations were probably fairly common throughout history due to bad weather or crop failure or whatever. The thing which makes the great depression unique isn't so much nature of the suffering, but the fact that it was bookended by two periods of abundance. In that context, it feels positively weird to talk about how this type of situation may have created the "greatest generation", when such conditions are commonly present throughout the world today and across history.

16. Nazi Tidbits (59:15)

Topic: Nazi ideology

Rating: D-

Comment: Dan begins this episode by saying that he wasn't happy with his test run of it because it sounded too much like Nazi propaganda. Well, despite extensive disclaimers that Hitler and Nazis were evil, the final product still ended up containing an uncomfortable amount of Nazi propaganda. The most egregious of this is his repeated references to the effect of the Treaty of Versailles, an opinion which appears to be largely unhistorical and which, at the very least, should be presented with a pretty large asterix and not just as an unquestioning adoption of Hitler's views of history. Also disturbing, though, is what Dan does and doesn't choose to focus on. We get a lot of discussion about Hitler's amazing rhetorical prowess and cult-like personal attraction. We also get a completely unnecessary, and lengthy, dissection of his racial world-view and the way that Hitler played on the specifics of the psyche of (some of) the German population post-WWI. What we don't have is any examination of some real historical questions, like how much of the German population actually supported hitler or why Hitler's ideas, which as Dan identifies were so deeply rooted in a specific time and place, have some continued appeal in vastly different contexts today? What does this say about a generalised human tendancy for in vs out group narratives or the dangers of an overly romanticised past? These are some the "deep questions" arising from this time period, not whether the allies were responsible for WWII by inserting the war guilt clause or exactly where the Slavic peoples fit in the global heirarchy of races. Also, I find it a little uncomfortable that Dan refers to doing a Hardcore History episode on the holocaust - which seems an eminently appropriate topic - but not only has he not done so, as it stands he's done a detailed and, at times uncomfortably admiring, episode on the perpetuators of that atrocity but not the victims.

17. Judgment at Nineveh (1h 4m)

Topic: Fall of the Assyrian empire

Rating: C+

Comment: Once again, I enjoy Hardcore History when I'm learning something, and there was a lot of good stuff to learn here. The brutality of the Assyrians, the struggles of empires, Xenophon's travels - this is all good stuff. What put me off about this episode was something of a cumulative effect of a bunch of different thoughts I've been having about Dan's overall historical world view, which is very much rooted in this "rise and fall of civilisations" idea. How much does the idea of "civilisational progress" really match up to the daily lived experience of the bulk of citizens in these places? In modern times, we feel such a strong connection to our nation state that we find it hard to comprehend being ruled by outside powers. But was that really the case in ancient times? Obviously the fall of the Assyrian empire had a pretty enormous impact on the residents of Ninevah. But did it really matter to most people across the empire exactly who was in charge at any particular time? Was the fall of this empire, or the "Bronze age collapse" or the fall of the Roman empire really such a traumatic event for the bulk of people living at those times or was it something that only really affected the ruling class? How much of this whole historical discourse about civilisational progress and empires and dark ages is rooted in Victorian-era justifications for imperialism and empire? I don't know, but Dan's not even attempting to answer these kind of questions, and the unquestioning repetition of that narrative is getting a little stale.

18. A Fly on James Burke’s Wall (44:53)

Topic: Interview with historian/broacaster James Burke

Rating: A-

Comment: More! More! I loved this, and the whole concept of a show which gets Hardcore History content out in a less time-intensive manner seems more relevant than ever. I really enjoyed James Burke's perspectives, his gentle undermining of Dan's historical narrative, his presentation of some interesting facts (Anglo Saxon invasion revisionism, Mozart to Helicopters), all really good stuff. I just wish we got more of these type of shows, getting different historical perspectives is really valuable. As far as I can tell, Dan hasn't done one of these interview shows since 2009, would be great if this idea could be revisited.

19. Apache Tears (1h 18m)

Topic: The Apache and other native American wars

Rating: A

Comment: Historical tales, extreme situations, moral ambiguity and gory details - what more do you want from a Hardcore History episode? The moral ambiguity at the heart of this discussion is probably a little more clear cut than presented here, seeing as how white settlers made the first move by colonising the New World in the first place, but overall I really enjoyed this episode. Dan obviously has a real admiration for the native American peoples and does a great job of conveying that excitment and the clash of cultures at the heart of this conflict. As a non-American who isn't steeped in this type of information already, I probably could have used slightly more detail and background on some of the parts of this, like exactly what the Reservation system was/is and how it came about, and he definitely throws the term "PTSD" around far too often, but minor quibbles on a strong episode.

20. (BLITZ) History Under the Influence (40:48)

Topic: The impact of drugs on historical decision making

Rating: B+

Comment: I really like the core concept here, and it's an interesting topic to think about. There's enough solid evidence about the effect of various substances on recent history that the speculation about past impact seems warranted. I recall in other episodes Dan's references to use of Hash and excessive alcohol use by Steppe peoples, so there's no doubt more to this story than mentioned here. I was a bit disappointed that Opium wasn't mentioned in any detail, I don't know enough of the details but I'm absolutely positive there's some stories to tell about the attraction and influences of opium during various colonial interventions in China. Still, a solid show concept and well executed.

21-23. Punic Nightmares I-III (appx 3h 51m)

Topic: The three wars between Rome and Carthage

Rating: A+

Comment: I know Dan expresses a preference for doing non-narrative history, but I love his narrative history episodes so much more than the ones where he goes into some crackpot theory. Dan's a great storyteller and does a really good job of bringing the dates and events to life. From the crossing of the alps, to hand to hand combat with an elephant, to the routing of Roman armies in Italy, to the key decision points facing the Romans and Hannibal, to the political machinations to the final, horrific, conclusion - this is a compelling tale, well told. Not much more to say than that, loved it.

24. Classical Hanson (35:27)

Topic: Interview with Victor Davis Hanson

Rating: D

Comment: I'm sure my personal political inclinations are affecting my enjoyment of this show, but this just didn't do it for me. Unlike James Burke, who I felt brought a refreshingly different historical perspective to the show, I found this interviw largely a-historic and pretty much in the "things were better in my day" vein of commentary. It's also kind of hard to take seriously a guy whose views inevitably lead to support for things like the Iraq war, which Hanson was a huge fan of. This episode was the shortest of the interviews that Dan has done which, I think, means he was struggling with the guest a bit too. Not my favourite episode.

25. The Dyer Outlook (59:24)

Topic: Interview with Gwynne Dyer

Rating: B+

Comment: on the other hand, this I found much more compelling. Gwynne had a really interesting perspective on things, I liked his insight into the "Guns, Germs and Steel" book and his grand theory of civilisational development based around large domsticable animals was fascinating. I'm not sure if it's a well established theory that's out ther, but I've never run across it and I'm always fascinated by new ideas like that.

26. (BLITZ) Addicted to Bondage (1h 4m)

Topic: Slavery throughout history

Rating: A-

Comment: This is a perfect subject for the "blitz" format of these shows, and it's generally well handled here. I really enjoyed the discussion of slavery in a broad context across history, I had no idea of the extent of the practice in the Roman Empire for example, nor that chattel slavery had never existed in China (although perhaps things are more complicated than made out in the show on the latter point). Dan veered into slightly uncomfortable territory early in the show when positing a negative answer to the question "were all slaveholders evil?" - I think the answer is clearly yes, and it shows the corrupting influence that evil institutions can have upon otherwise moral people - but he did nothing to sugar coat the brutality of the institution across time and some of the particularly cruel aspects of slavery in the southern US.

27-30. Ghosts of the Ostfront I-IV (~4h 12m)

Topic: The eastern front of WWII

Rating: A+

Comment: Another long narrative history series, another bullseye. As Dan correctly points out, so much of the focus in western education systems is focussed on the western front in WWII, which was much more of a sideshow in the European conflict. I was aware of the broad details of the eastern front, but this really brought it to life and told the story in an incredible way. Dan did a good job of explaining all of those little lingering queries which I had over the conflict, particularly "why did Hitler break the peace treaty with the USSR", "why didn't Hitler learn from Napoleon?" and also the huge contrast in military performance between Russia in WWI and WWII. The latter is truly remarkable, and shows the brutal efficacy of a totalitarian regime in times of existential threat. Clearly the natural geographic advantages of Russia were necessary to enable that totalitarian force to come to bear - I doubt a fascist leader in France would have made an enormous difference - but the combination in Russia was exactly what the world needed in order to stop the Third Reich, and that much is made clear in this series. Free Episodes

43 - 47. Wrath of the Khans I-V (~8h 30m)

Topic: Ghengis Khan and his immediate successors

Rating: A+

Comment: Incredible series, giving amazing insight into a period of history that I knew almost nothing about. The overall framing of the story, "don't forget the dead" when looking at the history of empires, is a point very well made over the course of these episodes. Dan clearly revels in the gory details, but does so in a way which well serves the overall story. If I had to nitpick, I'd say that he seems to not give quite enough attention to the Mongol campaigns in China, or details of the Chinese military at the time. Eg. he mentions that the chinese use gunpowder and advanced siege tactics, but doesn't really explain how or what they are, or how the chinese forces fought in any real detail. Given that this is a key part of his contention that the Mongols moving into Europe was like "going into a lower league", it was a notable omission. Minor point though, just an amazing series.

48. Prophets of Doom (4h 28m)

Topic: The Munster Rebellion

Rating: A+

Comment: I have no idea why Dan says in his outro that he wasn't satisfied with this episode, it's one of the best single podcasts I've ever listened to. Perhaps it's the benefit of listening to it in 2016 when the ISIS parallel is sitting there to give it a strong contemporary resonance, whereas it may have just seemed like a strange little tale of no broader relevance in 2013, but this is a fascinating look at humanity's potential for absolute extremism. The podcast uses quotes from historical sources to excellent effect, and though many of the particular details of the story are based on a biased source (Hermann Von Kerssenbrock), Dan does a good job of highlighting that bias and giving as many points of view as are available. I have basically nothing bad to say about this episode, podcast perfection.

49. The American Peril (4h 5m)

Topic: American imperialism in the 1890s

Rating: A-

Comment: Very solid episode, focussing on what Dan identifies as the only time in American history where America's imperialist tendancies were openly advocated and acted on. I felt like he got a bit too bogged down in the minutae of yellow journalism and Teddy Roosevelt fanboyism, where a bit more discussion of the contemporary legacy of this era could have been expanded on. Eg. he never really resolved the Phillipine occupation, or even mention any lasting impacts on Phillipine-American relations, and also attempt to go into the aftermath of the Spanish American civil war in terms of America's future involvement with Cuba and Puerto Rico.

50 - 55. Blueprint for Armageddon I-V (~18h 45m)

Topic: WW1

Rating: A+

Comment: At the beginning of "Scars of the Great War", Dan said that he wasn't interested in doing a narrative history of WW1. I think that's because he was daunted by the scale of the project. Well, we can all be glad that he eventually relented and gave us the whole shebang. This series was incredibly well done, drawing on sources from both sides of the conflict and painting the big picture themes that really made this conflict so momentus. The use of personal stories was heart wrenching, but necessary - try listening to the letter written by the man about to go over the top to his wife and young daughter with a dry eye.

In a series this long, though, there is bound to be something to criticise so I'll nitpick. First up is a fairly substantial one, and one I haven't seen acknowledged by Dan even though he's been called out on it in multiple venues. The Gavrilo Princip sandwich story that opens the series, and about which Dan spends so much time musing on the nature of fate in history, is entirely false. Imo this error is bad enough that this part should be edited out of his series - he's perpetuating a highly interesting but completely false myth - but Dan doesn't so much as mention it in the outro, while acknowledging much more minor mistakes in later episodes. I'm less concerned about inaccuracies such as the exact size or mode of transportation of various pieces of weaponary, but this one goes to the heart of a big point he was making. Second, I think he spent way too much time on Rasputin than was justified. I know it's a fantastically tittilating story, and my russian revolution class at high school did the same, but in an almost 19 hour series you should be only looking to focus on important things, and Rasputin is nowhere near as important as the more than half hour devoted to him would suggest. Final nitpick was the overly frequent repition of some of the themes, eg. points about the lingering effect of the war on the "artists, writers and citizens" of these states in the futures - point well made, but it was made over a dozen times as with a few others. Minor points in the grand scheme of things though, an epic and awesome series.

56. King of Kings (3h 36m)

Topic: Cyrus the Great and predecessor empires

Rating: B-

Comment: There's an awful lot of interesting stuff here. I loved the details of the bloodthirsty Assyrian kings, and some of the particularly nasty little episodes. The explanation of Heroditus as an oral historian was also really good. My problem is with the structure. It's almost as if Dan went into this with an aim of trying to keep his audience off balance for as long as possible, and while he succeeds at this aim, I'd question whether it's a good narrative tool. Given that a lot of the subject matter is going to be unfamiliar to a good part of the intended audience, the constant jumping around in time and location are too disorienting imo, which is a shame. This episode possibly suffers a bit from the hyperinflation in the volume of research that Dan's putting into these shows - with a reading list of close to 40 books, the amount of info he's trying to convey is getting overwhelming.

Personal introduction

I only found out about Dan Carlin towards the end of last year and have been busy devouring first the free episodes and now his archives. I'm obviously a huge fan now :). I've always had a passing interest in history, but never done any formal study beyond high school and haven't read too many history books and the podcast really do a great job of introducing very interesting topics.

One thing I looked for when I started going back in the archives, and was surprised not to find, was any systematic rating of old episodes by the community. I caved in and got the lot, but I reckon some sort of rating for old episodes would be useful for people looking to pick up individual episodes here or there, particularly (as I'm finding out) given the highly variable quality of some of the old material. So here's a first stab. Remember, I know almost nothing about most of this history, I'm reviewing these primarily from a storytelling and podcast enjoyment perspective. I haven't got through the whole archive yet, I'll update the post with review every 10 shows or so as I go through. Also for fun I decided to review the free shows too.