[kingofpandora]

Trying to remember where I've read this in the past. I used to follow AskHistorians on Reddit and a quick search shows questions about him being asked quite a bit, for example here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/comme... (it's not all negative!). There are a ton of other threads too.

[burntsushi]

That doesn't seem to support "Carlin is discredited by most serious historians in general." Reading that comment, it sounds like I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything. Which seems fine? And the closest thing I can see to a specific criticism there is "oversimplification of the Roman Republic." Which I'm not even sure is a criticism. I generally expect lay history to oversimplify things.

Also... that comment was written 10 years ago.

I also follow and read r/askhistorians. I love it.

[elevation]

> I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything

Isn't this a key lesson in the study of history? There are no "definitive sources." Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources have their own biases, limitations, and cultural influences, sometimes to the point that they say more about their own lives than the history they portray. Sometimes it takes centuries for anyone to notice.

Your best hope for assembling an accurate picture of the past is to characterize how the biases you're aware of may have influenced the evidence available to you.

[kingofpandora]

Like I said, that comment was by no means exclusively negative and I don't recall where I read the more critical take, but it might have been one of the other (many!) posts about Carlin on r/askhistorians.