History · Original Legacy Productions
by Original Legacy Productions
Afua Hirsch and Peter Frankopan tell the wild stories of some of the most extraordinary men and women ever to have lived – and ask whether they have the rep they deserve. Should Nina Simone’s role in the civil rights movement be more celebrated than it is? When you find out what Picasso got up to in his studio, can you still admire his art? Was Napoleon a hero or a tyrant - or both? (And, while we’re at it, was he even short?) Legacy is the show that looks at big lives from the perspective of now – and doesn’t always like what it sees. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Showing 20 · updated from the feed
Position in the History chart (US), last 90 days.
Where Legacy ranks today in each Apple Podcasts chart (US, Nov 7, 2026).
A curated, balanced selection of Apple Podcasts reviews.
Legacy is one of the more intellectually stimulating history podcasts available, but a recent episode gave me pause. Hirsch suggested the Founding Fathers relied too heavily on Greek and Roman traditions — implying racial bias — rather than drawing on African and Chinese political thought. This argument has two serious problems. The first is empirical. The Founders' intellectual world was shaped by classical republicanism — Polybius, Cicero, Thucydides. Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson read these texts in the original Latin and Greek. The Federalist Papers cite them as direct analytical frameworks. Whatever knowledge existed in 18th century America of Chinese governance or African political traditions was fragmentary and inaccessible at the level of precision required for constitutional design. You cannot build a legal architecture on sources you cannot read or verify. The second is conceptual. Constitutional design is not a diversity exercise — it is an engineering problem. Drawing on a tradition refined and stress-tested for two millennia is not bias. It is intellectual due diligence. The tell is the causal claim: that the Founders' choices reflected racial bias rather than the simpler explanation that they had no meaningful access to those traditions. That is a political argument dressed in historical language. A good podcast — but history is best served straight without a modern political agenda.
I really LOVED this podcast. Yes, the retellling using modern ideas of gender and sexuality sometimes seemed a little overdone. But it was endlessly fascinating to dig into the lives and stories of individuals and to rethink who they might have been using our modern lenses. And that was Legacy’s niche. I have no idea why they’ve gone the direction of topics and ideas, which now makes Legacy like so many other history podcasts I already listen to. It’s a disappointing and confusing change in direction and I can’t think what prompted this :( . Please bring back our stories about PEOPLE.
I generally greatly appreciate this show. It delves into the most interesting aspects of the people they cover, and the hosts challenge and question each other in exciting and enlarging ways, which all good intellectual conversations should do. But, one thing screeched like nails on a chalkboard in this episode: Afua referred to Joan of Arc’s “brand” - as if Joan were SELLING herself. It shocks me that Afua either endorses selling yourself, or confuses it with freedom, or has never considered the question at all - because all three options seem so unlike the rest of her thinking. Calling Joan non-binary also stood out in a very ugly way, as Flintstonizing the past, and I was very glad Peter refuted the point.
Afua and Peter are wonderfully informed and engaging hosts. The content is always fascinating and binge worthy! Thank you!
The hosts of this podcast are knowledgeable and articulate. Their individual perspectives on infamous figures and their place in history is fascinating. So, my problem isn’t with them, but the format change. This show use to be unique, nuanced now it seems to be highlighting subjects found in trashy media. Diet, exercise, celebrity makeovers. Isn’t this suppose to be a history podcast? As much as I like the hosts, I won’t be listening anymore.
I listened to 10 of the seasons and it had a strong start, but became more impossible to bear every season. I just found myself beholden to Afua’s opinions on historical figures for an hour which became tirelessly predictable. Her co-host struggles to bring balance to the show but she is so insistent it rarely helps the listener better understand the people they’re highlighting. Her opinions lack so much nuance regardless of the person, she literally repeats herself verbatim on entirely different seasons. Is the point to explore an impactful person’s legacy or to indict them with your 20/20 hindsight? I’m so curious what we will be judged for today that we are blind to and after listening to 10 seasons of this show I am certain that our entire contributions value will boil down to that blind spot.
We strive to present a balanced view by showing a diverse range of reviews from Apple Podcasts.
Popular shows in History, for your next listen.
Daily updated Apple Podcasts rankings for the United States.
Here you find the Apple Podcasts chart positions of Legacy, its latest episodes to listen to directly, and reviews from listeners. Rankings are updated daily for the United States.
Questions or issues? Reach us at hello@reason.fm