We put a lot of effort and poured substantial resources into this video. For example, we licensed a lot more footage and artwork, put much more effort into research, storytelling and editing. All in all, this resulted in much more work but also in a much better video and viewing experience, at least that’s what we think. This only became possible because we finally have more time to focus on RUclips. We recently finished most of our other projects. Roman has finally handed in his master thesis this summer (he received the best possible mark!) and Sandro has finished his diploma as a history teacher (also the best possible mark for his final test lesson). We also finally published our article in an academic collective volume edited by Dr. Kilian Baur and Robert Trautmannsberger. It’s about our experience as content creators here on RUclips. It covers some of the difficulties we faced as content creators (trying to be accurate vs. limited time and resources). The article also explains the methods we developed (or tried) to bring a deeper understanding of history and historiography to RUclips while keeping the content entertaining. The article is open access, so you should be able to read it for free, but it is only available in German. www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110792898-005/html ) We’re going to teach a part of this in a course at the university of Zurich next semester (2024). In the future we plan to put the same effort in our videos, although some projects might still be a bit less complex. If you want to support us, feel free to buy one of the books that we list below or consider becoming a Patron ( www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory ). By becoming a Patron, you get access to previews, artwork, content polls and BTC-updates. We really do rely on these income streams. For us, 2023 was one of the worst years, financially speaking, because many sponsors have refused to work with us (partly because of the overall market situation, partly because our clicks were not that great). While we’re not exactly starving or anything like that, we would be grateful for a bit more financial security. We’re also still trying to cover the cost of the artwork that we use in our videos, which would be about $600 / video (at the moment we’re at about $550 / video (about 10% goes to Patreon for their service)). This is important for us because the artwork and licensing of videos and music puts quite a dent in our finances. There’s a more extensive bibliography in the description of this video but if you’re interested in some of the more accessible books mentioned in this video, have a look here (affiliated links): Arther Ferrill, The Origins Of War: From The Stone Age To Alexander The Great amzn.to/46yjZf4 Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage amzn.to/46r4pl2 Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Sapiens: amzn.to/3ta5e3n Frans de Waal, the Age of Empathy. Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society: amzn.to/3PW8BnF The two papers on Jebel Sahaba and the Y-chromosome bottleneck can be found here: Crevecoeur, Isabelle et. Al., New insights on interpersonal violence in the Late Pleistocene based on the Nile valley cemetery of Jebel Sahaba, in: Scientific Reports vol. 11 (2021), www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89386-y Zeng, T.C., Aw, A.J. & Feldman, M.W. Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck. Nat Commun 9, 2077 (2018). www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6
Astonishing work, Sandro and Roman! You are a credit to history content on RUclips. I hope things continue to improve for you, and congratulations for your excellent achievements so far!
I would add that Guns, Germs, and Steel is worth reading. The sections where Diamond talks about inter-tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea (in the 1960's, and as close as we get to neolithic warfare outside of say, the Amazon) is an eye-opener. You don't think of one or two or five guys getting killed in little scuffles is much ado of anything, until you realize it's happening year after year, and - proportional to their population - is casualties at WW2 levels for these groups.
@@youlemur How so? I disagree with Diamond on several points of theory (like agricultural advantages as the driving force of success), but he WAS there, and his basic data was sound.
Yeah, Diamond is neither a historian nor a sociologist, he´s a journalist. Good writer, but have a look at BadEmpanada´s video on the book, its a brutal teardown. And not some opinon-BS either, he just shows the bad science of most central theses Diamond bases the book on. I was a Diamond fan before that too, but that was a really eye-opening citique after which I felt hard pressed to see anything more than an entertaining storyteller in him.
The idea of using houses as a primitive wall features prominently in competitive Age of Empires 2 gameplay strategy. It’s fascinating how actual history mirrors modern gameplay strategy.
It's the other way around, modern war strategy games are inspired by history, and maybe the source of inspiration for those games wasn't Cathal Huyuk, but Pueblo communities from America.
@@ayushmaangoswami5152 it's doesn't matter, from the point of wiew of what I said that's irrelevant , whoever used this idea in this game was inspired by historical reality, this is a case of art imitating life, not one of life mirroring artistic activities.
I really like the sound design in this video. There's much to like besides, but the music and narration are well balanced, and the sound effects add a lot of punch and help set tone. Great work!
“War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.” The Judge was right about it, it seems...
Oh my lord I love this channel. Hadn't popped up on my feed and life got busy, but then this video came up and WHOOO like coming up for air. Keep up the great work. I love history and you keep finding these niches that nobody satisfyingly cover.
“If I die in Uruk, there ain’t nothing to it. Cave music made me do it. Paleontologists want to label me a criminal, there ain’t nothing to it cave music made me do it” - Rock Cube
I think that the fact that Chimps (our closest living relatives) are pretty much in a constant state of war with one another says a lot about how early humans engaged in war.
"I think that the fact that Chimps (our closest living relatives).." That's not true though... bonobos are - Pan paniscus - and they have a totally different culture to chimpanzees. But it's all pretty much irrelevant any way, because Hominds are NOT evolved from them; we just have a common ancestor, that is long extinct.
I got this channel proposed in my feed. It’s been a while since I came across a channel like this. Historical correct, to the point and well made. You even added the latest findings about Ötzi in the video. I already subscribed and I will now watch some of your other videos.
No, animals do not form large numbers and fight one another for political prowess. Animals kill one another for 2 purposes, to obtain resources &/or to ensure the future of their species. For some, they kill to obtain the carcass as a resource for others they kill because of competition for resources or suitable mates. It’s naive to think we didn’t invent warfare. It’s also naive to think nature is peaceful. We are especially heinous beasts. Nukes, bio-attacks, genocide.
@@Aaron-y4w4iAmong apes, different packs do fight other packs over resources like food and territory. I'm not sure if these fights are organized enough to be considered warfare though...
@@Aaron-y4w4iapes form into groups in the jungle and go to war against each other for territory and female mates. This is a well documented fact. Organized violence for ressources is an ageless act
Neanderthal DNA making up only 1-4% of our DNA does not indicate the interbreeding theory is incorrect (that some people are 96% human, 4% Neanderthal 40,000 years later means the interbreeding that occurred was not insignificant). Just as likely, if not more so, is a large population difference between the two sub-species. Neanderthals lived in small groups of 8 or so individuals. Humans lived in groups of 40 or more. If a large population moves into a sparsely populated area and interbreeds with it, the smaller population will be swallowed up, and its genes diluted. Moreover, there was no technology difference between humans and neanderthals for the first 3/4th of our coexistence. (humans having been around since 200,000 BCE). It wasn't until 50,000 BCE that a technological difference began to occur. Before then, Neanderthals were every bit our equal; but fewer in number. The most likely scenario is interbreeding and displacement, with only minimal direct violence. Large groups of humans move into an area and begin consuming resources there. Neanderthals move out of the region, unable to compete. Rinse repeat a few thousand years, until the Neanderthals are pushed all the way to the edges of Iberia, in response to the westward migrations of humans. It should also be pointed out we only have Neanderthal mDNA, no yDNA. Meaning only human men and neanderthal women produced fertile offspring. Neanderthal men and human women either couldn't produce fertile offspring (most likely), or refused to.
Plausible. But lack of yDNA could also be an indication of Human culture at the time, namely wife stealing. Just as many human bloodlines could have been wiped out due to both conflict and competition, but a smaller population meant extinction for the Neanderthal.
Something extremely odd happened with the Neanderthal Y chromosome over 100,000 years ago. It disappeared. Male Neanderthals after that carried the Homo Sapien Y. Scientists are still working out what happened but male Neanderthal and female Homo Sapien unions would not be traceable after that.
@@davidkeely43 almost. It’s true that Neanderthal yDNA is more similar to humans than it is to Denisovans, which the opposite is true for all other kinds of DNA tested, but it’s isn’t 100% identical. We can still test for Neanderthal yDNA, which is remarkably absent for all modern humans.
"What is War? Maybe you'll hurt me... You hurt me ... No more..." Then the soldiers start wiggling their heads, following the melody of unknown lands, played with bizarre instruments, and sung by a bard with clothes that they have never ever seen before. -Time Traveller Troll
I don't consider war a learned behaviour, as war is simply an escalated version of what is everywhere in nature: a fight for space and resources. There is a lot of of documentation for resource conflict in the animal kingdom; from territorial disputes in meerkats, to a lion fighting for the 'ownership' of a pride, to organised group combat of chimpansees. When a group that you're not part of becomes a detriment to your survival, a fight happens. Most other species lack the conversational skills to launch an organised raid, but especially the 'Gombe chimpansee war' is an excellent case of just how close war is to nature.
@@oftin_wong war was war before metal even came into the picture. War definitely impacted war because better metal->better tools->beter wargear, but war existed well before metalurgy did. Clubs, obsidian tips, slings, bone weapons/armor, fabric armor, wooden shields, bamboo armor. War would be different without metalurgy, but metalurgy is in no way a prerequisite for war. So I would say that no, metalurgy isn't intrinsically linked to war.
@@oftin_wong the word intrinsic means they are NECESSARY for one another to exist. So maybe you chose the wrong words, but saying that metallurgy is necessary for war implies they can't exist independently, which is what I don't agree with. They're deeply intertwined, but not intrinsically connected.
@@Olav_Hansen whatever ...I didn't engage with you to somehow win a point ... In addition intrinsic doesn't mean 'necessary' Intrinsic : belonging naturally; essential
Hello, Reenactor and slinger here, would like to point out that with rocks hitting anything beyond 60-70 meters is quite impossible on a regular basis, maybe one or two out of 10 attempts would result in a hit, naturally the skill of the slinger comes into play, but once the stone is released from the sling, same forces act on the stone akin to that of a musket ball, and it will eventually start spinning off to a random side after 60ish meters. now should be said this is with natural rocks of roughly same size/weight and shape. Now if you use Lead shot or material of higher density, the shot will go much further as the density of the projectile kinda scales with the range you get. reason for this is that you can really only spin the sling so fast before releasing the projectile.
Hitting a single objective is indeed hard, but that doesn’t matter, in battle you don’t need to hit a specific objective, you just need to hit one of many objectives
@@lolasdm6959 naturaly hitting a formation is easier, tho if were talking formations ca 10 000 bc its more a scattering of up to a dozen or two men who covers each others flanks, musketry has been used in quite a few different formations. but even tho a musketball might fly as far as 200-300 meters+++ doesnt mean you will actually hit anywhere near the enemy formations, it might hit the dirt infront of the enemy line or wizz past over their heads.
@@Leo-ok3uj if you look up the baleric slingers mentioned here they were often employed by the romans as skirmishers, basicly to harass the approaching enemey formations, the roman medicus even had a sling shot extractor tong as a fairly standard part of their kit, akin to modern instruments used to pull out bullets. tho by this time i would recon lead shot would have been used not rocks, but if you do use lead you might double or triple your effective range up to maybe 150 meters compared to stone. this doesnt mean you cant get the projectile futher. An acquaintance of me currently holds the world record in range shooting with a historical bow with 500andsomething absurd meters, but he says himself that he cant hit the broad side of a barn at that range.
Humans have always fought wars. Scale and technology are the only things that change. Wars might stop if we unite against an external species, but even then we could find another excuse to fight each other.
As long as we allow the few who want to own us and sell us the story that war is natural... the vast mass of idiot0s will be continuously used as cannon fodder for all sorts of ideals, patriotisms and other tribalist nonsense... you rarely find among the very intelligent or those who have come to power to want to take part in war on the front, but they always find reasons for others to do so for themselves and their interests. Long story short, we must stop being sheep or we will continue to be used as such.
War was pretty rare in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. It really blew up in the Neolithic though. It’s not necessarily human nature, just something we do under the right conditions
Imagine being the first one sniped by an atlatl wielding spearman. A hand thrown spear, one can understand. An atlatl requires a sophisticated knowledge of physics, the farther the target is. Lots of trial and error, or a rare, innate talent. It must have seemed supernatural to be hit by a spear assisted by an atlatl for the first to have encountered such users.
A lot of humans got thrown spears towards them. You just need to keep your eyes open to avoid them. I think most suprised were the Neaderthals about this, when homo sapiens arrived in their territory, because they couldnt throw spears and had never seen somebody else do it.
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." -Judge Holden from Blood Meridian
You should read about the Gombe chimp war where Jane Goodall (the anthropologist and primatologist) witnessed a war between chimp groups. The groups of chimps formed patrols and raiding parties and organized themselves for battle. Considering that even ants go to war, I would say that humanity and its earlier ancestors have always fought each other.
I much prefer the definition of "political tool" for war, as it underlines the difference between animalistic raids and conscient use of organized violence
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." Blood Meridian
@@sunnyjim1355no not really. The Vikings had no political reasons for attacking. They were suffering from change in their homes climate. Not to say what they did was right but it wasn't for political reasons.
If even Modern Man is savage in so many ways, what are the odds that prehistoric man was peaceful? Unfortunately, war (violence) is indeed the nature of mankind.
No war changes, men must also change. It is said war, war never changes. But men do through the roads they walk. It's like this in normal life and history. We are better and more compassionate men then we were a hundred years ago. let alone 500.
There is a video from 1963 of west Papau tribal warfare. I think this is probably the most literal sense of what warfare at this time might has looked like. The video shows combat between two tribes that have only had recent contact with the western world.
You haven’t solved any philosophical dilemma, but these comments did prove that those who can’t comprehend warfare also can’t comprehend many other things.
War is probably older then Human beings As our closest animal relatives seem to have instincts for incredibly limited organized combat between local communities. Chimpanzee communities will send raiding parties after each other until one forces the other from a region.
Beat me to it. A couple of years ago, I saw a great exhibition on the origins of war in the Natural History Museum in Halle an der Saale (Germany), which included films of chimpanzee warfare. It seems likely to me that there's an unbroken history of warfare going back (at least) to our common ancestors with chimps, up through modern human warfare. Unfortunately. cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
Learning about prehistoric mankind and his evolution really helps me put things in perspective on why some modern cultures evolved technologically and others didn't. Isolation vs contact. A hotbed of early technological advancement was found in the Mediterranean region- a major trade center for 3 continents. This is why American Indigenous, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Pacific Islanders remained behind the times for so long- no contact with outside cultures for thousands of years and once there was, the interactions were negative. It's very sad that's the way it went down. It could easily have been the other way around had geography been different, but we're so egotistical our ancestors and some modern people never saw it that way.
@@jasonhaven7170 I don't know anything about Zimbabwe or Mali, but Ethiopia and the Horn DID have contact with the Middle East, Rome, and Asia. They were not insular. Now the Aztecs/Incas of Central/South America were completely insular. They did well for a self-contained group, but nowhere near the levels of the Eastern Hemisphere. If there were other civilizations on the Western Hemisphere that were developing for them to collaborate with and share ideas with, they would've been way more advanced. They were on their way, but that all stopped with Spaniard contact (disease, firearms, transportation)
@@lolasdm6959 😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣 absolutely true. An amazing movie about the topic of "cavemen" (early humans) advancing through sharing with other groups is Quest For Fire. Of course it's a made up story, but it accurately guesses what sharing might have looked like and how one advancement leads to another. Advancement happens within one single group, but the rate multiplies more quickly when there's various groups with their own achievements interacting and showing the others what they do.
Actually, the Incans had the best agricultural technology in the world at the time, and the Spanish Conquistadors said Tenochtitlan was only comparable to Constantinople. So they were both very advanced. @@sharonpopolow6874
War existed way before humans. Chimpanzee males patrol their territory's borders and engage in systematical ambushing and extermination of males in neighboring groups to take over their territory and females, sometimes they even confront each other in massive clashes that involve the whole group and they can throw projectiles at their foes, such as stones and logs. This is exactly the same type of behavior that we call war in humans, there is no reason to think that this was not present in the australopithecines and later in the first Homo species, 2.5 million years ago.
Yeah, I remember reading about the Gombe chimp wars and thinking that the only real difference between what they were doing and what humans do, is scale and technology. All the other elements are there, just more primitive. Rousseau was an idiot.
Patently incorrect and wrong by universally accepted definition. War requires an organized state, cultivation of crops and permanent settlements of human beings. Chimpanzees biting and hitting each other is not war. You are confusing war with conflict.
5:29 Why can't/couldn't the Walls of Ancient Jericho, have serve(d) as *both* of those functions? In regards; to the argument of their intended purpose. (or in other simpler words: also be dual-purposed?) Personally To me, it makes sense: Make the walls high to prevent flooding and during war, use it as a fortification. I wouldn't be surprised If the ancient original inhabitants somehow managed/figured out how to make the walls resistant to the mountains flooding *while* using them as a great fortification. ((Either by sheer chance, or by experience of trial by failure and Out of external pressure)) A lot of people, usually (and sometimes almost gravely) mistake. how advanced many ancient societies really were in some aspects. ((be it, in regards still to this very day or in their own respective time period in said *X* era)).
Most digs with fortifications and/or inhabitable structures are found on higher grounds. Purely from a practical perspective, this is something people have done for millennia. It gives you a good vantage point to control an area, and it's more defendable than flat terrain. You mention Jericho, I can offer Megiddo as another example. It's only in the recent centuries that we have decided we can force nature to do our bidding and created entire cities on floodplains and high-risk areas.
Great work. There's also a lot of ethnographic evidence that can help us understand how prehistoric hunter-gatherers might have waged war or committed violence. I had not heard of that paper on patrilineal kin group competition in the neolithic, it's very cool!
Native Americans had organized mass warfare, use of strategy and they did have city-states and empire-states and kingdoms and they did have campaigns of conquest of other entities. The technology level of the Native American Mississippian Culture was late Neolithic to early Chalcolithic with the Aztec and Inca civilizations being clearly of Chalcolithic level. Moving into the Amazon there are more primitive peoples that were not even agricultural and subsisted purely on hunting and gathering despite immensely fertile soil and a long growing season - and even they had organized warfare as several of those primitive tribes were having a war when the Spanish encountered them. It's fair to say that war is certainly a development that was pre homosapiens.
Its odd that modern artists depict European hunter gatherers as unkept dirty and undecorated. When every piece of ancient evidence of tools, art etc and all modern surviving native groups are the opposite.
The funny part is they get the one thing wrong that is actually "savage". Most tribal women do not cover their breasts and while they may have coverings in their groin area, it's more of a protection from getting scratched by a branch then to prevent their balls and vaj being visible. So the depiction should be reasonably clean, barely clothed, and hairy people. Instead we get smeared with feces and super thick clothing, because nudity is somehow wrong.
There's still zero evidence for organized warfare before agriculture though. We were less than four million for 300k years so we lived in relative abundance. We were also nomads to spreading over the land was how we resolved territorial disputes.
@@ziad_jkhan idk what you mean with "organised warfare". Obviously if you only have 15 people in your group "warfare" is gonna look different than when you have thousands of people..
@@JoeyP946 Anyway, there's still zero evidence for organized warfare before agriculture though. We were less than four million for 300k years so we lived in relative abundance. We were also nomads to spreading over the land was how we resolved territorial disputes. Btw, search for Bonobos as well to get a more complete picture. They never engage in lethal violence because they live in abundant environments.
@@ziad_jkhan "We were also nomads to spreading over the land was how we resolved territorial disputes." idk where you got this from but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all year.
That is always a possibility in history and archeology. The oldest proof of something happening is unlikely to be the earliest instance, but it's the only thing we can use to determine anything.
In general this is the big issue in this topic but also just in general when talking about pre-history. It is hard to infer social culture from material culture and two different people might interpret the same evidence in different ways. Sometimes it might be obvious that someone was a leader because they had way more material wealth but other times it isn't and that material wealth could be evidence of some burial offering.
The origins of war can be traced back to prehistoric times, well before organized civilizations. From around 500,000 BC to 3,000 BC, early human groups engaged in conflict over basic survival needs, such as territory, food, and resources. Archaeological evidence of weaponry, defensive structures, and skeletal remains showing violent injuries suggest that warfare was already a part of early human society.
Imagine living in Europe in prehistoric times, when there were less than half a million Europeans. Then you find a neighbouring tribe encroaching on your territory. This continent ain't big enough for both of us
Look at North American tribes before contact, so many Battles and Tribes completely destroyed - Men slaves and Women to breed with and in large the Clan .
@@AudieHolland no ! How dit you get that ? Out of what I said ! We were talking about war fare and humans 🤔 how dit you get that Racist message from what I said -? Are you Native American? I go to there gas station and store almost daily .🤔 🤣
Or, you find out there's another tribe. Do you hope that they won't attack you? Do you expose your position and risk your friends and family? Or do you launch an attack preemptively?
In the end, the idea that humans were "noble savages" with no ability to have tactics or warfare, is to say that humans before agriculture were less developed than chimpanzees which practice organized warfare today.
I find it hard to get behind men are either violent or peaceful by nature. I believe they were just like you and I and others today. They wanted to live and live well as they could, they were forged in a naturally violent environment as all life was and that serves as the foundation for their instincts. It’s not good vs bad but so much more nuanced.
@georgerivera278 as you wish. I think your proposed option B seems to be more in line with what I was referencing. Polygamy, Religion and the evolution of culture came around much more recently. To elaborate on my comment, what I mean is when you watch predators and prey in their natural environments, you’ll observe extremely violent behavior and it isn’t usually personal, it’s just another day in the office. Include natural disasters, disease, changing environments and those cycles of violence have been constant for millions of years. We (like all living things) are the genetic results of all those experiences. The industrial era, technology and the new rules of conduct does not remove our adaptations or capacity for violence.
"They wanted to live and live well as they could, they were forged in a naturally violent environment as all life was and that serves as the foundation for their instincts. " Your own quote? Words well expressed.
I like it when you talk about origins of war evantually hit theme of philosophy, how even civilization and organization come into existence as organized war would never exist without those.
There may be even game theory reasons why war always existed as a peaceful people would be exterminated by warlike neighbors. This happened to Moriori, the peaceful polynesians inhabiting Chatham islands, who were in invaded by their warlike Māori cousins from New Zeeland who killed, ate, tortured, r*p*d and enslaved them in an almost complete genocide.
What coincidence. I just finished reading Dawn of Empire by Sam Barone yesterday. Basically it's about how the first big village, Orak (later renamed to Akkad), built big walls for the first time in history to try to stop the invasion of the biggest barbarian horde of that time, the Alur Meriki. They're led by an ex-barbarian and the villagers have to build the wall and train enough archers in time before the Alur Meriki begins. It's in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. It's a really good read and I highly recommend it to all history nerds.
simply an incredible video! congrats! I didn't know much about prehistory but this video certainly does a good job in getting me interested more! it seems like war truly never changes...
It's a bit more subtle than "war is a part of human nature" in the sense that "the need to kill someone else and take their food when driven to desperation by hunger" can also be seen as part of human nature. A group of unlucky and (therefore) starving hunters will organize, attack and plunder the food of the successful farmer. Without the overwhelming motivation of starvation, there is no compelling desire to impose organized violence against others in general. Shared fear of an unfamiliar group that is a perceived danger to your own clan can also result in hostility and if the victims fight back rather than fleeing because of limited options, the hostility becomes organized violence. However, as war evolves from direct personal violence to more remote, indirect and anonymous actions at a distance (proximal or relational) against a dehumanized "other" group, then the motivations get much more complicated than starvation or threat or revenge.
Truth be told, im inclined to believe that first ''war'' happened because of recources and that can go back hundreds of thousands of years! Imagine a scenario: Your tribe lost recources or have very limited recources to survive. At the same time you know that theres another tribe somewhere nearby who potentially have recources you need! You gather around, make a plan and then execute said plan by raiding the neighbouring tribe! One could call it ''just a raid'' and not a war but, at the end of the day, it was planned and executed by a collective! I also think that these wars would have been extremely brutal because if you leave survivors, it opens up the possibility of revenge in the future and realistically speaking, living in harsh conditions in prehistoric era, thats just 1 more problem in the future you do not want to deal with!
We put a lot of effort and poured substantial resources into this video. For example, we licensed a lot more footage and artwork, put much more effort into research, storytelling and editing. All in all, this resulted in much more work but also in a much better video and viewing experience, at least that’s what we think.
This only became possible because we finally have more time to focus on RUclips. We recently finished most of our other projects. Roman has finally handed in his master thesis this summer (he received the best possible mark!) and Sandro has finished his diploma as a history teacher (also the best possible mark for his final test lesson). We also finally published our article in an academic collective volume edited by Dr. Kilian Baur and Robert Trautmannsberger. It’s about our experience as content creators here on RUclips. It covers some of the difficulties we faced as content creators (trying to be accurate vs. limited time and resources). The article also explains the methods we developed (or tried) to bring a deeper understanding of history and historiography to RUclips while keeping the content entertaining. The article is open access, so you should be able to read it for free, but it is only available in German. www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110792898-005/html ) We’re going to teach a part of this in a course at the university of Zurich next semester (2024).
In the future we plan to put the same effort in our videos, although some projects might still be a bit less complex. If you want to support us, feel free to buy one of the books that we list below or consider becoming a Patron ( www.patreon.com/sandrhomanhistory ). By becoming a Patron, you get access to previews, artwork, content polls and BTC-updates. We really do rely on these income streams. For us, 2023 was one of the worst years, financially speaking, because many sponsors have refused to work with us (partly because of the overall market situation, partly because our clicks were not that great). While we’re not exactly starving or anything like that, we would be grateful for a bit more financial security. We’re also still trying to cover the cost of the artwork that we use in our videos, which would be about $600 / video (at the moment we’re at about $550 / video (about 10% goes to Patreon for their service)). This is important for us because the artwork and licensing of videos and music puts quite a dent in our finances.
There’s a more extensive bibliography in the description of this video but if you’re interested in some of the more accessible books mentioned in this video, have a look here (affiliated links):
Arther Ferrill, The Origins Of War: From The Stone Age To Alexander The Great amzn.to/46yjZf4
Lawrence H. Keeley, War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage amzn.to/46r4pl2
Yuval Noah Harari, Homo Sapiens: amzn.to/3ta5e3n
Frans de Waal, the Age of Empathy. Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society: amzn.to/3PW8BnF
The two papers on Jebel Sahaba and the Y-chromosome bottleneck can be found here:
Crevecoeur, Isabelle et. Al., New insights on interpersonal violence in the Late Pleistocene based on the Nile valley cemetery of Jebel Sahaba, in: Scientific Reports vol. 11 (2021), www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-89386-y
Zeng, T.C., Aw, A.J. & Feldman, M.W. Cultural hitchhiking and competition between patrilineal kin groups explain the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck. Nat Commun 9, 2077 (2018). www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6
@@Gibson7Clans Jezzzus
@@Gibson7Clans
Learn to spell first (and fix your grammar) before you start arguing over nothingness
congratulations!
@@Gibson7Clans Oh look a troll with a new account Joined 28 Sept 2023. 🤣
Astonishing work, Sandro and Roman! You are a credit to history content on RUclips. I hope things continue to improve for you, and congratulations for your excellent achievements so far!
Given that organized groups of Apes have gone to war, I feel it's safe to say modern human species have likely always had war.
And always will
Yeah we also seen baboons f**king the living crap out of each other, can we assume humans are all bi-hyper-sexual since the beginning?
Considering all herd animals do that to an extent it’s not surprising
@@robertferguson533 no
@@lolasdm6959chimpanzees are significantly more related to humans than baboons though
“Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting it’s ultimate practitioner”
"As long as there's two people left on the planet, someone is gonna want someone dead" -TF2 Sniper
As a Hobbesian; "Men are not fallen angels but mere animals seeking to ascend to heaven."
Really enjoy the quality of your job. Thanks. The narrative properly like a criminal investigation. Love to see more of this format. Congrats
'War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.'
🤯🤯🤯
Judge holden ah
I would add that Guns, Germs, and Steel is worth reading. The sections where Diamond talks about inter-tribal warfare in Papua New Guinea (in the 1960's, and as close as we get to neolithic warfare outside of say, the Amazon) is an eye-opener. You don't think of one or two or five guys getting killed in little scuffles is much ado of anything, until you realize it's happening year after year, and - proportional to their population - is casualties at WW2 levels for these groups.
Guns, Germs, and Steel was debunked long ago lol
@@youlemur How so? I disagree with Diamond on several points of theory (like agricultural advantages as the driving force of success), but he WAS there, and his basic data was sound.
Yeah, Diamond is neither a historian nor a sociologist, he´s a journalist.
Good writer, but have a look at BadEmpanada´s video on the book, its a brutal teardown.
And not some opinon-BS either, he just shows the bad science of most central theses Diamond bases the book on.
I was a Diamond fan before that too, but that was a really eye-opening citique after which I felt hard pressed to see anything more than an entertaining storyteller in him.
@@FischerNilsA thank you
Okay, I will do so.@@FischerNilsA
"The most persistent sound which reverberates through man's history is the beating of war drums."
Arthur Koestler
You make some of the best historical videos on RUclips. They are well researched, informative and entertaining. Thank you for all your hard work.
The idea of using houses as a primitive wall features prominently in competitive Age of Empires 2 gameplay strategy. It’s fascinating how actual history mirrors modern gameplay strategy.
It's the other way around, modern war strategy games are inspired by history, and maybe the source of inspiration for those games wasn't Cathal Huyuk, but Pueblo communities from America.
@@theOrionsarmshouse walling in AoE is not an inherent feature. It's an exploit.
@@ayushmaangoswami5152 it's doesn't matter, from the point of wiew of what I said that's irrelevant , whoever used this idea in this game was inspired by historical reality, this is a case of art imitating life, not one of life mirroring artistic activities.
Discussions of Subject versus Subject Complement apart, an astute observation. Logic _does_ tend to win out.
I really like the sound design in this video. There's much to like besides, but the music and narration are well balanced, and the sound effects add a lot of punch and help set tone. Great work!
Wars are so natural even this comment section has them
This is why aliens stay away
Oh yeah? Well I think you’re a big dummy!
@grandmasteryoda6717 Oh it's on! 👊
Please say you have been to war. It ain't natural Homie. The hell you smoking.
common sense ?@@chaunceychappelle3265
“War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.”
The Judge was right about it, it seems...
this subject was completely unexpected but extremely interesting. you continue to surpass expectations. thank you for all your hard work
A severely overlooked topic, thank you for this.
"War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner."
Blood Meridian quotation detected.
''Before man was, war had to make do with ants.'' 😁
@@daniel-zh9nj6yn6y war: "Is man here yet?"
Evolution: No! I swear to god, if you ask one more time...
@@volunteer4awesome 😁
Poetic, but bull shit. Maybe if it rhymed it would be more true? War requires civilization. Look it up. and get away from the Anime.
Oh my lord I love this channel. Hadn't popped up on my feed and life got busy, but then this video came up and WHOOO like coming up for air. Keep up the great work. I love history and you keep finding these niches that nobody satisfyingly cover.
SandRhoman posts. I click.
That’s my style sir!
And Allen Linnen Jr. looked upon SandRhoman’s creation, and it was good.
Same.
Me and my buddy Ooga Booga gonna pull up on some Neanderthals with that Pointy.
“If I die in Uruk, there ain’t nothing to it. Cave music made me do it.
Paleontologists want to label me a criminal, there ain’t nothing to it cave music made me do it” - Rock Cube
This is art ^
Now that's what I call music with rocks in.
This ancient history documentary was not only informative but also beautifully produced. Great job!
I think that the fact that Chimps (our closest living relatives) are pretty much in a constant state of war with one another says a lot about how early humans engaged in war.
Well they fight but it is not what he means with war.
"I think that the fact that Chimps (our closest living relatives).." That's not true though... bonobos are - Pan paniscus - and they have a totally different culture to chimpanzees.
But it's all pretty much irrelevant any way, because Hominds are NOT evolved from them; we just have a common ancestor, that is long extinct.
Baboons are just as close and all they do is endless f**king with each other
@@alicelund147to say that they just "fight" would be an understatement. They completely brutalize each other, eat the corpses of their enemies, etc.
@@balonkita185 And is that the definition of war? Then we don't have war anymore?
Why did we all randomly get this recommended now?
Because it is time, brother. We must stomp out Chaos. All hail the Emporer
The overlords are preparing us for WWIII
By chance?
I got this channel proposed in my feed. It’s been a while since I came across a channel like this. Historical correct, to the point and well made. You even added the latest findings about Ötzi in the video. I already subscribed and I will now watch some of your other videos.
Looking at our near relatives in the animal kingdom, I think it's safe to assume that war predates humanity itself.
No, animals do not form large numbers and fight one another for political prowess.
Animals kill one another for 2 purposes, to obtain resources &/or to ensure the future of their species.
For some, they kill to obtain the carcass as a resource for others they kill because of competition for resources or suitable mates.
It’s naive to think we didn’t invent warfare.
It’s also naive to think nature is peaceful. We are especially heinous beasts.
Nukes, bio-attacks, genocide.
@@Aaron-y4w4iAmong apes, different packs do fight other packs over resources like food and territory. I'm not sure if these fights are organized enough to be considered warfare though...
Baboons are your near relatives bro, all they do is fx each other.
@@Aaron-y4w4iapes form into groups in the jungle and go to war against each other for territory and female mates. This is a well documented fact. Organized violence for ressources is an ageless act
Most human wars are fought over ressources. Ofc animals dont fight over more complex stuff, because they dont have that
Neanderthal DNA making up only 1-4% of our DNA does not indicate the interbreeding theory is incorrect (that some people are 96% human, 4% Neanderthal 40,000 years later means the interbreeding that occurred was not insignificant). Just as likely, if not more so, is a large population difference between the two sub-species. Neanderthals lived in small groups of 8 or so individuals. Humans lived in groups of 40 or more. If a large population moves into a sparsely populated area and interbreeds with it, the smaller population will be swallowed up, and its genes diluted. Moreover, there was no technology difference between humans and neanderthals for the first 3/4th of our coexistence. (humans having been around since 200,000 BCE). It wasn't until 50,000 BCE that a technological difference began to occur. Before then, Neanderthals were every bit our equal; but fewer in number. The most likely scenario is interbreeding and displacement, with only minimal direct violence. Large groups of humans move into an area and begin consuming resources there. Neanderthals move out of the region, unable to compete. Rinse repeat a few thousand years, until the Neanderthals are pushed all the way to the edges of Iberia, in response to the westward migrations of humans.
It should also be pointed out we only have Neanderthal mDNA, no yDNA. Meaning only human men and neanderthal women produced fertile offspring. Neanderthal men and human women either couldn't produce fertile offspring (most likely), or refused to.
Plausible. But lack of yDNA could also be an indication of Human culture at the time, namely wife stealing.
Just as many human bloodlines could have been wiped out due to both conflict and competition, but a smaller population meant extinction for the Neanderthal.
Something extremely odd happened with the Neanderthal Y chromosome over 100,000 years ago. It disappeared. Male Neanderthals after that carried the Homo Sapien Y. Scientists are still working out what happened but male Neanderthal and female Homo Sapien unions would not be traceable after that.
@@davidkeely43 almost. It’s true that Neanderthal yDNA is more similar to humans than it is to Denisovans, which the opposite is true for all other kinds of DNA tested, but it’s isn’t 100% identical. We can still test for Neanderthal yDNA, which is remarkably absent for all modern humans.
Just proves that men will screw anything that moves, and if it doesn't move they'll push it.
😂@@dccantbuild424
I still and always will love your channel so much. I hope you get 10 million subs and get to educate the entire world about history.
I love when a random history video that I find interesting pops up in my recommended
You no take my mammoth!
I take your mammoth!
Ok we go war!
Superb work! I'm always eager to watch your videos, but this time you've really outdone yourselves
“War is father of all, and king of all. He renders some gods, others men; he makes some slaves, others free.”
― Heraclitus, Fragments
"What is War?
Maybe you'll hurt me...
You hurt me ...
No more..."
Then the soldiers start wiggling their heads, following the melody of unknown lands, played with bizarre instruments, and sung by a bard with clothes that they have never ever seen before.
-Time Traveller Troll
I don't consider war a learned behaviour, as war is simply an escalated version of what is everywhere in nature: a fight for space and resources.
There is a lot of of documentation for resource conflict in the animal kingdom; from territorial disputes in meerkats, to a lion fighting for the 'ownership' of a pride, to organised group combat of chimpansees. When a group that you're not part of becomes a detriment to your survival, a fight happens. Most other species lack the conversational skills to launch an organised raid, but especially the 'Gombe chimpansee war' is an excellent case of just how close war is to nature.
War certainly developed alongside metallurgy ..the two intrinsically linked
Weapons and armour ...
It's a thing that developed over time and still is
@@oftin_wong war was war before metal even came into the picture.
War definitely impacted war because better metal->better tools->beter wargear, but war existed well before metalurgy did.
Clubs, obsidian tips, slings, bone weapons/armor, fabric armor, wooden shields, bamboo armor. War would be different without metalurgy, but metalurgy is in no way a prerequisite for war. So I would say that no, metalurgy isn't intrinsically linked to war.
@@Olav_Hansen I never said it didn't exist before metallurgy ...you've assumed I'm saying that
Ciao
@@oftin_wong the word intrinsic means they are NECESSARY for one another to exist.
So maybe you chose the wrong words, but saying that metallurgy is necessary for war implies they can't exist independently, which is what I don't agree with.
They're deeply intertwined, but not intrinsically connected.
@@Olav_Hansen whatever ...I didn't engage with you to somehow win a point ...
In addition intrinsic doesn't mean 'necessary'
Intrinsic : belonging naturally; essential
An absolutely incredible video! Well produced and well sourced, thank you.
War has always existed. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.
Hello, Reenactor and slinger here, would like to point out that with rocks hitting anything beyond 60-70 meters is quite impossible on a regular basis, maybe one or two out of 10 attempts would result in a hit, naturally the skill of the slinger comes into play, but once the stone is released from the sling, same forces act on the stone akin to that of a musket ball, and it will eventually start spinning off to a random side after 60ish meters. now should be said this is with natural rocks of roughly same size/weight and shape. Now if you use Lead shot or material of higher density, the shot will go much further as the density of the projectile kinda scales with the range you get. reason for this is that you can really only spin the sling so fast before releasing the projectile.
well hitting a formation of men is pretty different I imagine, hence why we used muskets for quite some time.
Hitting a single objective is indeed hard, but that doesn’t matter, in battle you don’t need to hit a specific objective, you just need to hit one of many objectives
@@lolasdm6959 naturaly hitting a formation is easier, tho if were talking formations ca 10 000 bc its more a scattering of up to a dozen or two men who covers each others flanks, musketry has been used in quite a few different formations. but even tho a musketball might fly as far as 200-300 meters+++ doesnt mean you will actually hit anywhere near the enemy formations, it might hit the dirt infront of the enemy line or wizz past over their heads.
@@Leo-ok3uj if you look up the baleric slingers mentioned here they were often employed by the romans as skirmishers, basicly to harass the approaching enemey formations, the roman medicus even had a sling shot extractor tong as a fairly standard part of their kit, akin to modern instruments used to pull out bullets. tho by this time i would recon lead shot would have been used not rocks, but if you do use lead you might double or triple your effective range up to maybe 150 meters compared to stone. this doesnt mean you cant get the projectile futher.
An acquaintance of me currently holds the world record in range shooting with a historical bow with 500andsomething absurd meters, but he says himself that he cant hit the broad side of a barn at that range.
@@trolletdraugheim7722 true
Although musketeers do skirmish at extreme range of 300m at times, usually just wounding the enemy at most.
17:43 The increased budget is apparent in these animations. Well done.
Great video for real though, love me some "pre-history."
The tribal “wars” of Papua New Guinea will give you clues about the first wars, especially from the 1950’s and before.
There never existed a "noble savage," that is one of the great falsehoods.
What happens to groups that refused to practice war? They get taken over by those that do.
@@anathardayaldar Exactly, the genes of such a people wouldn't be passed on and the culture would disappear.
I believe explorers were finding island tribes who were remarkably peaceful, so it was a feasible theory
Fantastic video as always. I find prehistory endlessly fascinating.
“War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.”
Judge Holden!
Humans have always fought wars. Scale and technology are the only things that change.
Wars might stop if we unite against an external species, but even then we could find another excuse to fight each other.
As long as we allow the few who want to own us and sell us the story that war is natural... the vast mass of idiot0s will be continuously used as cannon fodder for all sorts of ideals, patriotisms and other tribalist nonsense... you rarely find among the very intelligent or those who have come to power to want to take part in war on the front, but they always find reasons for others to do so for themselves and their interests.
Long story short, we must stop being sheep or we will continue to be used as such.
War was pretty rare in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. It really blew up in the Neolithic though. It’s not necessarily human nature, just something we do under the right conditions
@@cristi-RO-cristi yea, good luck with that
Fascinating topic. Excellent work, thank you.
Imagine being the first humanoid to have a spear thrown into you
Imagine being the first one sniped by an atlatl wielding spearman. A hand thrown spear, one can understand. An atlatl requires a sophisticated knowledge of physics, the farther the target is. Lots of trial and error, or a rare, innate talent.
It must have seemed supernatural to be hit by a spear assisted by an atlatl for the first to have encountered such users.
Fr id be cheesed
A lot of humans got thrown spears towards them. You just need to keep your eyes open to avoid them. I think most suprised were the Neaderthals about this, when homo sapiens arrived in their territory, because they couldnt throw spears and had never seen somebody else do it.
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
-Judge Holden from Blood Meridian
This is a really dumbass quote and I feel dumb for reading it.
Exceptionally well made video! I especially loved the drawings and quick flood of evidence pictures!
War is likely far far older than we give it credit for. If chimpanzee groups war with each other, our ancestors did, too.
but chimpanzees are incapable of war. ivilization is required for war and apes aint got it.
You two are great together. It's great to see you off cable news.
You should read about the Gombe chimp war where Jane Goodall (the anthropologist and primatologist) witnessed a war between chimp groups. The groups of chimps formed patrols and raiding parties and organized themselves for battle. Considering that even ants go to war, I would say that humanity and its earlier ancestors have always fought each other.
Will there be a second part? The Assyrian period is my favorite period of warfare!!!
Yes. First we will cover the Bronze Age. Then at some point the (Neo)Assyrian and Persian Empires.
Thank you for the video! It is nice to see a variation of subjects, and I hope you will be able to attract a larger audience!
"Before man was man, war waited for him."
Every organized species go to war, from wolves to ants, going through apes and whales. Only solitary animals "can't war".
Hey man, really well put together mini-doc. Good research, visuals, and stories. Keep going
I much prefer the definition of "political tool" for war, as it underlines the difference between animalistic raids and conscient use of organized violence
"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Blood Meridian
The production value for your videos only continue to improve! The extra effort and resources definitely paid off
This early period of human history is so interesting to think about.
SandRoman History: "What is war?"
"War is politics by other means." -- Carl von Clausewitz, Prussian General
Yeah sometimes it is
@@Saber23 It ALWAYS is.
@@sunnyjim1355 Politics is war by less violent means.
@@sunnyjim1355no not really. The Vikings had no political reasons for attacking. They were suffering from change in their homes climate. Not to say what they did was right but it wasn't for political reasons.
Brilliant presentation! Congratulations on all of your accomplishments!
If even Modern Man is savage in so many ways, what are the odds that prehistoric man was peaceful? Unfortunately, war (violence) is indeed the nature of mankind.
Violence is in all of nature
It is not a matter of odds. Civilization gave birth to war.
Walls surrounding cities back then also protected societies against predatory animals.
Keep it up SandRhoman! Always love your videos. They should pay you more for how well you educate all of us! Best wishes and woof!
You forgot to mention the followimg:
"War... war never changes"
No war changes, men must also change.
It is said war, war never changes. But men do through the roads they walk.
It's like this in normal life and history. We are better and more compassionate men then we were a hundred years ago. let alone 500.
There is a video from 1963 of west Papau tribal warfare. I think this is probably the most literal sense of what warfare at this time might has looked like. The video shows combat between two tribes that have only had recent contact with the western world.
before man was, war waited for him
Even ants have wars.
Its nature to go into war, when your ant nation is threathened by another ant nation, that wants to expand their decendants with their own ant queens.
@@jout738”muh queen!” what a bunch of micro ass simps
They are all female. Colony only produces males for breeding and those die right after mating.@@me_12-vw1vi
Those are by definition not wars. Journalists and rag writers often use words inaccurately and loosely.
Really good video! Little talked about topic with great graphics!!
You haven’t solved any philosophical dilemma, but these comments did prove that those who can’t comprehend warfare also can’t comprehend many other things.
😯
War is probably older then Human beings As our closest animal relatives seem to have instincts for incredibly limited organized combat between local communities. Chimpanzee communities will send raiding parties after each other until one forces the other from a region.
Beat me to it. A couple of years ago, I saw a great exhibition on the origins of war in the Natural History Museum in Halle an der Saale (Germany), which included films of chimpanzee warfare. It seems likely to me that there's an unbroken history of warfare going back (at least) to our common ancestors with chimps, up through modern human warfare. Unfortunately.
cheers from sunny Vienna, Scott
Thanks for the video & an interesting topic.
Learning about prehistoric mankind and his evolution really helps me put things in perspective on why some modern cultures evolved technologically and others didn't. Isolation vs contact. A hotbed of early technological advancement was found in the Mediterranean region- a major trade center for 3 continents.
This is why American Indigenous, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Pacific Islanders remained behind the times for so long- no contact with outside cultures for thousands of years and once there was, the interactions were negative. It's very sad that's the way it went down. It could easily have been the other way around had geography been different, but we're so egotistical our ancestors and some modern people never saw it that way.
Ethiopia, Mali, Great Zimbabwe, Aztecs. Incans enter the chat.
Big surprise, 60 dudes on some island didn't discover scientific method.
@@jasonhaven7170 I don't know anything about Zimbabwe or Mali, but Ethiopia and the Horn DID have contact with the Middle East, Rome, and Asia. They were not insular.
Now the Aztecs/Incas of Central/South America were completely insular. They did well for a self-contained group, but nowhere near the levels of the Eastern Hemisphere. If there were other civilizations on the Western Hemisphere that were developing for them to collaborate with and share ideas with, they would've been way more advanced. They were on their way, but that all stopped with Spaniard contact (disease, firearms, transportation)
@@lolasdm6959 😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣 absolutely true.
An amazing movie about the topic of "cavemen" (early humans) advancing through sharing with other groups is Quest For Fire. Of course it's a made up story, but it accurately guesses what sharing might have looked like and how one advancement leads to another.
Advancement happens within one single group, but the rate multiplies more quickly when there's various groups with their own achievements interacting and showing the others what they do.
Actually, the Incans had the best agricultural technology in the world at the time, and the Spanish Conquistadors said Tenochtitlan was only comparable to Constantinople. So they were both very advanced. @@sharonpopolow6874
War existed way before humans. Chimpanzee males patrol their territory's borders and engage in systematical ambushing and extermination of males in neighboring groups to take over their territory and females, sometimes they even confront each other in massive clashes that involve the whole group and they can throw projectiles at their foes, such as stones and logs. This is exactly the same type of behavior that we call war in humans, there is no reason to think that this was not present in the australopithecines and later in the first Homo species, 2.5 million years ago.
Yeah, I remember reading about the Gombe chimp wars and thinking that the only real difference between what they were doing and what humans do, is scale and technology. All the other elements are there, just more primitive.
Rousseau was an idiot.
Patently incorrect and wrong by universally accepted definition. War requires an organized state, cultivation of crops and permanent settlements of human beings. Chimpanzees biting and hitting each other is not war. You are confusing war with conflict.
This is really high quality content
How did you completely skip over the Great Pterodactyl-Velociraptor War?
5:29 Why can't/couldn't the Walls of Ancient Jericho, have serve(d) as *both* of those functions? In regards; to the argument of their intended purpose.
(or in other simpler words: also be dual-purposed?)
Personally To me, it makes sense: Make the walls high to prevent flooding and during war, use it as a fortification.
I wouldn't be surprised
If the ancient original inhabitants somehow managed/figured out how to make the walls resistant to the mountains flooding *while* using them as a great fortification. ((Either by sheer chance, or by experience of trial by failure and Out of external pressure))
A lot of people, usually (and sometimes almost gravely) mistake. how advanced many ancient societies really were in some aspects. ((be it, in regards still to this very day or in their own respective time period in said *X* era)).
Most digs with fortifications and/or inhabitable structures are found on higher grounds.
Purely from a practical perspective, this is something people have done for millennia. It gives you a good vantage point to control an area, and it's more defendable than flat terrain. You mention Jericho, I can offer Megiddo as another example.
It's only in the recent centuries that we have decided we can force nature to do our bidding and created entire cities on floodplains and high-risk areas.
Great work. There's also a lot of ethnographic evidence that can help us understand how prehistoric hunter-gatherers might have waged war or committed violence. I had not heard of that paper on patrilineal kin group competition in the neolithic, it's very cool!
Native Americans had organized mass warfare, use of strategy and they did have city-states and empire-states and kingdoms and they did have campaigns of conquest of other entities. The technology level of the Native American Mississippian Culture was late Neolithic to early Chalcolithic with the Aztec and Inca civilizations being clearly of Chalcolithic level. Moving into the Amazon there are more primitive peoples that were not even agricultural and subsisted purely on hunting and gathering despite immensely fertile soil and a long growing season - and even they had organized warfare as several of those primitive tribes were having a war when the Spanish encountered them. It's fair to say that war is certainly a development that was pre homosapiens.
Its odd that modern artists depict European hunter gatherers as unkept dirty and undecorated.
When every piece of ancient evidence of tools, art etc and all modern surviving native groups are the opposite.
The funny part is they get the one thing wrong that is actually "savage". Most tribal women do not cover their breasts and while they may have coverings in their groin area, it's more of a protection from getting scratched by a branch then to prevent their balls and vaj being visible. So the depiction should be reasonably clean, barely clothed, and hairy people. Instead we get smeared with feces and super thick clothing, because nudity is somehow wrong.
Yep. Jewellery, make up, tattoos, hair beads, fancy clothes...Our distant ancestors were all about the drip!
Amazing video! I'd love more videos about pre history and early history! Is a period of time that very few channels are interested in cover!
to suggest time before history was "peaceful" and city walls are build to stop "floodwater" is actually crazy.
You sure those are historians?
There's still zero evidence for organized warfare before agriculture though. We were less than four million for 300k years so we lived in relative abundance. We were also nomads to spreading over the land was how we resolved territorial disputes.
@@ziad_jkhan idk what you mean with "organised warfare". Obviously if you only have 15 people in your group "warfare" is gonna look different than when you have thousands of people..
@@JoeyP946 I meant mass graves with broken bones and perforated skulls
@@JoeyP946 Anyway, there's still zero evidence for organized warfare before agriculture though. We were less than four million for 300k years so we lived in relative abundance. We were also nomads to spreading over the land was how we resolved territorial disputes.
Btw, search for Bonobos as well to get a more complete picture. They never engage in lethal violence because they live in abundant environments.
@@ziad_jkhan "We were also nomads to spreading over the land was how we resolved territorial disputes."
idk where you got this from but that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all year.
Absolutely amazing video you guys don’t miss!
How would you determine if a group was organization? Quite possible they were long before these sources, isn‘t it?
That is always a possibility in history and archeology. The oldest proof of something happening is unlikely to be the earliest instance, but it's the only thing we can use to determine anything.
Big hat guy looks like leader, simple as that.
In general this is the big issue in this topic but also just in general when talking about pre-history. It is hard to infer social culture from material culture and two different people might interpret the same evidence in different ways. Sometimes it might be obvious that someone was a leader because they had way more material wealth but other times it isn't and that material wealth could be evidence of some burial offering.
When there is hierarchy, where more stronger or wealthier person exist above the other and could influenced them. How you determined that? Archeology.
"War... War never changes."
Öetzi's pose suggests he was caught during a wild rave, busting out sick dance moves.
6:05 wow, club guy suddenly switched sides and joined the spearman who tried to kill him in the previous pic. What a turncoat!
I like a true opportunist.
war is not just "human nature" but the live nature.
A part of the struggle for life.
Another excellent video. Thank you.
The origins of war can be traced back to prehistoric times, well before organized civilizations. From around 500,000 BC to 3,000 BC, early human groups engaged in conflict over basic survival needs, such as territory, food, and resources. Archaeological evidence of weaponry, defensive structures, and skeletal remains showing violent injuries suggest that warfare was already a part of early human society.
this is a good and interesting topic, i love your chanel
Imagine living in Europe in prehistoric times, when there were less than half a million Europeans.
Then you find a neighbouring tribe encroaching on your territory.
This continent ain't big enough for both of us
Look at North American tribes before contact, so many Battles and Tribes completely destroyed - Men slaves and Women to breed with and in large the Clan .
@@mrkus-nc7od So why mention North American tribes? To say, 'good thing we wiped them out?'
@@AudieHolland no ! How dit you get that ? Out of what I said ! We were talking about war fare and humans 🤔 how dit you get that Racist message from what I said -? Are you Native American? I go to there gas station and store almost daily .🤔 🤣
Tucamseh. ! The last warrior 🤔
Or, you find out there's another tribe. Do you hope that they won't attack you? Do you expose your position and risk your friends and family? Or do you launch an attack preemptively?
In the end, the idea that humans were "noble savages" with no ability to have tactics or warfare, is to say that humans before agriculture were less developed than chimpanzees which practice organized warfare today.
Fascinating as always!
Nice graphics @17:40
I laughed a little too hard, I think.
I find it hard to get behind men are either violent or peaceful by nature. I believe they were just like you and I and others today. They wanted to live and live well as they could, they were forged in a naturally violent environment as all life was and that serves as the foundation for their instincts. It’s not good vs bad but so much more nuanced.
@georgerivera278 as you wish. I think your proposed option B seems to be more in line with what I was referencing. Polygamy, Religion and the evolution of culture came around much more recently.
To elaborate on my comment, what I mean is when you watch predators and prey in their natural environments, you’ll observe extremely violent behavior and it isn’t usually personal, it’s just another day in the office. Include natural disasters, disease, changing environments and those cycles of violence have been constant for millions of years. We (like all living things) are the genetic results of all those experiences. The industrial era, technology and the new rules of conduct does not remove our adaptations or capacity for violence.
"They wanted to live and live well as they could, they were forged in a naturally violent environment as all life was and that serves as the foundation for their instincts. "
Your own quote? Words well expressed.
@@davidhowse884 thank you. As far as I know, those are my words.
I like it when you talk about origins of war evantually hit theme of philosophy, how even civilization and organization come into existence as organized war would never exist without those.
There may be even game theory reasons why war always existed as a peaceful people would be exterminated by warlike neighbors. This happened to Moriori, the peaceful polynesians inhabiting Chatham islands, who were in invaded by their warlike Māori cousins from New Zeeland who killed, ate, tortured, r*p*d and enslaved them in an almost complete genocide.
And then white NZ had to reparations. The insanity never ends.
What coincidence. I just finished reading Dawn of Empire by Sam Barone yesterday. Basically it's about how the first big village, Orak (later renamed to Akkad), built big walls for the first time in history to try to stop the invasion of the biggest barbarian horde of that time, the Alur Meriki. They're led by an ex-barbarian and the villagers have to build the wall and train enough archers in time before the Alur Meriki begins. It's in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. It's a really good read and I highly recommend it to all history nerds.
simply an incredible video! congrats! I didn't know much about prehistory but this video certainly does a good job in getting me interested more! it seems like war truly never changes...
It's a bit more subtle than "war is a part of human nature" in the sense that "the need to kill someone else and take their food when driven to desperation by hunger" can also be seen as part of human nature. A group of unlucky and (therefore) starving hunters will organize, attack and plunder the food of the successful farmer. Without the overwhelming motivation of starvation, there is no compelling desire to impose organized violence against others in general. Shared fear of an unfamiliar group that is a perceived danger to your own clan can also result in hostility and if the victims fight back rather than fleeing because of limited options, the hostility becomes organized violence. However, as war evolves from direct personal violence to more remote, indirect and anonymous actions at a distance (proximal or relational) against a dehumanized "other" group, then the motivations get much more complicated than starvation or threat or revenge.
Truth be told, im inclined to believe that first ''war'' happened because of recources and that can go back hundreds of thousands of years!
Imagine a scenario: Your tribe lost recources or have very limited recources to survive. At the same time you know that theres another tribe somewhere nearby who potentially have recources you need! You gather around, make a plan and then execute said plan by raiding the neighbouring tribe!
One could call it ''just a raid'' and not a war but, at the end of the day, it was planned and executed by a collective!
I also think that these wars would have been extremely brutal because if you leave survivors, it opens up the possibility of revenge in the future and realistically speaking, living in harsh conditions in prehistoric era, thats just 1 more problem in the future you do not want to deal with!