I completely disagree. It was social changes that caused the decline of the chivalric ethos and the fall of cavalry. The proof of this is Poland. The Polish hussars defeated Western armies in battles where the Swedes lost 10,000 men and the Lithuanians 100 men. This is the Battle of Kircholm. They similarly defeated the Austrian army in the Battle of Byczyna. Poland also used modern armies and trench warfare, as in the Battle of Chocim in 1620. It was social changes that caused changes in the way of fighting, not the way of fighting that caused social changes. The main reason for these changes in the West was the ruins of the Roman Empire, which were not present in the East. They used old roads and rebuilt the ruins of old cities. This supported urbanization. This is especially visible in the case of Italy, where by utilizing the ruins of Rome, these cities could be so powerful that with high population growth, they could create separate strong states. Poland, on the other hand, became oligarchized due to the annexation of Ukraine. An oligarchic class emerged, which based its power on the lands of Ukraine and Belarus and destroyed the relatively Western social network in the territories of Poland from the times of Casimir the Great. Polish society was destroyed by an oligarchy that built its power on the colonization of Ukraine. Therefore, pikes and muskets did not change the social structure in Poland; Polish knights could easily defeat modern Western armies. The conclusion is that social changes caused military changes, not the other way around.
I believe your statement misses the point that social and military changes are not independent variables . They work in tandem . If you change one variable the other variable change . The fact that you brought up Poland and it's social change can also be seen from the other lens. Truth is somewhere in the middle .
@@plendafuture7451 I think social changes are much more crucial. The truth is where it is. If the truth is in the middle, then all you need to do is come up with some absurdly stupid extreme theories, and the truth will end up where you want it to be. It's too simple.
1. Poland used cavalry way longer than western europe because of geography and it's large flat low populated lands. It was the most effective way of fighting in that region. Sweden for example which had traditionaly almost all infantry army did recruit some cavalry durning Northred Wars because of that. 2. Sure, the polish cavalry fade away mostly after PLC decline economicaly in 18 century which also correlates with social decline. 3. Poland did oligarchized not due to the annexation of Ukraine but because of Swedish Deluge which kills over 30% of the population, destroyed country economy and it's social power balance. Only then the richest magnates gain enormous influence over lesser nobels and they start to seriously abuse peasants. 4. Also the oligarchy took over after deluge in late 17 century so it passed almost 300 years since Casimir the Great and all of the nobel privileges which grant nobels their fundamental civil rights which established social network and power balance were given after Casimir the Great reign. 5. It's hard to say that Poland colonized Ukraine when most of that oligarchs which take over Poland were of Ruthenian and Lithuanian origins. One of them Wiśniowieccy even descent from Rurik dynasty and one of them later become the king of the Commonwealth. Also up to 1569 Poles weren't able to purchase any land in Ruthenian part of Lithuania (modern eastern Ukraine) and it was almost 200 years after Casimir the Greate reign. In Lithuania (modern Belarus) they haven't been able to purchase land even after that. So no, Poland did not build it's power on the colonization of the Ukraine which basicaly never happend. The only "colonization" that can be describe as such was with settling unhabited (mostly deserted because of Mongols conquest) borderlands regions between PLC, Muscovy and Crimea which lead to emergence of Cossacks.
Whatifalthist: I hate how schools condense the medieval period like it was not over 1000 years ago Also Whatifalthist: *Explaining Medieval history in one hour*
We’re going to end up making like half a dozen videos on the European Middle Ages besides this. The dark ages, the Vikings, Renaissance, Crusades, Hundred Years’ War etc…
@@WhatifAltHist sweet, when are we getting the Jewish civilization video, I can wait to hear a gentile explain Biblical history, The macabees, Early Roman Empire, the Muslim Golden Age, Maimonides, The inquisition, Spinoza, history in half a video. It’s kind of tricky because the Ashkenazi have more influence today but their history philosophy stems from the Sephardic golden age, whereas Sephardic were historically more influential. Obviously Ashkknazi history is easy to gloss over until the enlightenment. In addition to the aforementioned topics the other half of the video might also have to have to speak about Polish history, Napoleon and his influence on Jewish emancipation, migrations into America, the Holocaust, and the history of Israel all in one video. I find it hard to simplify considering how isolated and spit Judaism is, and the period of time. You have a knack for simplifying topics while coherently obtaining the relevancy. Can’t wait to see how it turns out.
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
Bro I could have listened to another 2 hours on the subject. Please do more videos like this, especially Hussite Wars or the Ottoman invasions. There are just so many subjects and stories to be heard.
@@bakters In this case, we're speaking specifically of England. Maybe 100 years war due to France becoming more of a nation state toward the end? Maybe the end of the Italian wars on the continent?
@@bakters I think the key factor in the turning between the Middle Ages and Early Modern period is the centralization of power in the hands of the King/State. And you see this happening all over Europe in the late 15th century.
You should do an episode on the protestant reformation, or the religious wars of that time. Would also love to see a 30 years war video or something like that because of how you mentioned it before. Love the content and im glad you brought back the intro 🙏🍻
I find it disturbing how one guy, who later recanted his own claim when people pointed out the obvious problems with his paper, has created the belief that people only worked 2 days per week.
Ryan Reeves defines serfdom as tenure (the restrictions on travel, marriage usually had no reason to be imposed). As I understand it, Constantine invented serfdom (& diocecan bishopry, which had been previously more like priests to the priests)
If I could live in this Era (assuming I know the language) I’d probably live in Venice. The commercial and manufacturing guilds were pretty strong. They had an interesting kind of proto-democracy going on. The city was wealthy, and the upper classes were committed to improving its power, reputation and civic identity by improving it. Education and learning were respected. Some merit-based upward mobility was possible. Trade goods from all the known world flowed across the city's docks. The citizens were more open-minded than most, due to their contacts with other cultures. Territorial ambitions were minor and the city was easily defended from others. War was rarely as profitable as trade, so it was generally a last resort when provoked. Second, would be the Islamic Caliphates. I want to be apart of the Golden Age.
@@baktersanother proto democracy in Greece. Democracy in practice had never happened by the time of Venice and possibly still hasn't dependent on the scope of power for democratic control you're requiring. Just because the concept comes from Greece, does not mean that either there were democracies in Greece, or that Venice couldn't be a proto-democracy, even if a true democracy hadn't existed. This is completely unfounded outrage. Greece is a rouge province of Turkey (so you have something to be angry about).
Hey guys, love the show. Though I think that to get your views up, considering upgrading cameras/implementing a green screen in some capacity would help. Sad to see this good of a series only get seen a couple thousand times
Always appreciate this. I deff don't always agree with your views, but I'm always watching every new video. Here is to agreeing to disagree, something unheard of recently. Keep up the great work
I play this with an underlay of another channel broadcasting shortwave code. It's like the guy on the left is reading the code. And I pretend every time the guy on the right looks behind him its because he is annoyed at the static.
0:07 While plans for the Cologne Cathedral started in the 13th century, they didn't get very far. It was mostly build during the 1840s to 1870s, using modern steel beam construction with a sandstone facade. It's not medieval.
There is a book, it's fiction, but goes into detail about the building of cathedrals. It's the story of a mason and it's called Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett. There was a lot of tech back then in the 1100s
Why is it whenever Rudyard picks up a sword to show, he awkwardly pushes the hilt back and forth like he’s balancing an upside-down broom on the palm of his hand ??
For me, the Middle Ages occurred from 476 to 1453, from the “fall” of the West to the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks on May 29th of the latter year. In this way, except for the interregnum (1204-61), the Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines even called themselves Romans, and in the Qur’an, Surah Ar-Rum (#33, “The Romans”) exclusively refers to the Eastern Roman Empire that remained. Of course “mediaeval” is a construct, and this is my way of focus more attention on the Byzantine Empire, which I hope is the subject of a future “deeper dive.” About that nomenclature, as Professor Lynch pointed out in another video, at roughly an hour per topic, this cannot be particularly deep. I would say this is more of an “introduction” to each historical period, but I guess the name has stuck.
I love these, but i have to follow with a little constructive criticism, Rudyard. Since this is such a massive amount of history covering many countries it comes off a little incoherent because you're trying to explain so much in such short amount of time that it makes it difficult to follow. I would suggest you break this down and go through the history of each area of Europe over the middle ages. Just a suggestion but either way i will be here rooting you on, brother!
I would argue the medieval period was the foundation of feudalism with the Carolingian empire (~800Ad) to the peace of Westphalia (1648). I would argue the period from the Christianisation of Rome to the start of proper feudalism is a separate proto-medieval period.
To be fair in Eastern Europe it took the rise of Prussia and Sweden messing with things for Russia to win, since their pretty much why Russia had enough influence in Poland-Lithuania to stop the reforms from happening in Poland.
There's been a lot of horrible events in and for history. Collapses of the Bronze age, destruction of the American indigenous cultures. But the Mongol destruction of the Islamic Golden Age is among the worst.
I was with you, until you stated that Eastern Europe "had a chance, but because the nobility won, they installed serfdom, got poor and lost" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously). So, first of all the aggressive serfdom was not in places where the nobility won, but in Moscow, later Russia. That's where it resembled slavery the most. Then, you say that the serfs "had little choice". That's just not true, because they could always run away. That was *very common* . And they didn't run away far at all. Usually to the neighbor of the guy who mistreated them. That's why later they made the laws, which allowed people for recovering "their" serfs from the neighboring village. Finally, even later when Poland was partitioned, the serfs never ran away to the West or the South partitions, where they'd be "free". As it happened, there was a mass migration *the other way around* . And the serfs never rebelled, while there was a huge and nasty peasant uprising in the Austrian partition. Peasant uprisings were very common in the West too, while in the Russian controlled part of Poland only the nobles rebelled constantly. They were *not* supported by the peasants. Anyway, the main reason why Eastern Europe was poor was low population. Nothing else is required to explain it. Low population was caused by wars and pretty much constant Tatar raids. You look at this huge area on the map and assume that lots of people lived there. Not so. One of the reasons why peasants were not mistreated. There was always enough land, not enough hands to work it. However, it wasn't a poor as it may seem. At the time of partitions, one single region of Poland (Wielkopolska) was richer than the whole of Prussia (who also had low population).
Thoughts on how the Alans and Scythian tribes pushed into Europe by the huns (at the same time as German Migrantions and romes collapse) influenced later culture (including or excluding Hungary)? Concepts like mounted warriors, armour, chivalry (not a concept of the German or Roman populations)? Thoughts on the book from Scythia to Camelot?
North Europeans are mainly descended from steppe people (yamnaya), so it seems unlikely to me that this is a completely new infusion, rather a reawakening of something already present.
@@skeletalforce9673 yes, but Celts, Romans, Greeks, ect all practiced chariot warfare, as the Yamnaya likely did, rather than mounted warfare. Even in the late roman period we see dragoons using horses for transportation, but still fighting on foot. Calvary and mounted warfare so strongly associated with knights in the middle ages is a much more recent phenomenon to Europe. But, Scythian tribes of course famously fought on horse back, and much like the German tribes were pushed into the Western Roman Empire by the Huns. Scythians and the people of the Eurasian plains were of course also descended from the Yamnaya, and the region was only Turkified after the Huns. Additionally, concepts like Chivalry are really quite foreign to the tribal politics of the Germanic tribes or the Roman culture. The same is true of metal plate armour. But both are very similar to earlier Scythian records. It seems probable to me that these people, or a refugee subset, with their more advanced marital abilities, but much smaller nomadic population, incorporated into Germanic societies, initially as hired warriors, but eventually intermixing more completely. Records in the "dark ages" are notoriously poor, but the culture of the middle ages are drastically changed. The Hungarians of course are a very clear example of these people pushed west by the Huns, being a more recent (although of course intermixed) population migration to Europe. And the comment about King Arthur is a more direct reference to Scythians we know to have been taken by Rome as tribute after losing a war in Hungary and brought to act as Roman soldiers in northern Britain. I of course am not so clever as to have thought of all this. I suggest looking for John Colarusso, he's well regarded in the field.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 That's an interesting proposition, I always heard it was inspired by Iranian armored cavalry. It makes sense that Scythians could have migrated to Europe and left an influence, also the distinction between Goths and Scythians isn't always clear in ancient sources.
@@skeletalforce9673 the blurred distinction is even worsened by the Slavs being between the two and completely unmentioned lol. My understanding is the last name Alan is actually routed in the Alan tribe migrating west. The Iranian Calvary itself is based on steepe nomads, the term Iran of course coming from Aryan. I'm not saying it's impossible that Indo-European people who conquered Iran didn't inspire European knights, but by the end of the dark ages and the time of the Crusades European military technology is generally more advanced than the region, and I'm not aware of records of Rome transfering the technology from east to west. So I don't know I see a plausible path for Byzantines to have spread the Iranic culture and tech to Westen Europe, and the western Europeans to quickly master and surpass. Whereas indo-iranic refugees flowing wests, as they certainly did, seems like a much more likely vector. Particularly when you look at the cultural changes that accompany the change from tribal goths to the middle age principalities.
ChatGPT Angkor Wat and Lincoln Cathedral are both impressive structures, but they differ significantly in height. **Angkor Wat:** - The central tower of Angkor Wat is approximately 65 meters (213 feet) tall. **Lincoln Cathedral:** - At its highest, Lincoln Cathedral's central spire reached around 160 meters (525 feet) during the medieval period. However, the spire collapsed in the 16th century and was never rebuilt. Today, the tallest part of the cathedral is the central tower, which stands at about 83 meters (272 feet). In summary, Lincoln Cathedral was historically taller than Angkor Wat, and even today, the remaining structure is still taller.
Naw, that sword is a weapon in California. Source: Cops telling me I couldn't keep mine in my car. They decided not to prosecute what they said would be a felony. As I was clearly harmless and clueless.
Guild Economy is much more comparable to Corporatism/National Socialism not Capitalism. Capitalism is when the banking system in Italy disempowered the Guilds
Not exactly a professional monologue here. Gross generalizations, personal opinions and glancing over important topics; providing only one viewpoint on any given subject. What exactly is the point of the guy on the left? He obviously isn't into the subject matter, doesn't have any questions or alternate opinions that could cause a discussion. The result is a video that is not much better than an elementary school textbook.
Like anybody else at the time. Then when the West surpassed the others, they by their own standards treated women better. Equality and egalitarianism is strictly Western. In our Western-dominated world, this is why other civilizations like in Arabia, South India, and China, are introducing equality laws for their women.
@@ethank.3201I think saying equality and egalitarianism is strictly western is way too far other societies had equality in the Muslim world for example it didn’t matter what race you were as long as you were Muslims it’s just the west has given their women more rights than anyone else
The medieval era should be ashamed when compared to what the Greeks and Roman were able to accomplish they do pale in comparison not to mention that they were at hundreds of years in the future
That's not true. Cathedrals built in the medieval era are architecturally superior to Greek and even roman structures. Metallurgy advanced more rapidly. The plow example given is an example of that, so are cannons and guns. Slavery was greatly reduced.
Crazy how I can learn more history in an hour than my entire high school experience.
So real
All by (Dewey's) design.
Aww... thanks so much. you made my day
@@History102-qg5ojNo prob. We all need to uplift one another in the search for truth. 👍
Public schools are prisons
My ansestors fought in the largest medieval battle, the battle of Grunwald, against tutonic order and got a castle in return 🇵🇱⚔️🤺
Very based
🇮🇩 🇮🇩 🇮🇩
My ancestor married cannibal indian girls in a jungle of red trees 🗿🗿🗿🗿
Bad ass
😂😆
44:36 "People would go to bed, then wake up dead"
Afterwards, they would have breakfast and read their name in the newspaper obituary.
How the hell do you wake up dead?😆
@@heroes8689it’s called depression
The medieval period is so fascinating that most people overlook or hate on. Thank you guys for sharing this brilliant discussion.
I completely disagree. It was social changes that caused the decline of the chivalric ethos and the fall of cavalry. The proof of this is Poland. The Polish hussars defeated Western armies in battles where the Swedes lost 10,000 men and the Lithuanians 100 men. This is the Battle of Kircholm. They similarly defeated the Austrian army in the Battle of Byczyna. Poland also used modern armies and trench warfare, as in the Battle of Chocim in 1620.
It was social changes that caused changes in the way of fighting, not the way of fighting that caused social changes. The main reason for these changes in the West was the ruins of the Roman Empire, which were not present in the East. They used old roads and rebuilt the ruins of old cities. This supported urbanization. This is especially visible in the case of Italy, where by utilizing the ruins of Rome, these cities could be so powerful that with high population growth, they could create separate strong states.
Poland, on the other hand, became oligarchized due to the annexation of Ukraine. An oligarchic class emerged, which based its power on the lands of Ukraine and Belarus and destroyed the relatively Western social network in the territories of Poland from the times of Casimir the Great. Polish society was destroyed by an oligarchy that built its power on the colonization of Ukraine. Therefore, pikes and muskets did not change the social structure in Poland; Polish knights could easily defeat modern Western armies. The conclusion is that social changes caused military changes, not the other way around.
Fascinating insight, thank you. You've inspired me to look into this theory more.
Ukraine seems to permanently be up for grabs
I believe your statement misses the point that social and military changes are not independent variables . They work in tandem .
If you change one variable the other variable change . The fact that you brought up Poland and it's social change can also be seen from the other lens.
Truth is somewhere in the middle .
@@plendafuture7451 I think social changes are much more crucial. The truth is where it is. If the truth is in the middle, then all you need to do is come up with some absurdly stupid extreme theories, and the truth will end up where you want it to be. It's too simple.
1. Poland used cavalry way longer than western europe because of geography and it's large flat low populated lands. It was the most effective way of fighting in that region. Sweden for example which had traditionaly almost all infantry army did recruit some cavalry durning Northred Wars because of that.
2. Sure, the polish cavalry fade away mostly after PLC decline economicaly in 18 century which also correlates with social decline.
3. Poland did oligarchized not due to the annexation of Ukraine but because of Swedish Deluge which kills over 30% of the population, destroyed country economy and it's social power balance. Only then the richest magnates gain enormous influence over lesser nobels and they start to seriously abuse peasants.
4. Also the oligarchy took over after deluge in late 17 century so it passed almost 300 years since Casimir the Great and all of the nobel privileges which grant nobels their fundamental civil rights which established social network and power balance were given after Casimir the Great reign.
5. It's hard to say that Poland colonized Ukraine when most of that oligarchs which take over Poland were of Ruthenian and Lithuanian origins. One of them Wiśniowieccy even descent from Rurik dynasty and one of them later become the king of the Commonwealth. Also up to 1569 Poles weren't able to purchase any land in Ruthenian part of Lithuania (modern eastern Ukraine) and it was almost 200 years after Casimir the Greate reign. In Lithuania (modern Belarus) they haven't been able to purchase land even after that. So no, Poland did not build it's power on the colonization of the Ukraine which basicaly never happend. The only "colonization" that can be describe as such was with settling unhabited (mostly deserted because of Mongols conquest) borderlands regions between PLC, Muscovy and Crimea which lead to emergence of Cossacks.
Whatifalthist: I hate how schools condense the medieval period like it was not over 1000 years ago
Also Whatifalthist: *Explaining Medieval history in one hour*
Just means he needs to do part 2,3,4,5+ of the Medieval Europe.
We’re going to end up making like half a dozen videos on the European Middle Ages besides this. The dark ages, the Vikings, Renaissance, Crusades, Hundred Years’ War etc…
@WhatifAltHist Erm what the sigma?
@@WhatifAltHist sweet, when are we getting the Jewish civilization video, I can wait to hear a gentile explain Biblical history, The macabees, Early Roman Empire, the Muslim Golden Age, Maimonides, The inquisition, Spinoza, history in half a video. It’s kind of tricky because the Ashkenazi have more influence today but their history philosophy stems from the Sephardic golden age, whereas Sephardic were historically more influential. Obviously Ashkknazi history is easy to gloss over until the enlightenment. In addition to the aforementioned topics the other half of the video might also have to have to speak about Polish history, Napoleon and his influence on Jewish emancipation, migrations into America, the Holocaust, and the history of Israel all in one video. I find it hard to simplify considering how isolated and spit Judaism is, and the period of time. You have a knack for simplifying topics while coherently obtaining the relevancy. Can’t wait to see how it turns out.
He got Eastern Europe definitely wrong, and most likely Islamic Golden Age too. But he's good overall.
Rudyard is really selling the Medieval age to me
As long as you make it past 15
"What I remember about the rise of the Empire is... is how quiet it was. During the waning hours of the Clone Wars, the 501st Legion was discreetly transferred back to Coruscant. It was a silent trip. We all knew what was about to happen, what we were about to do. Did we have any doubts? Any private, traitorous thoughts? Perhaps, but no one said a word. Not on the flight to Coruscant, not when Order 66 came down, and not when we marched into the Jedi Temple. Not a word." - Operation: Knightfall "Knightfall" - Star Wars Battlefront II (2005)
How many times can you comment this, dude?
outSTANDing. I shit you not, I was just thinking at work " were about due a whatifalthist video..." and then I come home to see this!! Almost as good!
he still needs to post on his main channel though
GREAT episode you two, Im almost more excited for these than your Whatifalthist videos!
I mark down the end of the middle ages once coffee gained popularity in Europe. It got people out of the watery beer era and into more productivity.
This is moronic theory that has never been proven.. dramatic changes infact had taken place way before tea or coffee.
Bro I could have listened to another 2 hours on the subject. Please do more videos like this, especially Hussite Wars or the Ottoman invasions. There are just so many subjects and stories to be heard.
I was bored out of my fucking mind a few minutes ago so this is a pleasant surprise
I'd argue the high middle ages starts slightly before the crusades right after the battle of hastings at the close of the great viking raids
And ends at Bosworth.
@@careyfreeman5056 Could you guys be any more anglocentric? ;-)
@@bakters In this case, we're speaking specifically of England. Maybe 100 years war due to France becoming more of a nation state toward the end? Maybe the end of the Italian wars on the continent?
@@careyfreeman5056 Oh, then it makes sense.
@@bakters I think the key factor in the turning between the Middle Ages and Early Modern period is the centralization of power in the hands of the King/State. And you see this happening all over Europe in the late 15th century.
You should do an episode on the protestant reformation, or the religious wars of that time. Would also love to see a 30 years war video or something like that because of how you mentioned it before. Love the content and im glad you brought back the intro 🙏🍻
30 years war is more important to world history then people think because that's basically where the rule of law based order began.
Been really enjoying this series. Can't wait for the 30 years war and the 100 years war.
Did you know, that Charles IV: king of Bohemia and holy Roman emperor had a long and successful reign?
If you know, you know.
Iam Spanish born in Valencia a very very proud of Christian King conqueror in 1.238 James l of Aragon Crown the founder of tha actual region
Visca Valencia, Visca Jaume el Conqueridor
I find it disturbing how one guy, who later recanted his own claim when people pointed out the obvious problems with his paper, has created the belief that people only worked 2 days per week.
It's a very easy thing to want to believe
Your ability to recite knowledge in a simple yet interesting way is very rare. Thank you
Love watching this podcast with the chill Sheldon Cooper
How did I not find this channel earlier? 😮❤
Rudy's videos are one of the most interesting I've seen in a long time, when it comes to sociohistorical topics!
Ryan Reeves defines serfdom as tenure (the restrictions on travel, marriage usually had no reason to be imposed).
As I understand it, Constantine invented serfdom (& diocecan bishopry, which had been previously more like priests to the priests)
4:05 ok who else checked their phones...
Ive been anticipating this. A good way to start the day
If I could live in this Era (assuming I know the language) I’d probably live in Venice. The commercial and manufacturing guilds were pretty strong. They had an interesting kind of proto-democracy going on. The city was wealthy, and the upper classes were committed to improving its power, reputation and civic identity by improving it. Education and learning were respected. Some merit-based upward mobility was possible. Trade goods from all the known world flowed across the city's docks. The citizens were more open-minded than most, due to their contacts with other cultures. Territorial ambitions were minor and the city was easily defended from others. War was rarely as profitable as trade, so it was generally a last resort when provoked.
Second, would be the Islamic Caliphates. I want to be apart of the Golden Age.
"Proto-democracy" in Venice? Could you remind me from which language democracy comes?
@@baktersanother proto democracy in Greece. Democracy in practice had never happened by the time of Venice and possibly still hasn't dependent on the scope of power for democratic control you're requiring. Just because the concept comes from Greece, does not mean that either there were democracies in Greece, or that Venice couldn't be a proto-democracy, even if a true democracy hadn't existed.
This is completely unfounded outrage. Greece is a rouge province of Turkey (so you have something to be angry about).
@9:42 "Medieval senses of manners were insane!"
Then he goes on to describe a bunch of stuff that people still do....
Lmao
Hey guys, love the show. Though I think that to get your views up, considering upgrading cameras/implementing a green screen in some capacity would help. Sad to see this good of a series only get seen a couple thousand times
This was quite educational as someone who knew a lot of this it was still so refreshing to go over this again
Always appreciate this. I deff don't always agree with your views, but I'm always watching every new video. Here is to agreeing to disagree, something unheard of recently. Keep up the great work
For those interested in medievalist anarco-capitalism check out the works of Hans Herman Hoppe
Agreed, super interesting
I play this with an underlay of another channel broadcasting shortwave code. It's like the guy on the left is reading the code. And I pretend every time the guy on the right looks behind him its because he is annoyed at the static.
0:07 While plans for the Cologne Cathedral started in the 13th century, they didn't get very far. It was mostly build during the 1840s to 1870s, using modern steel beam construction with a sandstone facade. It's not medieval.
Cathedrals take generations to build. There are so many of them.
Can we get a video on the Reformation and the subsequent wars?
There is a book, it's fiction, but goes into detail about the building of cathedrals. It's the story of a mason and it's called Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follett. There was a lot of tech back then in the 1100s
This is great stuff! Keep it up!
Why is it whenever Rudyard picks up a sword to show, he awkwardly pushes the hilt back and forth like he’s balancing an upside-down broom on the palm of his hand ??
For me, the Middle Ages occurred from 476 to 1453, from the “fall” of the West to the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks on May 29th of the latter year. In this way, except for the interregnum (1204-61), the Roman Empire is the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantines even called themselves Romans, and in the Qur’an, Surah Ar-Rum (#33, “The Romans”) exclusively refers to the Eastern Roman Empire that remained. Of course “mediaeval” is a construct, and this is my way of focus more attention on the Byzantine Empire, which I hope is the subject of a future “deeper dive.”
About that nomenclature, as Professor Lynch pointed out in another video, at roughly an hour per topic, this cannot be particularly deep. I would say this is more of an “introduction” to each historical period, but I guess the name has stuck.
I love these, but i have to follow with a little constructive criticism, Rudyard. Since this is such a massive amount of history covering many countries it comes off a little incoherent because you're trying to explain so much in such short amount of time that it makes it difficult to follow. I would suggest you break this down and go through the history of each area of Europe over the middle ages. Just a suggestion but either way i will be here rooting you on, brother!
Excellent as always Rudyard.
I would argue the medieval period was the foundation of feudalism with the Carolingian empire (~800Ad) to the peace of Westphalia (1648). I would argue the period from the Christianisation of Rome to the start of proper feudalism is a separate proto-medieval period.
So stoked!!! And it debuted on Orthodox Ascension Day too!!
Great video! I’d love to see a video about the Spanish Reconquista
To be fair in Eastern Europe it took the rise of Prussia and Sweden messing with things for Russia to win, since their pretty much why Russia had enough influence in Poland-Lithuania to stop the reforms from happening in Poland.
I want the music at the beginning now.
Could you make a video about 19th century colonialism, maybe even dispelling some of the misconceptions/myths along the way ?
Great episode. Im exited for the rise of Islam and the Islamic Golden Age....
There's been a lot of horrible events in and for history. Collapses of the Bronze age, destruction of the American indigenous cultures. But the Mongol destruction of the Islamic Golden Age is among the worst.
Love this series!
Omg finally someone who correctly pronounces etcetera
This guy is the best teacher
Subbed !
44:40 - "People would wake up dead..."
Nothing sucks more then waking up dead. 💀
Very, very good analysis.
I was with you, until you stated that Eastern Europe "had a chance, but because the nobility won, they installed serfdom, got poor and lost" (I'm paraphrasing, obviously).
So, first of all the aggressive serfdom was not in places where the nobility won, but in Moscow, later Russia. That's where it resembled slavery the most.
Then, you say that the serfs "had little choice". That's just not true, because they could always run away. That was *very common* . And they didn't run away far at all. Usually to the neighbor of the guy who mistreated them. That's why later they made the laws, which allowed people for recovering "their" serfs from the neighboring village.
Finally, even later when Poland was partitioned, the serfs never ran away to the West or the South partitions, where they'd be "free". As it happened, there was a mass migration *the other way around* . And the serfs never rebelled, while there was a huge and nasty peasant uprising in the Austrian partition. Peasant uprisings were very common in the West too, while in the Russian controlled part of Poland only the nobles rebelled constantly. They were *not* supported by the peasants.
Anyway, the main reason why Eastern Europe was poor was low population. Nothing else is required to explain it. Low population was caused by wars and pretty much constant Tatar raids. You look at this huge area on the map and assume that lots of people lived there. Not so. One of the reasons why peasants were not mistreated. There was always enough land, not enough hands to work it.
However, it wasn't a poor as it may seem. At the time of partitions, one single region of Poland (Wielkopolska) was richer than the whole of Prussia (who also had low population).
What country has the biggest appetite?
Hungary
Disgust Sensitivity has evolved today to Discuss Sensitivity.
The phone charging sound is a major distraction.
Le Grand Schisme 1378. Le pape d'Avignon et le pape de Rome . Brings a new perspective to what I believed.
Every young person should learn about this.
Hey, that’s me at 19:45, I feel so well represented
Hello there, *Rudiardicus*
Hahaha! That's a good one!
Thoughts on how the Alans and Scythian tribes pushed into Europe by the huns (at the same time as German Migrantions and romes collapse) influenced later culture (including or excluding Hungary)? Concepts like mounted warriors, armour, chivalry (not a concept of the German or Roman populations)? Thoughts on the book from Scythia to Camelot?
North Europeans are mainly descended from steppe people (yamnaya), so it seems unlikely to me that this is a completely new infusion, rather a reawakening of something already present.
@@skeletalforce9673 yes, but Celts, Romans, Greeks, ect all practiced chariot warfare, as the Yamnaya likely did, rather than mounted warfare. Even in the late roman period we see dragoons using horses for transportation, but still fighting on foot. Calvary and mounted warfare so strongly associated with knights in the middle ages is a much more recent phenomenon to Europe.
But, Scythian tribes of course famously fought on horse back, and much like the German tribes were pushed into the Western Roman Empire by the Huns. Scythians and the people of the Eurasian plains were of course also descended from the Yamnaya, and the region was only Turkified after the Huns.
Additionally, concepts like Chivalry are really quite foreign to the tribal politics of the Germanic tribes or the Roman culture. The same is true of metal plate armour. But both are very similar to earlier Scythian records.
It seems probable to me that these people, or a refugee subset, with their more advanced marital abilities, but much smaller nomadic population, incorporated into Germanic societies, initially as hired warriors, but eventually intermixing more completely. Records in the "dark ages" are notoriously poor, but the culture of the middle ages are drastically changed.
The Hungarians of course are a very clear example of these people pushed west by the Huns, being a more recent (although of course intermixed) population migration to Europe. And the comment about King Arthur is a more direct reference to Scythians we know to have been taken by Rome as tribute after losing a war in Hungary and brought to act as Roman soldiers in northern Britain.
I of course am not so clever as to have thought of all this. I suggest looking for John Colarusso, he's well regarded in the field.
@@neolithictransitrevolution427 That's an interesting proposition, I always heard it was inspired by Iranian armored cavalry. It makes sense that Scythians could have migrated to Europe and left an influence, also the distinction between Goths and Scythians isn't always clear in ancient sources.
@@skeletalforce9673 the blurred distinction is even worsened by the Slavs being between the two and completely unmentioned lol.
My understanding is the last name Alan is actually routed in the Alan tribe migrating west.
The Iranian Calvary itself is based on steepe nomads, the term Iran of course coming from Aryan. I'm not saying it's impossible that Indo-European people who conquered Iran didn't inspire European knights, but by the end of the dark ages and the time of the Crusades European military technology is generally more advanced than the region, and I'm not aware of records of Rome transfering the technology from east to west. So I don't know I see a plausible path for Byzantines to have spread the Iranic culture and tech to Westen Europe, and the western Europeans to quickly master and surpass. Whereas indo-iranic refugees flowing wests, as they certainly did, seems like a much more likely vector. Particularly when you look at the cultural changes that accompany the change from tribal goths to the middle age principalities.
I think it's reasonable to compare eastern serfs to colonial and post revolution American slavery, but certainly not Antebellum era chattle slavery.
Was Lincoln Cathedral really taller than Angkor Wat?
ChatGPT
Angkor Wat and Lincoln Cathedral are both impressive structures, but they differ significantly in height.
**Angkor Wat:**
- The central tower of Angkor Wat is approximately 65 meters (213 feet) tall.
**Lincoln Cathedral:**
- At its highest, Lincoln Cathedral's central spire reached around 160 meters (525 feet) during the medieval period. However, the spire collapsed in the 16th century and was never rebuilt. Today, the tallest part of the cathedral is the central tower, which stands at about 83 meters (272 feet).
In summary, Lincoln Cathedral was historically taller than Angkor Wat, and even today, the remaining structure is still taller.
Dude fix the phone charger sound lmao it’s in a lot of episodes
Tyranny is only possible once the Kings centralised power and built a Bureaucracy to exert rule.
When did that happen?
RUDYARD POST ON YOUR MAIN CHANNEL MORE !!!
No, this is peak content
Rudy explain history the way I explain conspiracy theories. One sentence is completed for every three started.
Calling the Reconquista colonialism is crazy haha
21:00 Sounds a lot like pro-soccer athletes training kids from the age of 6 until their adult years.
0:47 Bronze? Thought they used steel.
“Broad sword”
I miss the local universe perspective
VIDEO ON WEIMAR GERMANY
It was pikemen that started turning the tides against the nobility, not guns 😅
35:26 What if Germany………..?
Naw, that sword is a weapon in California. Source: Cops telling me I couldn't keep mine in my car.
They decided not to prosecute what they said would be a felony. As I was clearly harmless and clueless.
It’s Sutton Rudyard
15:53 only ⅔?
Sounds nice...
And both Protestants and the Catholics ignored the entire Byzantine history.
Not all of it
Medieval people: My source is I made it the fuck up.
🤡
Guild Economy is much more comparable to Corporatism/National Socialism not Capitalism. Capitalism is when the banking system in Italy disempowered the Guilds
Nice!
YESSSS FINALLY
About western Europe he is correct, but when he talks about anything east from germany then he makes a lot of mistakes.
The cohost being such a Yes Man is detrimental to the show
Someone fix his mac charger
‼️‼️‼️ WHAT THE HELL 🤬🤬🤬 YOU CAN’T JUST APPOINT A FRENCH POPE 🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷 ✝️✝️✝️ 🗣️🗣️🗣️
cope and seethe med 🇺🇲🇫🇷🤜🇮🇹
For now 59:02
LOL at Prussia in 1150 map
"russians" in the middle ages lol😄
I am 40 minutes in and the guy on the left has said almost nothing.
You prefer food and electricity over religion and community? Why am I so surprised? Too bad time travel isn’t possible for people like me…
Can we get Islam next?
Rudiger claims to have cured his PTSD, yet he's dependent on kava kava, or kratom, or some shit.
Medieval Europe is the high point in human ethics and values.
Cringe and delusion
@@bcb5696your describing the modern age
@@epiccrusadr8583 you’re* ignorant of history
44:42 wake up dead? rotfl...
Not exactly a professional monologue here. Gross generalizations, personal opinions and glancing over important topics; providing only one viewpoint on any given subject. What exactly is the point of the guy on the left? He obviously isn't into the subject matter, doesn't have any questions or alternate opinions that could cause a discussion. The result is a video that is not much better than an elementary school textbook.
women, however, were property.
And that should have never changed.
Like anybody else at the time. Then when the West surpassed the others, they by their own standards treated women better. Equality and egalitarianism is strictly Western. In our Western-dominated world, this is why other civilizations like in Arabia, South India, and China, are introducing equality laws for their women.
@@ethank.3201I think saying equality and egalitarianism is strictly western is way too far other societies had equality in the Muslim world for example it didn’t matter what race you were as long as you were Muslims it’s just the west has given their women more rights than anyone else
They weren’t. Women weren’t the property of men anywhere in Christendom. The church gave them special legal rights
@@perniciousseizurehellio3438 So you’re equal as long as you’re Muslim got it 👍
The medieval era should be ashamed when compared to what the Greeks and Roman were able to accomplish they do pale in comparison not to mention that they were at hundreds of years in the future
That's not true. Cathedrals built in the medieval era are architecturally superior to Greek and even roman structures. Metallurgy advanced more rapidly. The plow example given is an example of that, so are cannons and guns. Slavery was greatly reduced.