Man, never stop doing this. I love it. The byzantine theme system, Justinian II and feud system videos are so good. To compliment, the blaming of the jews was a tendency that lingered for some time, especially where the catolicism was "stronger". Portugal, in the begning of the XVIth century, got hit by famine, two diseases strikes and some natural destruction (strong storms). Common people blamed it on the jews, but the crown tried to protect them, passing a law about conversion to christianity, which would result on the phenomenon called in portuguese "novos cristãos" (new christians), who were convert jews that adopted three's related surnames, like Oliveira and such. I think it would be interesting if you talked about the normans through Europe, like Normandy, Italy and all that. I think Lars Brownworth has a podcast about the subject (that has already ended), but it would still be very interesting seeing your take on it. You have an extensive collection of videos. Maybe you did it, but I don't know.
Thanks, I am glad that you enjoy my videos. I am planning to get into the persecution of the Jews this week in my Crusades videos. I was unaware of that particular incident from Portugal, but I will look into that and use it as a later example of European anti-Semitism. Good stuff. I have a video on the Vikings which covers the activities of the Normans in France and Italy and also (briefly) covers the activities of the Varangians in Russia and Byzantium. My take on those subjects was probably a lot more limited that the podcast that you're referencing, however.
Thersites the Historian I do not know any books in english about antisemitism in Portugal, but I can help someway: the portuguese kings of that time were Manuel and John III (or Dom Manuel and Dom John III. I think "Dom" is like "Lord"). John III insisted on getting a Inquisition in Portugal in the style of the Spanish one (the lands and goods of the persecuted going to the State, that is) and, at the same time, converting or trying to deport the jews away. The "new christians" became very important on the colonization of my country (Brazil), being "willingly" colonials. I will look about the norman conquest. But, of course, one of two videos will hardly be as deep as some 3+ hours (I guess) podcast content, but I don't expect it to be. It just has to be good.
Dude ypur content is facinating, its soo clear and well descibed!!! So much info condensed sometimes makes a video not that good but god damn you make it so clear and interesting!! I really wish i had a professor like you, keep it up!!
Norbert Elias's "The Civilising Process" brought me here. Never thought I would be learning about the formation of France and the Hundred Years War. The more you know. Thanks.
East Francia became the kingdom of Germany. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of the entirety of kingdoms ruled by the emperor: Germany, Italy and Burgundy.
Charles the Simple was never worried about the Vikings. In the beginning of the Xth century, the Vikings had been completely ousted from France. It is only because of the fear of the Robertians ( capetians who just had crushed Rollo at Chartres) that Charles gave them a TINY territory around Rouen.
The Duchy of Normandy was certainly not the most powerful duchy or feudal state in France. The counts of Champagne were far more powerful. And the Ottonians had absolutely zero power to make the different feudals states of West Francia vassals. The French feudals states were very powerful and poor Otto would have to fight everylord on their land. And the Ottonians had not the power to accept r refuse the capetians. The robertians took the crown because they were not available as you said but because they beat the shit out f the Vikings and were accepted as such by the other feudal lords.
I think Hugh was a decendant of a the Magister Militus of Gaul back in the Roman days. Also, I think the house name is pronoused Capay, this is the first time I've heard it pronounced Capet. And I think Valois is pronounced Valwah.
You skipped a bit to by not mentioning the rise of the Robertian dynasty which the Capetians were descended of, there were 2 different kings from the line before Hugh Capet, of the 3 different elected kings not from the Carolingian dynasty towards the end of Carolingian rule. You make it seem like Hugh Capet was the sudden break from Carolingian rulers while the reality was that his direct ancestors - Robertians had already ruled as kings.
@@htoodoh5770 I don't know. I can't find Information on it. Wikipedia seems to think that "Einfältige" should be interpreted as "straight-forward" as well although that's not how the word in German is used.
@@benerdick_cumberbiatch Well, I don't think people back then thought he was a literal idiot. Nobody back then would have been crowned king if he couldn't think straight no matter how good his claim was.
"Otherwhere" you should have just rolled with that in your authoritative historians voice and people like me would have been completely on board with whatever you told us it meant.
Imagine being part of the biggest empire in Europe. And then you happen to end up in the part that becomes France. Some fates are truly worse than death
It means ‘the great’. Hugh was descended from Robert the Strong, and Hugh was accomplished enough to be called ‘Hugh the Great’, and his descendents took that name
@@charlesdesobry9446 No? It means "caped" and was affixed to the Bourbon monarchs (and the preceding dynasties) by 19th century historians. Contemporary practice would have them call themselves the House of France. Prior to the reign of Philip VI who belongs to the Valois, a junior branch of the House of France.
@@charlesdesobry9446Hugh wasn't called the great as that is a mistranslation. People back then would distinguish two people with the same name (usually father and son) as le maisne or le jeune, the elder or the younger respectively. Le Maisne sounds similar to Le Magne which means the Great. Hugh Le Maisne is the father of Hugh Capet who was elected kinf in 967. Hugh Le Maisne's father and uncle were both kings before him but Hugh Le Maisne chose to install a weaker Carolingian king (Louis IV) so he could have an easier time ruling his lands thus the chain was broken. Hugh Le Maisne's father was Robert I, not Robert the Strong - who was his grandfather.
it's pronounced "deh-MAIN" (13:34) not the convoluted way you said it, which leads me to believe you've never seen this word before and were simply reading a script...I hope not! Maybe, as you suggested, you were simply tired
I really wanted to like this, but the mangled French name pronunciations made me gag. The use of the word ‘identity politics’ is ridiculous. I understand wanting to give the viewer an aha moment that allows them to relate, but these words are absolutely incorrect and give the wrong impression of the selection of Hugh Capet. I’m not sure if you originally did this as a senior project or if it was produced specifically for this channel, but it could use a lot of work. Ps. take a French class or two.
@IFFs 35th LOl. Which country lost battle every battle and it took a weakness in the English monarchy for France to win. Before that the French stayed in their castles.
Actualy the elder Capetian is Louis de Bourbon and heir to the throne of France. Felipe VI the actualy king of spain is from the junior branch (second branch). The first branch didn't ascend to the throne of spain for France. When "Henri d’Artois" (Henri V of France), the last Capetian bourbon heir of throne died without descendants. The bourbon from spain (descendant of Louis XIV) became heir to the throne of France. Rule are clear. Since Charlemagne, "Elder of Capetian dynasty" are the heir of throne of France. So, the eldest son of king of spain become heir to the french throne and can't become king of spain. Cause they are now heir to the french throne. Felipe VI isn't the elder of Capetian dynasty. And Duke of Luxembour is descendant of women, so he's not an Capetian bourbon anymore. Well he is by women, but not like you think. He's also not the elder of the Capetians dynasty. sry for my bad english, hope you understand.
Haha nice pronunciation! You would think that someone doing a history of the FRENCH monarchy would at least learn basic language skills. Typical Anglo....it's Hugh Kā Pay not Hugh CAPP IT haha. I shouldn't be surprised though, coming from someone who chose to use the modernist non scholastic uneducated BCE/CE . Read some works on Logic by Aristotle and more importantly, St Thomas Aquinus. All joking aside, everyman should study Philosophia Perennis. To learn the correct and ordered way to think logically and true.
@thersites the historian Hello again sir.. I have to beg you, as a proclaimed and practicing historian I DO WISH!! You wouldn’t so frequently pass “value judgements” on so many figures of the past and history in general. (A) You should have the awareness and be mindful of the fact that you cannot begin to know all the countless realities, pressures, and constraints these people actually faced in their lives. It would be as if I criticized some guy I knew for not finishing school, meanwhile I’m unaware of the fact that he was molested as a child and suffers anxiety, his girlfriend tells her friends about his small dick and cheats on him, so he’s utterly crushed with shame, and his little sister has cancer they can’t afford to take care of. Or maybe I called him greedy bc he’s chosen to pursue wealth unaware or incapable of knowing the good or bad reasons he’s chosen to I don’t know, forgo a family, breakup with his girlfriend, develop a short fuse... maybe he wants to affect world peace!?? I like your stuff but you often have this tendency to waft a self righteous contemptuousness, which is a kind of frustrated arrogance that’s really hard to listen to. Don’t get me wrong, I know it’s partly schtick, partly sarcasm, and it’s funny sometimes too. You’re stuff is great as far as the humor goes. Just tone down the self-righteous imperiousness please.. Billions of humans have lived and died before you and under the microscopic scrutiny according to today’s superficially self-righteous presumptive expectations they almost all would have been disgusting horrible “HATEFUL” bigoted, prejudiced, callous human being.... Are you really under the impression that you’re so much better and more enlightened (as demonstrated by you’re careless criticism and accusations of so many-In/under the most incredible circumstances you will never have to imagine-it obviously appears as though you haven’t or else you might be a little more careful and respecting of the unimaginably difficult lives they often lead and choices they had to make.)
I think that you may be misinterpreting my intention in these videos. The point of my videos is not necessarily to condemn people from the past- which is a pointless endeavor- but rather to counteract tendencies to romanticize the past or to cover up some of the suffering and hardship that you point out. I have noticed that many casual students of history tend to just think of the past as a time with less technology and different clothes, but the same basic beliefs and values, at least if the place in question is a part of the West. When I present Classical Athens, for instance, I point out that there are some things from our perspective that are very admirable and some things that are deeply disturbing. However, Athenian society is quite alien to us on a number of levels and obvious things like large-scale slavery barely begin to scratch the surface of those differences. Part of the point in observing the negative aspects of the past is to show that while we can gain some familiarity with the past, we should never deceive ourselves into thinking that the past was exactly like the present. These lectures were designed for undergraduates, so comparing social values also has the effect of making some of the similarities and differences stand out as much as possible. Another factor to consider is that I made these videos under a heavy time constraint and a lot of my sarcasm was driven by a desire to finish a task which was more daunting than it had seemed at the outset.
Thersites the Historian You know, despite my criticism, i gathered most of that, and the fact that you spent so much time and effort in endeavors to put them out to begin with is reason enough to justify whatever honest mistakes were or weren’t made (as a matter of relative opinion of course). It’s easy to criticize and tear down the things that other people build and that never been my point in criticism. I supremely appreciate a channel like yours and in as many of the videos I’ve watched of yours again, I gathered most of the things you said, which is one reason I’ve been so impressed and appreciative of them. I do believe especially to begin with you were very pointed in your effort to compare and contrast the different worlds we encounter in our own vs the past. Bc people just don’t under that today for the most part. In traveling back in time you are encountering a different world than your own and in doing so you are an alien to it. Everything is “butterfly effect” and so you understand nothing until you imagine yourself in those shoes and the forces you would encounter realistically in doing so. But even then most people, specifically students cannot and so should be pre-instructed of their specific deficiencies in doing so. Would you go down into the ocean and begin to criticize the shark for eating fish, or the fish for eating shrimp? They are under the pressures of nature in doing so and so they have little choice. Would you go back in time and criticize the Athenians for keeping and enslaving men? Given they know only the cold dark world of their own, where slavery was universal. Even in doing so you risk your own life with a slaves retaliation. In contrast to the light of Athens and the rest of the known world not to mention the uncivilized and/or primitive worlds like Incan or Mayan meso-America (where human sacrifice was as normal and natural as evening dinner), sub-Saharan Africa (let me not get started) and North Africa (where they still have open slave markets to this day, and the largest enslavement of humans beings in the world), Egypt??? Your kidding right? The eastern World meaning east of the Persian Empire (human right in China today as well as N Korea and so many others has only been softened at the point of a bayonet and barrel. And not just the slavery but the shear and utterly unthinkable brutality at which operated as common as the sun in the day of these places. Shall we go over torture methods in ancient Persia?? In most of these places it was ritually thought that even the crimes of mere procedural error required gruesome a sickening torture to reright the order of things having been erred. I have multiple points to make that I won’t get to but the one here is that in criticizing the slavery of Athens in that time period to an audience which is so superficially conditioned to recoil at the slightest of impositions, its truly irresponsible and greatly misleading them in a depreciation of their own cultural heritage and the culture that was truly (aside from the Jewish) the beginning of the West, and Western Civilization who’s importance I do not think can be underestimated in leading to the progressive path we’ve seen in the world we live in today. My point then is to say, as a practicing historian it’s difficult (and you’ve done well) but you have a responsibility especially when your talking about something so essential and important (which I’ll preface by saying, there’s hardly a thing we can imagine that doesn’t bear some sort of criticism, but you should distinguish between positive and negative criticism. Negative criticism is ignorant. It is cowardly and malicious. It seeks to tear things down bc it could not build them itself. Positive criticism is noble. It risks backlash and repercussions from ill-tempered immature objects of focus. Positive criticism though seeks to credit and reinforce what has been built, but at the same time point to those areas of weakness and instability, or downright failure and say “we have to fix these..” “ But we can do it! And we will!” Think like the difference between a good sports coach and a bad sports coach. The culture of the West is in fact now crumbling in on itself for this reason almost exclusively (I mean a lot certainly goes into why that is, what’s causing it, etc.), but all we have learned to do is to criticize and mock, and blame. We do so ignorantly, selfishly, and unconcerned or aware of the damage and destruction we do to those around us or that follow (kind of like littering and ruining the natural environment). I hope you understand that whatever criticisms I make of you I take away nothing to what you’ve accomplished here, and what you’re doing for the study of history, most specifically to drawing new interest into it. I will continue to enjoy your content though and I should add I am very thankful for the kind and respectful disagreement you had and communicated back.
"Otherwhere." Great word. Time for me to start using this term in everyday conversation.
That's how it's said in German, "anderswo."
Elsewhere is also a great word.
Man, never stop doing this. I love it. The byzantine theme system, Justinian II and feud system videos are so good.
To compliment, the blaming of the jews was a tendency that lingered for some time, especially where the catolicism was "stronger". Portugal, in the begning of the XVIth century, got hit by famine, two diseases strikes and some natural destruction (strong storms). Common people blamed it on the jews, but the crown tried to protect them, passing a law about conversion to christianity, which would result on the phenomenon called in portuguese "novos cristãos" (new christians), who were convert jews that adopted three's related surnames, like Oliveira and such.
I think it would be interesting if you talked about the normans through Europe, like Normandy, Italy and all that. I think Lars Brownworth has a podcast about the subject (that has already ended), but it would still be very interesting seeing your take on it. You have an extensive collection of videos. Maybe you did it, but I don't know.
Thanks, I am glad that you enjoy my videos.
I am planning to get into the persecution of the Jews this week in my Crusades videos. I was unaware of that particular incident from Portugal, but I will look into that and use it as a later example of European anti-Semitism. Good stuff.
I have a video on the Vikings which covers the activities of the Normans in France and Italy and also (briefly) covers the activities of the Varangians in Russia and Byzantium. My take on those subjects was probably a lot more limited that the podcast that you're referencing, however.
Thersites the Historian I do not know any books in english about antisemitism in Portugal, but I can help someway: the portuguese kings of that time were Manuel and John III (or Dom Manuel and Dom John III. I think "Dom" is like "Lord"). John III insisted on getting a Inquisition in Portugal in the style of the Spanish one (the lands and goods of the persecuted going to the State, that is) and, at the same time, converting or trying to deport the jews away. The "new christians" became very important on the colonization of my country (Brazil), being "willingly" colonials.
I will look about the norman conquest. But, of course, one of two videos will hardly be as deep as some 3+ hours (I guess) podcast content, but I don't expect it to be. It just has to be good.
Dude ypur content is facinating, its soo clear and well descibed!!! So much info condensed sometimes makes a video not that good but god damn you make it so clear and interesting!! I really wish i had a professor like you, keep it up!!
Norbert Elias's "The Civilising Process" brought me here.
Never thought I would be learning about the formation of France and the Hundred Years War.
The more you know.
Thanks.
>watching video on french history
>immediately distracted by misuse of french (vis a vis....vis a vis.)
tabarnak
It's so weird to use "identity politics" in this context
Politics… politics never changes
thanks for the summary, much appreciated
East Francia became the kingdom of Germany. The Holy Roman Empire consisted of the entirety of kingdoms ruled by the emperor: Germany, Italy and Burgundy.
Burgundy was not a part of the HRE. They were nominally French vassal, much like England
@@Emanon... they were in both
If you could manage to expand on this, it would be a sorely needed addition for us education fiends.
Charles the Simple was never worried about the Vikings. In the beginning of the Xth century, the Vikings had been completely ousted from France. It is only because of the fear of the Robertians ( capetians who just had crushed Rollo at Chartres) that Charles gave them a TINY territory around Rouen.
Amazing job, keep it up!
The Duchy of Normandy was certainly not the most powerful duchy or feudal state in France. The counts of Champagne were far more powerful. And the Ottonians had absolutely zero power to make the different feudals states of West Francia vassals. The French feudals states were very powerful and poor Otto would have to fight everylord on their land. And the Ottonians had not the power to accept r refuse the capetians. The robertians took the crown because they were not available as you said but because they beat the shit out f the Vikings and were accepted as such by the other feudal lords.
They should do forensic facial reconstructions of allCarolingian's kings and Capetians's kings(3 D-scan of all skulls)
I think Hugh was a decendant of a the Magister Militus of Gaul back in the Roman days. Also, I think the house name is pronoused Capay, this is the first time I've heard it pronounced Capet. And I think Valois is pronounced Valwah.
Hugh Capet ( means head) was from the frankiish robertian family who ruled Paris. He was a descendant of Odo count of Paris who ousted the vikings.
Thats definitely true in modern french but if you’re speaking english its not necessarily wrong to use english pronunciation. Just a bit weird.
I am really interested in seeing Eastern Europe as I isn't talked about a lot here in the frozen north of Canada
I hope to visit Europe one day. It hasn't happened yet, unfortunately.
Loved it
So Interesting!!
You skipped a bit to by not mentioning the rise of the Robertian dynasty which the Capetians were descended of, there were 2 different kings from the line before Hugh Capet, of the 3 different elected kings not from the Carolingian dynasty towards the end of Carolingian rule.
You make it seem like Hugh Capet was the sudden break from Carolingian rulers while the reality was that his direct ancestors - Robertians had already ruled as kings.
Charles the Simple actually does mean "the idiot". In German he's known as "Karl der Einfältige" which means just that
MacX85 Is he really a idiot.
@@htoodoh5770 I don't know. I can't find Information on it. Wikipedia seems to think that "Einfältige" should be interpreted as "straight-forward" as well although that's not how the word in German is used.
@@Siegbert85 it could be a misstranselation. You're probably right though.
@@benerdick_cumberbiatch Well, I don't think people back then thought he was a literal idiot. Nobody back then would have been crowned king if he couldn't think straight no matter how good his claim was.
MacX85 Debatable, for instance look at the Spanish Hapsburgs
Love ur content
KoalaStudio.TV it's great isn't it I put these on my second screen well play paradox games
@@theomnissiah-9120 OMG dude I do like exactly the same thing
This is interesting, keep informing the world of the mysteries of this amnesia that is human history.
Katherine le Sage Valois - D'Anjou checking in....
I thought Hugh Capets father is somewhat related through bloodline with Charlemagne
Not 100% sure but Hugh's sister married charlemagne?
@@hillybilly3651 seems unlikely when Hugh lived 150 years after Charles the great
2:15 Rollo’s son William Longsword and grandson Richard the Fearless //name origins??
"Otherwhere" you should have just rolled with that in your authoritative historians voice and people like me would have been completely on board with whatever you told us it meant.
it's pronounced "Val-wah"
Also Capet is usually pronounced cah-pet, not cap-it
@@demitriusrawluk5747 its actually cah-pey
@@codybell6882 That's the proper French pronunciation, but I've heard it said either way commonly in English, hence why I said usually
Very educational
I think "otherwhere" is a perfectly good word!
It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
This is a rather middle school textbook overview but you still managed to include some instant of amess victim culture into it.
So weird to hear about my ancestor Rollo in this video.
I'm gonna start using Otherwhere
Thanks for video. Valois is pronounced Vall-WAH.
Imagine being part of the biggest empire in Europe. And then you happen to end up in the part that becomes France. Some fates are truly worse than death
Sounds nice, but germany ?🤢AW hell na-
Isn't it called Val-owa
Thank you. You are very clear.
😓😓😓, "Hugh KAPPIT".. you pronounced it "KAPPIT". Right.
Where does the name 'Capet' come from.
It means ‘the great’. Hugh was descended from Robert the Strong, and Hugh was accomplished enough to be called ‘Hugh the Great’, and his descendents took that name
@@charlesdesobry9446 No? It means "caped" and was affixed to the Bourbon monarchs (and the preceding dynasties) by 19th century historians.
Contemporary practice would have them call themselves the House of France. Prior to the reign of Philip VI who belongs to the Valois, a junior branch of the House of France.
@@charlesdesobry9446Hugh wasn't called the great as that is a mistranslation. People back then would distinguish two people with the same name (usually father and son) as le maisne or le jeune, the elder or the younger respectively. Le Maisne sounds similar to Le Magne which means the Great. Hugh Le Maisne is the father of Hugh Capet who was elected kinf in 967. Hugh Le Maisne's father and uncle were both kings before him but Hugh Le Maisne chose to install a weaker Carolingian king (Louis IV) so he could have an easier time ruling his lands thus the chain was broken. Hugh Le Maisne's father was Robert I, not Robert the Strong - who was his grandfather.
@@lettucearsebiscuits8375 That is quite interesting, thank you
there is no attempt to try to pronounce french names? like Valois, not Va-Loy
9:00 Otherwhere - you should have ran with that - I would have believed you.
3:35
9:14
12:24
14:25
what is this for?
Ew 🤣
Capet is pronounced "capay". It's French
Don’t bother he always mispronounces stuff, even english stuff
it's pronounced "deh-MAIN" (13:34) not the convoluted way you said it, which leads me to believe you've never seen this word before and were simply reading a script...I hope not! Maybe, as you suggested, you were simply tired
Didn't even metion St. Louis IX. Disliked
I really wanted to like this, but the mangled French name pronunciations made me gag. The use of the word ‘identity politics’ is ridiculous. I understand wanting to give the viewer an aha moment that allows them to relate, but these words are absolutely incorrect and give the wrong impression of the selection of Hugh Capet. I’m not sure if you originally did this as a senior project or if it was produced specifically for this channel, but it could use a lot of work. Ps. take a French class or two.
No one remembers Philips the First...or Goliad....
The "G" isn't pronounced in Carolingian!!
lol. Yes, it absolutely is.
I vote "otherwhere" should be as much of a word as "Y'all" and "ain't"
Sorry, not sorry.
Valois: pronounced Val-wah
Yep. The time they were the welcome mat for the Vikings and English.
@IFFs 35th you mean the same French dynasty that made the french monarchy their punching bag.
@IFFs 35th LOl. Which country lost battle every battle and it took a weakness in the English monarchy for France to win. Before that the French stayed in their castles.
Pronounce Cap A
do less word and easy to know
Montjoie St denis!
Actualy the elder Capetian is Louis de Bourbon and heir to the throne of France. Felipe VI the actualy king of spain is from the junior branch (second branch). The first branch didn't ascend to the throne of spain for France. When "Henri d’Artois" (Henri V of France), the last Capetian bourbon heir of throne died without descendants. The bourbon from spain (descendant of Louis XIV) became heir to the throne of France.
Rule are clear. Since Charlemagne, "Elder of Capetian dynasty" are the heir of throne of France. So, the eldest son of king of spain become heir to the french throne and can't become king of spain. Cause they are now heir to the french throne. Felipe VI isn't the elder of Capetian dynasty.
And Duke of Luxembour is descendant of women, so he's not an Capetian bourbon anymore. Well he is by women, but not like you think. He's also not the elder of the Capetians dynasty.
sry for my bad english, hope you understand.
Not only your english is bad, all your false narrative must serve a purpose, maybe apart of hiding the truth .
so long im bored, delete the account
Haha nice pronunciation! You would think that someone doing a history of the FRENCH monarchy would at least learn basic language skills. Typical Anglo....it's Hugh Kā Pay not Hugh CAPP IT haha. I shouldn't be surprised though, coming from someone who chose to use the modernist non scholastic uneducated BCE/CE . Read some works on Logic by Aristotle and more importantly, St Thomas Aquinus. All joking aside, everyman should study Philosophia Perennis. To learn the correct and ordered way to think logically and true.
OCCITAN, BASQUE, CORSE, CATALAN, RATHER THAN LANGUAGES THAT WERE USED FLR GENOCIDE PURPOSES
@thersites the historian
Hello again sir.. I have to beg you, as a proclaimed and practicing historian I DO WISH!! You wouldn’t so frequently pass “value judgements” on so many figures of the past and history in general.
(A) You should have the awareness and be mindful of the fact that you cannot begin to know all the countless realities, pressures, and constraints these people actually faced in their lives. It would be as if I criticized some guy I knew for not finishing school, meanwhile I’m unaware of the fact that he was molested as a child and suffers anxiety, his girlfriend tells her friends about his small dick and cheats on him, so he’s utterly crushed with shame, and his little sister has cancer they can’t afford to take care of.
Or maybe I called him greedy bc he’s chosen to pursue wealth unaware or incapable of knowing the good or bad reasons he’s chosen to I don’t know, forgo a family, breakup with his girlfriend, develop a short fuse... maybe he wants to affect world peace!??
I like your stuff but you often have this tendency to waft a self righteous contemptuousness, which is a kind of frustrated arrogance that’s really hard to listen to.
Don’t get me wrong, I know it’s partly schtick, partly sarcasm, and it’s funny sometimes too. You’re stuff is great as far as the humor goes.
Just tone down the self-righteous imperiousness please..
Billions of humans have lived and died before you and under the microscopic scrutiny according to today’s superficially self-righteous presumptive expectations they almost all would have been disgusting horrible “HATEFUL” bigoted, prejudiced, callous human being....
Are you really under the impression that you’re so much better and more enlightened (as demonstrated by you’re careless criticism and accusations of so many-In/under the most incredible circumstances you will never have to imagine-it obviously appears as though you haven’t or else you might be a little more careful and respecting of the unimaginably difficult lives they often lead and choices they had to make.)
I think that you may be misinterpreting my intention in these videos. The point of my videos is not necessarily to condemn people from the past- which is a pointless endeavor- but rather to counteract tendencies to romanticize the past or to cover up some of the suffering and hardship that you point out. I have noticed that many casual students of history tend to just think of the past as a time with less technology and different clothes, but the same basic beliefs and values, at least if the place in question is a part of the West. When I present Classical Athens, for instance, I point out that there are some things from our perspective that are very admirable and some things that are deeply disturbing. However, Athenian society is quite alien to us on a number of levels and obvious things like large-scale slavery barely begin to scratch the surface of those differences. Part of the point in observing the negative aspects of the past is to show that while we can gain some familiarity with the past, we should never deceive ourselves into thinking that the past was exactly like the present. These lectures were designed for undergraduates, so comparing social values also has the effect of making some of the similarities and differences stand out as much as possible.
Another factor to consider is that I made these videos under a heavy time constraint and a lot of my sarcasm was driven by a desire to finish a task which was more daunting than it had seemed at the outset.
Thersites the Historian
You know, despite my criticism, i gathered most of that, and the fact that you spent so much time and effort in endeavors to put them out to begin with is reason enough to justify whatever honest mistakes were or weren’t made (as a matter of relative opinion of course).
It’s easy to criticize and tear down the things that other people build and that never been my point in criticism. I supremely appreciate a channel like yours and in as many of the videos I’ve watched of yours again, I gathered most of the things you said, which is one reason I’ve been so impressed and appreciative of them. I do believe especially to begin with you were very pointed in your effort to compare and contrast the different worlds we encounter in our own vs the past. Bc people just don’t under that today for the most part. In traveling back in time you are encountering a different world than your own and in doing so you are an alien to it. Everything is “butterfly effect” and so you understand nothing until you imagine yourself in those shoes and the forces you would encounter realistically in doing so. But even then most people, specifically students cannot and so should be pre-instructed of their specific deficiencies in doing so. Would you go down into the ocean and begin to criticize the shark for eating fish, or the fish for eating shrimp? They are under the pressures of nature in doing so and so they have little choice. Would you go back in time and criticize the Athenians for keeping and enslaving men? Given they know only the cold dark world of their own, where slavery was universal. Even in doing so you risk your own life with a slaves retaliation. In contrast to the light of Athens and the rest of the known world not to mention the uncivilized and/or primitive worlds like Incan or Mayan meso-America (where human sacrifice was as normal and natural as evening dinner), sub-Saharan Africa (let me not get started) and North Africa (where they still have open slave markets to this day, and the largest enslavement of humans beings in the world), Egypt??? Your kidding right? The eastern World meaning east of the Persian Empire (human right in China today as well as N Korea and so many others has only been softened at the point of a bayonet and barrel. And not just the slavery but the shear and utterly unthinkable brutality at which operated as common as the sun in the day of these places. Shall we go over torture methods in ancient Persia?? In most of these places it was ritually thought that even the crimes of mere procedural error required gruesome a sickening torture to reright the order of things having been erred.
I have multiple points to make that I won’t get to but the one here is that in criticizing the slavery of Athens in that time period to an audience which is so superficially conditioned to recoil at the slightest of impositions, its truly irresponsible and greatly misleading them in a depreciation of their own cultural heritage and the culture that was truly (aside from the Jewish) the beginning of the West, and Western Civilization who’s importance I do not think can be underestimated in leading to the progressive path we’ve seen in the world we live in today.
My point then is to say, as a practicing historian it’s difficult (and you’ve done well) but you have a responsibility especially when your talking about something so essential and important (which I’ll preface by saying, there’s hardly a thing we can imagine that doesn’t bear some sort of criticism, but you should distinguish between positive and negative criticism. Negative criticism is ignorant. It is cowardly and malicious. It seeks to tear things down bc it could not build them itself. Positive criticism is noble. It risks backlash and repercussions from ill-tempered immature objects of focus. Positive criticism though seeks to credit and reinforce what has been built, but at the same time point to those areas of weakness and instability, or downright failure and say “we have to fix these..” “ But we can do it! And we will!”
Think like the difference between a good sports coach and a bad sports coach.
The culture of the West is in fact now crumbling in on itself for this reason almost exclusively (I mean a lot certainly goes into why that is, what’s causing it, etc.), but all we have learned to do is to criticize and mock, and blame. We do so ignorantly, selfishly, and unconcerned or aware of the damage and destruction we do to those around us or that follow (kind of like littering and ruining the natural environment).
I hope you understand that whatever criticisms I make of you I take away nothing to what you’ve accomplished here, and what you’re doing for the study of history, most specifically to drawing new interest into it.
I will continue to enjoy your content though and I should add I am very thankful for the kind and respectful disagreement you had and communicated back.
@@integrityequalsvirtue4464 the "Proclaimed Historian"
Integrity equals Virtue Incan and mesoamerican weren't uncivilized.
Jason
I’m sorry I have no idea what you’re saying here?
Is this a compliment.. an insult.. a joke..?
Not sure what you mean to communicate bud.?