I would say that the creation of the printing press was a huge part of the Renaissance and really made it a 'thing'. This allowed the dissemination of ideas directly to the general population, something unheard of in the medieval period, and paved the way for radical religious reform and the growth of Protestantism.
I don't think many commentators here grasped John Green's rhetorical statement. I don't think he literally meant the Renaissance did not happen, but used the statement to "emphasize" his point that the idea of the Renaissance as a clearly designated period and a landmark turning point as we usually teach in school is misleading. It is also true that our Western history (art history together, my field) hasn't yet fully incorporated broader cultural interactions in its granting of credits. His lecture is entertaining while has some depth to it. good combination.
+Soo C That's the right idea. The Renaissance was a "thing" just like how the United States is a "thing". In reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.
I'm convinced childbirth has been subjected to the same over-classification. It's not the monumental event people think it is. You still have a baby attached to you, it's just attached at a different point, and somewhat more loosely (at least until teeth).
'So was the renaissance a thing? Not really, it was a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries.' Couldn't the same be said for any era?
I think he deconstructs that as well like deconstructing why the dark ages shouldn't be called the dark ages because they weren't that dark for the common people. The word Renaissance has implications beyond just identifying a time period like the Middle Ages or idk the Ancient times or whatever. And this implication is that people were collectively going through a process of rebirth but if that wasn't the case for almost all the people living in that era and just the chosen few that could afford to go through that process, is it really its own era?
I want to thank CrashCourse for giving Muslim scholars their due credit that they deserve and are often overlooked, it's really weird at this point to see western media not so hostile to Islam and Muslims. thanks John Green, Stan, and the wonderful team. from Sudan.
The day he posted the video is just few day after i came to US. I didn't understand a word back then, and now i'm using it to study for exam. Thanks John!
Your point about our projection of a false narrative upon history is EXTREMELY accurate. However, defining the Renaissance as "not a thing" because of the fact that it seems to be a series of many, interdependent "things" that happened over centuries and therefore built up as a "sequence", making the Renaissance "not a thing", is debatable. When you see into any event of history, into any "thing" (a war, for example), it often becomes evident that the "thing" is not actually just one single sequence, but is in fact a series of many interdependent elements, all happening on a microscopic scale. The difference with the Renaissance is that it is a "thing" that happened with interdependent elements happening on a MACROSCOPIC scale. So the Renaissance is not one flowing event in history, as it was previously perceived to be. But it is an event, like events such as war, that happened as a result of elements happening on a microscopic scale to create something that we can observe on a macroscopic scale.
@@asifsultan2828 Regarding Indian history, always prefer books. I've tried podcasts and stuff but they're always part of a larger argument in favour of some premeditated assumption.
@@muditashukla i started watching Bharat ek khoj but i didn't like it cuz it wasn't very academic and some ppl in the comments said that it was biased too I have now downloaded a course from torrent about the Indian history by Michael H. Fischer It's good
My teacher had never heard about John Green before. A few days ago we started on Renaissance, and so I gave her this link, and she was really impressed. May God bless your soul, John.
The Renaissance happened in Italy for a simple reason: it was the most developed region in Europe since the time of the Roman Empire. Even after the Empire fell, Italy was Europe's thinking head. The first university of the world was founded in Bologna, the first banks in Florence and Genoa, the commercial capital of Europe was Venice... and Rome was the centre of Christian civilisation.
afifi hasan that is the "First University IN THE WORLD". We're talking about IN EUROPE. I know that you're trying to feel Muslim proud over here but we're discussing about European History during the 1400's :P
Javier Añón What is it with the use of the terms "madrasas" and "Allah"? Seriously, those aren't words only for Islam. They're ARABIC words. Non-Muslim Arabs use the words " madrasa" and "Allah" all the Tims.
How anyone can dislike a Crash Course video is beyond me. You guys do an amazing job at breaking down the most complex topics to easy to understand, relatable concepts. Thank you!
" Today I'm going to prove to you that the renaissance wasn't really a thing." me- I'd like to see you try.. (after video) Everything I've learned is a lie.....
I don't really agree with his argument. Nobody says that the Renaissance happened in one moment, like the French Revolution or the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Renaissance was an ERA in European history. Namely, the era that separated the Middle Ages from the Early Modern Era. It was not only the era of rediscovering Greek and Roman art and wisdom, but also the beginning of capitalism in Europe, via a growth in trade, small scale industry and the beginning of banking.
An Open Letter to Mr. Green & Co. Dear Mr. Green and Company, I love this series. I love Crash Course. I platonically love you all. But this episode, though. I don't care for it. See, the Renaissance existed as much as any other period of history exists: in our minds, as a handy reference tool. If the Inquisition exists, so too does the Renaissance. If the Golden Age of Islam exists, so too does the Renaissance. If the Silk Road exists, so too does the Renaissance. You describe the Renaissance, near the end of the video, as "a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries." Yes - which is to say, it's a thing. It's a thing that helps historians group similar ideas over a period of time. Saying the Renaissance didn't exist is like saying Ancient China (for instance) didn't exist because it, too, is a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries." Eurocentrism sucks, but that doesn't mean everything European that was positive should be minimalized. If you're going to - rightfully! - denounce European violence, so too must you not minimalize Middle Eastern violence or Asian violence. (For example: The Mongol Conquests killed at *least* 40,000,000 people - possibly more like 70,000,000! - but the Mongols get endless praise and a comical throwback in every episode.) I still do love this series. And Crash Course. And, platonically, you. Best wishes, Me
He argues the Renaissance isn't a thing because of the small effect it had on the people living during it. people in Ancient China were influenced directly by having an Ancient China. The Silk Road and the Golden Age of Islam both directly impacted the life style and quality of those living during them. As John clearly says, only about 5% of Europeans' lives were impacted by the artistic influx.
I have to agree with Kent because the Renaissance is only a relevant period of time because of its contributions that are relevant to us. These contributions were likely never meant for us and that's why I don't think it was a thing. I think the point John is trying to make is that if we're calling Renaissance by this specific name that is equated to entire eras, then we may as well call random stuff happening that has a vaguely loose connection an equally glorified name because the metric has to be how many people were involved or how many people were impacted.
This is an excellent comment that should also be pinned in the comment section so viewers would understand the intentions of the video and not be misled. Nevertheless, the video is awesome and informative and opinionated in some little ways.
Hey there CC! I just wanted to tell you guys the gratitude I feel towards you guys is tremendous. This world history is helping me discover a passion I never knew I had and preparing me for a exciting trip to Europe. so thanks
I don't think it's really fair to say that Renaissance artists were religious just because they did a lot of religious art work. Most Renaissance artworks were commissions. A lot of them, I might add, from the church.
The renaissance wasn't about reason....enlightenment age mah boy! The thing about the rennesiacene is that it was more about "Re"Disciovery of the greek knowledge rather then making new ones. Then again everything is a process.
I have to agree with M C, being religious is not necessarily defying any science or logic. There are many people who are religious but still contributes in science. They believes in Bible or Qur'an or Wedha as mere story and cling to them as moral compass.
Stating that the Renaissance didn't happen is an interesting point of view, but is not by any means a fact. If only 1% of the population experienced it does that mean that it didn't happen? In the 1970s when people living in the Siberian forests came in contact with the outside world they didn't know that the 2nd world war ended because they didn't know there was a war. Does that mean that the 2nd world war wasn't a thing? How many people need to be experiencing it to say that it happened. The war changed the world in many aspects as did the Renaissance. It changed it from the top down, because it changed the governments etc. Causality works in different ways, there are chain reactions. If some peasant didn't experience Michelangelo's art first hand it doesn't mean that it didn't affect him somehow. The Renaissance didn't have a concept attached to it until many years later, but it's the same for many things. It's impossible to see anything in it's entirety while it's still happening, because it's not in it's entirety yet. People still at this day say that the Sun rises and sets while knowing that saying so is factually incorrect. Does that mean that the scientific revolution hasn't happened either, because it doesn't affect everyone everywhere in every aspect of life.
WWII impacted the majority of the world. Killing in fact more that 1% of the population. He is making the point that while it technically happened, its not relevant, and not worth naming the renaissance.
Mark Bruey Well, we can't forget that renaissance period gave us brilliant minds, that perceived the universe and everything around them in different way that the opressive catholic church made people believe. In fact Da Vinci, Copernico and other scientists' works bumped the modern science by unveiling a lot of things people wouldn't even remind. While some may argue that Renaissence never really happened, I disagree. All the artistic, cultural and scientific advances by that 5% of the Italian population made possible (in any other way) the modern life we live today. Opening our minds to knowledge again and liberating people from the middle age darkness was a very important step towards modern life so renaissence will always be a "thing" I'll embrace even if it only worked for 5% of italian population at first.
I think all the time periods that historians talk about are artificial reconstructions after the fact. It's our way of "laying a grid" over history - categorizing it and measuring it. If "history" includes everything up to the present, then the Renaissance happened because our present conception of it as "the Renaissance" was the result of all that history.
"People still at this day say that the Sun rises and sets while knowing that saying so is factually incorrect." Especially when there are people living on this planet who live at places to which much of the year is night time and much of year is day time. I'm looking at you Greenland, Finland, Norway, Alaska and Siberia.
+2020Syd This is miles away from intellectual conversation. Quote: "look at the nazi's, jews, everyone who isn't blond hair blue eyes white/aryan" Wtf are you trying to imply? Nazis did not plan to kill everyone without blonde hair. Renaissance is a broad term used to describe the whole bunch of scientific, humanist, political and artistic changes, philosophies, values, and discoveries in areas mostly inside Europe, that spawned from reconnecting with ancient Greek and Roman civilizations and writings. The views of the Catholic church were challenged. Something that put Europe on the right track towards modern society. Many other cultures would have benefited from it, but did not exactly go through the same lengthy process. Consequences of it can be seen today.
Just because he mentions muslim contributions doesn't mean he is downplaying the European ones. seriously all of history is so interconnected other civilizations almost always make contributions to other civilizations success.
People are never really confronted with the idea that other civilizations were important, both to world history and, more directly, to European history. The sole exception for this is probably China, as its influence and importance is far too vast for even Euro-centrists to ignore.
Oh to me I felt it that way, I'm watching the course since the beginning and I realised everytime he talks about Europe its to say "Oh it's boring there is better stuff out there in India, Africa lololol". So ok I understand Europe is not the only place on earth but this is getting a little stupid saying Renaissance didn't even happen, I mean obviously it wasn't something that happened overnight but it was real, and that's what lead Europe to dominate the world in the future. I've not watched the reste of the course but I hope he admits that. And just to be clear I'm not saying that Europe dominated everything since the beginning of men but I feel like John tries too hard to break this stereotype by overestimating non european civilizations and undermining europe's work, just to prove his point that Europe isn't the only thing that exists.
But apart from Greece and Rome, which he talks about a lot in this series, there wasn't a lot of exciting stuff happening in Europe until the Renaissance. So, I can understand why he (being a product of the the USA's decidedly Eurocentric education system) decided to play up the interesting things happening elsewhere in the world.
The "Eurocentrist" education system is a false conception. The whole of the USAs college and grade schools are all liberal and force a bunch of bullcrap on the students. He media, politicians, and teachers are always dissing Europe and white people, men especially. The whole of the world is shouting that white people suck, and is focusing on rather minor accomplishments of minorities. The fact is, we should learn about our ancestors, which in my case are Northern Europeans. Their is a lot of stuff to be proud of about my people, as they generally started the USA, democracy, and much that makes the world great. Not to mention the undeniable military domination of the west. So shut ur liberal mouths up and see things how they are.
Every historian nowadays knows that periodization is wrong. The Renaissance was much less a "historical period" and more of an intellectual and artistic revolution that happened in the course of three centuries. One cannot say that "It did not happen" because quite simply it's effects were immediately felt in the scientific and intellectual world. For example Erasmus was invited to the court of the Holy Roman Emperor as a councilor, Dante and Cervantes became celebrities only a few years after their deaths, Shakespeare was read by the Elizabethan nobility, the frescos and statues in the churches were open for all too see. True, the effects of the Renaissance would not mature until the 16th century, but arguably by then the European world was already ready to leave both classical civilization for good and go towards an "Age of Enlightenment". Thus while the Renaissance was not an event like a battle, it was certainly an event in intellectual and artistic history that had very little to do with outside sources such as Muslim or Theological writings and more to do with the professionalization of secular sciences and arts. Also, I'm a leftist but sorry John Green but even I can't accept this revisionist history that the Ottomans somehow aided to the coming of the Renaissance. If anything the Ottomans were the reason why the Italian Renaissance declined. Most of the trade exports of the Italian city-states went to central and western Europe. The prime materials for this trade to be possible came entirely from the mediterranean through the Indian Spice trade. The Venetians and Genoans facilitated this trade by way of their Greek colonies in the Aegean and Ionian seas. This trade firstly abruptly ended with the fall of Constantinople, which then was followed by the almost total territorial loss of their colonies by the Ottomans barring them completely from the Spice trade. Hence the incentive to discover India and the journey of Columbus.
john Mars Trading tax was the main economic source of the Ottoman Empire. So i'don't think they would just cut off the trade. They simply can't. Now I know you wanna hate Muslims, Turks or the Ottoman Empire but what'r you gona do... Sometimes, truth is a bitch.
Jared Hunter " There was considerable state supervision in commerce and many regulations and a tax on almost every transaction. Licenses were needed for merchants, sea captains and others in business. When an employee left a company, the government was notified. Markets were patrolled by a kadi (judge) with the power to punish on the spot those who tried to cheat. Profit was limited to 10% and the government tried to insure trade was conducted fairly and moved securely over the trade routes .Foreign trade needed the permission of the government and exports were tightly controlled.the main exports were leather,skins and wool. Items needed for the military such as wood for shipbuilding, minerals and food were rarely allowed to be exported. The early Moslem leaders recognized the importance of commerce to the health of the empire and welcome productive immigrants such as the Jews who were expelled from Spain in the 1492. Almost every man in Turkey was engaged in some trade, even the sultan learned a trade. Mehmed I made bow strings, Selin I was a goldsmith. and demonstrated the nobility of work." "The early Ottoman allies, the French were the first Europeans to be granted trade rights in 1534. The English were allowed in 1567 and in 1581 Queen Elizabeth I granted the Turkey Company an exclusive charter to trade with the Ottoman Empire." ottomanempire.info/economy.htm So no, the Ottomans did not facilitate trade in the Mediterranean for the Italian city-states but hindered it, by nearly monopolising the spice-trade, that's why Venice fought SEVEN fricking wars against the ottomans.
john Mars I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the Renaissance "never happened." John Green sheepishly admitted as much in his final thoughts. His point is that it only affected the "elites" or "bourgeoisie" if that is a suitable term for them. The life of a peasant farmer in 1800CE was not much different than the life of a peasant farmer in 2000BCE. Neither had much use for writing or other intellectual pursuits. The only advantage that the 1800CE man had was an iron plow, a horse collar and maybe a musket. You probably aren't arguing against that at all. However, that is probably the best take-home point out of this little video over all the other controversial points.
Alecks Horchata well artists are the same as they ever were... that period being propped up as special may not be any more fair than an independent art fan saying 'well what the renaissance really is to me was my grandma's petunia garden it was just spectacular'... as if the renaissance is more of the eye of the beholder, than an actively pursued goal of participants... take today's media culture... it seems like they're trying to self-aggrandize their purposefulness as if to live up to the standards of 'great times'... maybe part of that self-fulfillment is to realize that as far as history goes, the only real standard is surviving part of which is the benefit of recognizing what you appreciate most from history
I'm not entirely certain that you can classify the Renaissance as "not happening" simply because the vast majority of people didn't experience it at the time. Certainly your definition of what the Renaissance entails can be fluid, but just because it didn't seem terribly important at the time doesn't mean it was nonexistent. It was simply an event that lasted hundreds of years instead of a decade or two and was restricted to the elitist of the elite. It was still present, as evidenced by the fact that today, we DO marvel over many of the works of art created/rediscovered during this time period. It might not have been terribly important at the time, but we still remember it centuries later.
The printing press was also developed in the 15th century. Then a guy called Aldus Manutius in Italy started printing a ton of books about his favourite things, such as the Greeks, and his press is one of the reasons that Europe suddenly started learning about and nerding out over the Greeks. He even invented a new, slanted font to try and pack more letters onto a page. Because he was in in Italy, it got called italics. In any case, the sudden increase in the availability of books (from Aldus and various others) was critical in spreading ideas, such as Copernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system.
Basically imagine in 1,000 years, scholars look back at the years were living right now and call it the renaissance. Nothing feels different, it's just a name given to a point in time where there is a movement in things related to art was very prominent. It didn't happen in terms of one day there was a drastic change, it was pretty gradual but drastic when looked at from the beginning. If that makes sense.
Well, yes it did happen. It seems the point of the video is to say, "Our perception of the Renaissance is skewed", not "The Renaissance didn't happen."
Well I did happen but just very slowly. Basically the Catholic Church was corrupt, almost every body lost knowledge especially because they forgot to read. Thank goodness for the printing press that was made during that time period allowing people to read easier. And also allowing Martin Luther's 95 theses to spread around Europe much faster. I find it an important time in history because after several wars on religion and new scientific discoveries the church wasn't controlling every body and people were able to say what they want without having to be burned to death. The Renaissance is more than just art and was a very important thing.(There's a lot more to it that I didn't mention.) If you are thinking this video will help you on your test yeah that's a good one. But hey it's just a RUclips video.
The printing press did not really result in immediate (re-)literalisation of Europe (If you could at any time speak of it being truly literalised before). Books were still perversely expensive for 97% or so of the population and being a serf on a farm or a lowly worker in a city did not qualify you for learning to read. And of whom would you have learned? Rich people? They did not especially care for poor people and wouldn't have invested the time and effort... The Clergy? Did only teach what they needed in their own ranks to do theri godly work... The small caste of officials working for the nobles to administrate the lands (if they weren't clergy anyway that is)? Nah, also not interested in spreading knowledge to everybody. Luther was so revolutionary because he made the contents of the bible available for everybody through translation... now not just the few lucky educated people speaking / understanding latin could follow god's word, but everybody listening to the sermon or scripture citation could make up their own mind. It would still be quite some time until the bible was in every household and reading was a general ability for the common folks... but at least now they could look at what their priest claimed the bible said and if it really turned up that way in his reading.
I know most of the comment here are freaking out about how he down plays the AMAZING GOD-GIVEN SUPER DUPER period we all call the Renaissance but i think hes just trying to convey the fact that we do over play it. Was is super cool that science and art FINALLY made a come back? heck yea. But if you really look at it that was the case in MANY places at different points in history and the Renaissance just is another one of those points but we all applaud it because it basically lead to industrialization and advancement of science instead of being crushed unlike all other periods of growing science. We remember the Renaissance because so many great ideas and objects came out of it but he is right it really just built on what came before, like every other age/era. The Renaissance is romanticized as some amazing wellspring of all things good but really very few contributed anything of value. It was those few that are worth lauding over not the period itself. He also is conveying that the world as a whole is part of history. Just as what we have today is largely a result of things from the Renaissance, the Renaissance is largely due to other forces including Muslim scholarship along with Greek works. We just remember Renaissance better because it was more recent and we have more paintings, writings and other stuff still around to point to and say LOOK, ISN'T THIS COOL? He's not saying the whole section of time is irrelevant he's saying we don't look at it subjectively enough compared to most other times and that it was more a smattering of advances that took a LONG time to happen rather than some magical time we like to say it is. TLDR; Did important things happen in the Renaissance? Absolutely,Yes. Was it a magical time where humanity was transformed? No. A small few made advances that lead to more advances but those advances were really just building upon the advances of before. (still doing it today, believe it or not)
You forgot the engineering/building part, and the "we discover new lands that will change the world" part... Marco polo, magellan, christopher columbus, they change the way to see the world... Plus, many great structures were built, some of the greatest castles ever were built during the renaissance (mostly in France), Leonardo da vinci was a visionary, and had really foreseen lot of technical things, not only in art, The renaissance's humanism, the way to see our body, our health, even sports... Montaigne, Machiavel, the way to see and think politics, legitimate coercive power, the slow restart of sciences.. Plus many of the roots of the french revolution, and the declaration of the rights of men and citizen are to find in the renaissance... roots that will spread to the american constitution later. And roots that will start all the enlightenment process
I think John tries to make the point which could have been more forcefully is that the renaissance is a sort of an outdated eurocentric way to teach the history of this era in time. Instead of learning the crusade->renaissance timeline that I'm sure we all grew up with. A more accurate picture would be to teach of the Muslim world's active influence on European learning the way they teach that the Greeks influenced Rome centuries before. It was the Islam Golden age which had gone on for a while before this time that actually kept the Greek/Roman body of knowledge alive and diffused it to Europe.
This was the worst, laziest explanation of the renaissance I've ever seen. Similarly bad was his "explanation" of the middle ages in Europe, and it betrays his seemingly negative view of Europe's history as a whole. I think this man should stop sucking from the teat of his elementary school history teacher, and do his own research.
His video wasn't half as lazy as your response. If you're going to call someone out for being lazy and bad, at least cite an example or two, otherwise you're just as guilty. Furthermore, you can't even be bothered to get some basic facts right, as the videos are a collaboration between Green and Raoul Meyer, an AP World History teacher, not an "elementary school history teacher"...not that there even is such a thing. Lastly, I'm a little confused about why you seem to think working with an actual historian is a bad thing, since you don't provide any examples or justification for why you think he's wrong.
I called the history teacher what I did as an insult, you dunce. And if you don't know what's wrong with this portrayal of European history, then you would do better to educate yourself; as opposed to attacking me. At least I know what I'm talking about. Now I will happily ignore you, since educating you is not even a remotely interesting idea to me.
Scott Baromski Oh, good! I like having the last word! FYI, you might want to change that semi-colon after “yourself” to a comma. Right now it looks like your grammar skills are on par with your insult capabilities. Your responses are all bluster and no skill or real ability. For example, I noticed you, once again, resorted to name-calling instead of actually backing up your thoughts. What’s the matter? Lots of claims, but no real verifiable knowledge? Please don’t tell me it’s not worth your time, since you found the time to make the comment in the first place. Also, no one “attacked” you. I pointed out that your response (not you) was weak, and asked you to cite an example of something you thought was incorrect. For that, you called me a dunce. I guess I should applaud your consistency. Your comment accusing someone of laziness was too lazy to include an example, and now your response bemoaning being “attacked” includes name-calling. Nice work! Now on to substance: John Green (and many historians) are rightly calling attention to cultural bias and Eurocentrism in many historical textbooks and curricula. Doing this does not constitute a “negative view of Europe’s history” as you noted in your original comment. It DOES, however, give a voice and viewpoint to other cultures outside of Europe, something that should be applauded. Revisiting historical facts and re-examining ideas is not “lazy;” it’s a quest for inclusion and accuracy. Personally, I find Green’s views refreshing and, more importantly, more in line with historical fact than interpretations that treat Europe as the center of the world. You see what I did there? I offered a point of view, and then I backed it up with a rationale. Now you try…oh wait, you’re ignoring me.
David Barringer Really? You have resorted to nitpicking over grammar? Before I have even brought anything substantial to the table? Normally these kind of comments are reserved for *after* you have suffered an obvious defeat in your argument. Predictably the lame attempt of an insecure mind, trying by measure of any petty technicality, to suppose the intellectual high ground. Not only is it a pathetic behavior, but it is also really embarrassing when you are *wrong*. Clearly you have not only history class to revisit.... Oh, here's one of those citations you have been so desperately awaiting! owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/04/, & writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html . Here you can see that "as opposed to" was being used as a conjunctive adverb between two independent clauses in a "this, therefore that" statement; Furthermore clarifying a long statement that would have otherwise been bogged down by too many commas (See what I did there? eh?). Mongoloid... P.S. - You have earned the verbal abuse with your stupid comments. You don't see me trying low-brow BS like that.
I'm here because the test will measure whether I am an informed, engaged, and productive citizen of the world, and it will take place in schools and bars and hospitals and dorm rooms and in places of worship. I will be tested on first dates, in job interviews, while watching football, and while scrolling through my Twitter feed. The test will judge my ability to think about things other than celebrity marriages, whether I’ll be easily persuaded by empty political rhetoric, and whether I’ll be able to place my life and my community in a broader context. The test will last my entire life, and it will be comprised of the millions of decisions that, when taken together, will make my life mine. And everything, everything, will be on it.
Alright Green, your argument is really invalid and unrelated. Your basically saying that the rennassaince did not happen because it was an evolving idea, right? Well welcome to history. Of course nobody went out side and realized it was the rennansaince, because it is simply a term coined by historians. History does not happen over night, we study it liek it did, but practically everything historical event evolve. For example: sticking with the theme of European History lets talk about the Protestatn Reformation: Martin Luther did not simply post the 95 thesis and the rest of Europe was then divide. No, rather a series of events occured an leading the to development of protestant states and then the 30 years war and the Treaty of Wesphilia. Of course people did not walk outside and said, "Hey its the Protestant Reformation" or "Its the Rennasaince" because historical events sum up the world's point of view of an event, not the individual, micro perspective.
John Green, why are you hating on Aristotle? He was such a boss. Yes, he was wrong about some things, but everyone's wrong sometimes. It's not his fault that his mistakes weren't questioned and were propagated for centuries. Philosophically Aristotle may be my favourite thinker of the Ancient world. His metaphysics, specifically his critique of Plato's Theory of Forms are so rigorous and eloquent they crack his entire worldview open. His Nicomachean Ethics reject abstract absolutism in favour of grounded and practical development of character. (DFTBA should;t stand for "Don't Forget To Bitch (about) Aristotle")! Love Crash course and everything you do!!
If we follow that logic, then Antiquity, Middle Ages, or Modern Times did not exist either. I mean the people living in Ancient Rome did not think "We live during the age of Antiquity." And those witnessing the fall of Rome did not think "Owe shucks... Antiquity is over. We now enter the Dark Ages." Those are all eras defined by European historians to help them understand their past. Of course, we could define other eras. Of course, the changes brought by Renaissance did not change everything. Of course they were not the result of spontaneous generation and benefited from the contributions coming from other civilisations. However, Renaissance is still a thing for us, and that's all that counts. And for those complaining about euro-centrism : too bad for you, but there is no human civilisation yet. There are several human civilisations. It just occurs that the Western civilisation still dominate the world. The problem is not the way we understand our history, the problem is that you have (more or less willingly) accepted our periodisation even though it was made for european/western history. The Middle Ages make no sense for India. It is the work of historians from the other civilisations to propose their own periodisation that would fit the history of their own civilisation.
Giorgio Vasari, a renaissance historian of art, described the period in which he lived "a period of Rebirth". And he clearly distinguished Ancient History and the Dark ages ( a term coined by Petrarch that lived during the middle ages). End of the story. There was full self-awereness.
Thank You, John Green for helping me in the right way before my British Poetry examination. And, thank you very much for bringing Harry Potter and making it more enjoyable. "The Dark Arts is a dangerous profession" Indeed!
+kingofprussia17 If we intended to kill and destroy every other faithful person in this world, you wouldn't be here. You know nothing of the religion of Islam, stay out of our religion.
AcroFire Entertainment He didn't get lost on his way to India. Hell, he wasn't even trying to get to India. It was physically impossible for him to hit anywhere in Asia or Oceania in the first place, and he couldn't have known that little tidbit of information. It's kind of hard to reach your destination when you don't know that there's a continent in the way. Also he never landed in Canada, he landed in the Caribbean.
The reason they kept painting the Madonna was because they always got money for Madonna paintings I'm not saying that they weren't still religious though
If you're talking about the position of Defense Against The Dark Arts professor, the curse was lifted after they defeated Voldemort for good so you would be fine.
3:12 I take smidgen of an Issue with this assertion , saying it did not happen is something that needs some elucidation. Furthermore I think that although normatively the Renaissance is associated with Italy it is important to distinguish the different European Renaissance in order to highlight the contributions that each one uniquely brought to the civilized world. I would not say I’m mad about this but I think it’s more appropriate to focus on each Renaissance individually as it’s own entity as opposed to the trite understanding of it only pertaining to Italy.
I kinda disagree. The Renaissance did happen, but not as definitive as it's made out to do so. The Renaissance happened in Italy 300 years before England. Also the people living during the Renaissance, didn't call it that. That's just what historians call it form hindsight.
Actually the term "Renaissance" WAS coined in the Renaissance by an Italian author describing the artists and architects of his day, although I'm guessing he used the Italian or Latin equivalent and not the French. As far as to whether 'regular' people experienced the benefits thereof, I'd argue that they did, especially in the long term. Certainly the artists and scholars did in the form of paying work. The tradespeople and merchants of the Italian republics certainly had an increased standard of living, plus they had some say in their own governance. There was the re-introduction of the concept of public works, such as city-planning, and water and sewage systems. The introduction of the movable-type printing press meant a freer exchange of ideas and rising literacy, as well as the founding and expansion of centers of learning, creating (better, at least) lawyers, doctors, and, importantly for Mr. Green, scholars. Away from the Italian peninsula, England experienced an increase in trade, a rising middle class, and moved away from the feudal system of government towards Parliamentary rule. In the German states, the wide-spread publication of what might have been a minor theological squabble turned into a complete split with the Roman Catholic Church. This was appealing to: a) Princes who wanted greater autonomy in their rule, and B) The average Christian who found intellectual and political empowerment in the idea that they ought to be able to read and interpret Scripture on their own without intercession from priestly classes. I'd like to add that while Mr. Green seems naturally inclined to this subject matter because his interests lie in the humanities, his tendency to use Italian (and Greek) stereotypes is troubling. When he speaks of China there are no references to Charlie Chan or depictions of people speaking in blurbs of Peking Duck, but the Italians in several of these videos are depicted as pizza tossing, cartoon turtles or mustachioed plumbers from an old video game, and speak in blurbs of olives. Why is this OK? I find this disconcerting from a White male who hails from a place where a wedge of iceberg lettuce topped with mayonnaise and yellow cheese is considered a salad. Also, if you would like to assert that there had been others who had worked with the idea of the heliocentric solar system, and there were, even in Ancient Greece, then you might want to cite some sources. Actually, cite sources in general. I'm not going to take what you say on faith because you're on the internet, which has a dubious reputation for facts.
I've been watching the series and couldn't concentrate on this episode because I can still see the fold lines on your polo. Like you literally just bought it from Dillard's and slapped it on for recording.
A couple of things. The video makes an effort of painting the Renaissance as a result of Arabic influence on Europe. There is certainly a good deal of intellectual benefit that Europe received from the Islamic world. But the reception of thinkers like Aristotle and Avicenna happened in the 13th century, the time of the scholastic tradition more so than the humanist. Btw, Aristotle had been studied well before that, as his logical works were the focus of study throughout the Middle Ages, thanks to Boethius and Porphyry. The 12th century saw the gain of his whole corpus. But it was the re-discovery of Plato and other writers of Greco-Roman culture like Cicero and Livy that spurred the thought of the Renaissance. And that brings me to another note, there is a different way that the Islamic world is credited with igniting the Renaissance. The Ottoman sacking of the Byzantine world and the fall of Constantinople caused their thinkers to flee to Latin Europe bringing their texts with them. It's easy to see why something this politically incorrect did not get mentioned though.
Your answer is too sophisticated for RUclips. Most of the people to commend here post just to play it smart, having red a random site on internet, thinking they are experts on the field.
Hi +CrashCourse! I'm a big fan. Please do a series about art movements for art geeks. It would be interesting to know how painting, sculpture and architecture evolved over the course of time. Sincerely, A big fan/ art geek
No one is saying that the Humanists were atheists or non-religious, many weren't and continued to produce religious themed art, but the secular nature of the Florentine Renaissance is unmistakable and undeniable in its move away from religion for the sake of religion and the representation of humanness (and divinity itself) in a more realistic and technically accurate human form. Without this secularity, there would have been no possiblity of backlash from a relgious tyrant like Savonarola. The Northern Humanists on the other hand were more religiously focused and determined to reform a Church that in their view had lost its way.
Why people think of history as a simple string of events? Historical periods are much complex and looooong term than simple events such as a geographic discoveries, wars or revolutions. So the renaissance was a thing, because as you said, it was "a lot of mutually interdependent things that ocurred over centuries", and let me add, in a particular part of the world: Europe (mostly Italy but also Western and Central Europe.) Your point of view is just anachronic: just because the renaissance seems like a very long period of time, much longer than recent historical events (like the creation and development of the United States), doesn't mean that "it was not a thing" (WTF does that mean anyway?!) With that argument you can also say that classical antiquity or prehistory, that were much longer periods than the renaissance, were neither "a thing."
John Green seems oblivious of Aristarchus of Samos, who pioneered the Sun-centric system, more than 1000 years before Copernicus, Arabs, and whoever else.
I see your point, but I'd like to point out that Aristarchus had very little to no impact on the overall change in ideas that came about due to Copernicus and eventually Galileo. While it's a fun fact to see that this idea wasn't new, the point behind teachers (I am one myself) is that we have to focus on those individuals who made an impact. Aristarchus was dismissed for his beliefs therefore we don't discuss him in relation to the Scientific Revolution. Kind of how the Vikings and Polynesians reaching the New World is hardly ever taught. To the most impactful go the spoils of historical relevance... unfortunately.
The wikipedia article has interesting info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos Apparently he was even able to put the planets in their right order, with respect to their distance to the Sun. And we're talking way before the first telescope was invented.
Sooooo.... does anyone else want to see John do Crash Course Dark Arts? I mean, I get it isn't a very well-defined area, and it could be fatal to John Green, which would be a very, very bad thing, but still, CCDA would be very interesting, I believe :)
So, the Rome fell in 5th century, the Europpe became re-enlightened in 15th century.. So it took 1000 freaking years for people to rediscover the Roman and Greek intellectual heritage. What the hell have they been doing all those 1000 years?? Gross
Because those were times when saying anything that went against church doctrine was dangerous. If going against doctrine didn't get you killed it would at least get you marginalised beyond repair.
Greco-Roman classics weren't lost in Europe. The Latin-educated West preserved Roman classics and histories, and used them as study materials with how they should write Latin, as such texts and, the language in it, didn't change like their present colloquial languages. The Greek-educated Byzantine preserved Greek classics and histories; they never 'lost' Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euripides, Thucydides, Euclid, Plutarch or so on. They too used the aforementioned as study materials in learning 'proper Greek', and learnt them alongside Koine Greek for reading the New Testament. The Renaissance occurred mostly out of better economic prosperity that happened in the West and the spread of literacy and education among more secular, or secularized, institutions.
mostly trying not to die? feudalism brought a lot of local safety, but it was kind of static. The Roman and Greek stuff was preserved primarily in the eastern roman empire. When the Ottoman cannons finally breached the Theodosian walls and plundered Constantinople for three days straight, the fallout sent their scholars to what remained of Christian Europe, mostly Italy, it being rather close. thus came the catalyst in the Italian city states.
John's there complaing how amazing Copernicus was, whil he's a genre-setting author with a huge RUclips channel and a great smile. At least he now knows how we all feel.
That's pretty sad if this video changed your perspective. Read some books, listen to some actual historians. It takes more to gain knowledge on a subject than a 10 min video.
So there are these AP tests people take... No one here is listening to this while going to sleep while pretending this will help us on that test... Definitely
Social studies teacher: we're studying the Renaissance because it was an important era and
Also social studies teacher: sends us this video
@Sera van der Vorm This is how I would teach the class. Just know he was trying to connect with you guys and had a deep love for what he was doing.
yeah thats weird
anyone scrolling through the comments just to see what type of comments would be on a history video?
yeah
Yeah
Maybe
me
@Guillermo Aguirre Almazán language
"Mario, Luigi come outside. The Renaissance is here!" 😂😂💔
It's-a me, Reneissance!
So long Dark Ages!
Get-a-ready to move your fingers
@corsaro nero don't troll be jerk
i actually laughed when john said that :D
I've been learning from this guy for years and I just found out my mom teaches his daughter
🤣
I would say that the creation of the printing press was a huge part of the Renaissance and really made it a 'thing'. This allowed the dissemination of ideas directly to the general population, something unheard of in the medieval period, and paved the way for radical religious reform and the growth of Protestantism.
"I want to be a professor of the Dark Arts!" Alright, Quirrel...
Emilie Moore this is an underrated comment. Sorry I’m late, just like watching this series.
Ah yes. The only professor who had Voldy literally on the back of his head.
Dangerous job, defense against the dark arts.
Yes, yes. Very dangerous indeed.
Whos here bc of online school....
me and i lowkey wanna die 💀
me and i lowkey wanna die 💀
In other words. The Renaissance is an era? Not an event.
I don't think many commentators here grasped John Green's rhetorical statement. I don't think he literally meant the Renaissance did not happen, but used the statement to "emphasize" his point that the idea of the Renaissance as a clearly designated period and a landmark turning point as we usually teach in school is misleading. It is also true that our Western history (art history together, my field) hasn't yet fully incorporated broader cultural interactions in its granting of credits. His lecture is entertaining while has some depth to it. good combination.
+Soo C That's the right idea. The Renaissance was a "thing" just like how the United States is a "thing". In reality, it's a lot more complicated than that.
I'm convinced childbirth has been subjected to the same over-classification. It's not the monumental event people think it is. You still have a baby attached to you, it's just attached at a different point, and somewhat more loosely (at least until teeth).
Alternatively the Renaissance was a "thing" like the "Summer of Love" was a thing.
'So was the renaissance a thing? Not really, it was a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries.'
Couldn't the same be said for any era?
I think he deconstructs that as well like deconstructing why the dark ages shouldn't be called the dark ages because they weren't that dark for the common people. The word Renaissance has implications beyond just identifying a time period like the Middle Ages or idk the Ancient times or whatever. And this implication is that people were collectively going through a process of rebirth but if that wasn't the case for almost all the people living in that era and just the chosen few that could afford to go through that process, is it really its own era?
I want to thank CrashCourse for giving Muslim scholars their due credit that they deserve and are often overlooked, it's really weird at this point to see western media not so hostile to Islam and Muslims.
thanks John Green, Stan, and the wonderful team.
from Sudan.
The day he posted the video is just few day after i came to US. I didn't understand a word back then, and now i'm using it to study for exam. Thanks John!
The Dark Arts are a dangerous profession
...not some guy's peaceful negotiation
He was a real Renaissance rat.
Mario! Luigi! Cone outside! The Renaissance is happening!
We make it important because it matters to us now! It gave us the ninga turtles!
This show is so quotable
anyone watching in quarantine
yes sir! good luck on the test mate.
Me
Me
i have a final ):
For school
So... anyone taking an exam tomorrow?
If I get a 3, I'll be content.
If I get a 4, I'll be happy.
If I get a 5, I'll believe in god.
yep
I’m having it IN AN HOUR
me lol and i am dreading it
hello and yes btw its 3 questions but in total its 60 marks :(
I want to play “some Venetian guys international trade agreement “. Lol
civ 5 with venice there you go
Me toooo
Your point about our projection of a false narrative upon history is EXTREMELY accurate.
However, defining the Renaissance as "not a thing" because of the fact that it seems to be a series of many, interdependent "things" that happened over centuries and therefore built up as a "sequence", making the Renaissance "not a thing", is debatable.
When you see into any event of history, into any "thing" (a war, for example), it often becomes evident that the "thing" is not actually just one single sequence, but is in fact a series of many interdependent elements, all happening on a microscopic scale.
The difference with the Renaissance is that it is a "thing" that happened with interdependent elements happening on a MACROSCOPIC scale.
So the Renaissance is not one flowing event in history, as it was previously perceived to be. But it is an event, like events such as war, that happened as a result of elements happening on a microscopic scale to create something that we can observe on a macroscopic scale.
noooooooooooo stop it STOP ;-; NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
I must say I think this to be highly thought filling in the way your thoughts fill on this subject relating to thoughts.
Europeans: Earth is not the center of the universe
Indians: Such slow learners
Is there any good playlist on indian history?? Maybe not this good but not too boring or biased, i mean
@@asifsultan2828 Regarding Indian history, always prefer books. I've tried podcasts and stuff but they're always part of a larger argument in favour of some premeditated assumption.
@@muditashukla i started watching Bharat ek khoj but i didn't like it cuz it wasn't very academic and some ppl in the comments said that it was biased too
I have now downloaded a course from torrent about the Indian history by Michael H. Fischer
It's good
THE VOICE OF STAN. HE EXISTS
+Dominic Sosa He hosts a course himself eventually (IP).
I argue that the renaissance was a thing, if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a video about it
My teacher had never heard about John Green before. A few days ago we started on Renaissance, and so I gave her this link, and she was really impressed. May God bless your soul, John.
The Renaissance happened in Italy for a simple reason: it was the most developed region in Europe since the time of the Roman Empire. Even after the Empire fell, Italy was Europe's thinking head. The first university of the world was founded in Bologna, the first banks in Florence and Genoa, the commercial capital of Europe was Venice... and Rome was the centre of Christian civilisation.
I think the first university is in either Abbasid Empire at Baghdad or Al Andalus Cordoba
afifi hasan that is the "First University IN THE WORLD". We're talking about IN EUROPE. I know that you're trying to feel Muslim proud over here but we're discussing about European History during the 1400's :P
afifi hasan Some scholars apply the term "university" to islamic madrasas, but it's a mistake. The two institutions were fundamentally different.
Or maybe because Italy was a frikkin trade center that got all the money and minds?
That was how they were so filthy rich and developed.
Javier Añón What is it with the use of the terms "madrasas" and "Allah"?
Seriously, those aren't words only for Islam. They're ARABIC words. Non-Muslim Arabs use the words " madrasa" and "Allah" all the Tims.
I came for Machiavelli. I realized he wasn't in the video.
The search continues!
JudaTheIsm you came on this video thinking you would listen to Tupacs album? What?
JudaTheIsm :).......
that comment just made my day
JudaTheIsm ThePrince. I loved the excerpt of the book I read.
Thanks for not letting me waste my time hahah
How anyone can dislike a Crash Course video is beyond me. You guys do an amazing job at breaking down the most complex topics to easy to understand, relatable concepts. Thank you!
"Mario, Luigi! Come outside, the Renaissance is here!"
That killed me.
" Today I'm going to prove to you that the renaissance wasn't really a thing."
me- I'd like to see you try..
(after video)
Everything I've learned is a lie.....
I don't really agree with his argument. Nobody says that the Renaissance happened in one moment, like the French Revolution or the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Renaissance was an ERA in European history. Namely, the era that separated the Middle Ages from the Early Modern Era. It was not only the era of rediscovering Greek and Roman art and wisdom, but also the beginning of capitalism in Europe, via a growth in trade, small scale industry and the beginning of banking.
An Open Letter to Mr. Green & Co.
Dear Mr. Green and Company,
I love this series. I love Crash Course. I platonically love you all.
But this episode, though. I don't care for it.
See, the Renaissance existed as much as any other period of history exists: in our minds, as a handy reference tool. If the Inquisition exists, so too does the Renaissance. If the Golden Age of Islam exists, so too does the Renaissance. If the Silk Road exists, so too does the Renaissance.
You describe the Renaissance, near the end of the video, as "a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries." Yes - which is to say, it's a thing. It's a thing that helps historians group similar ideas over a period of time. Saying the Renaissance didn't exist is like saying Ancient China (for instance) didn't exist because it, too, is a lot of mutually interdependent things that occurred over centuries."
Eurocentrism sucks, but that doesn't mean everything European that was positive should be minimalized. If you're going to - rightfully! - denounce European violence, so too must you not minimalize Middle Eastern violence or Asian violence. (For example: The Mongol Conquests killed at *least* 40,000,000 people - possibly more like 70,000,000! - but the Mongols get endless praise and a comical throwback in every episode.)
I still do love this series. And Crash Course. And, platonically, you.
Best wishes,
Me
Excellent comment!
He argues the Renaissance isn't a thing because of the small effect it had on the people living during it. people in Ancient China were influenced directly by having an Ancient China. The Silk Road and the Golden Age of Islam both directly impacted the life style and quality of those living during them. As John clearly says, only about 5% of Europeans' lives were impacted by the artistic influx.
crash course is a bunch of libbies
@@liquidKi
I have to agree with Kent because the Renaissance is only a relevant period of time because of its contributions that are relevant to us. These contributions were likely never meant for us and that's why I don't think it was a thing. I think the point John is trying to make is that if we're calling Renaissance by this specific name that is equated to entire eras, then we may as well call random stuff happening that has a vaguely loose connection an equally glorified name because the metric has to be how many people were involved or how many people were impacted.
This is an excellent comment that should also be pinned in the comment section so viewers would understand the intentions of the video and not be misled. Nevertheless, the video is awesome and informative and opinionated in some little ways.
Hey there CC! I just wanted to tell you guys the gratitude I feel towards you guys is tremendous. This world history is helping me discover a passion I never knew I had and preparing me for a exciting trip to Europe. so thanks
I don't think it's really fair to say that Renaissance artists were religious just because they did a lot of religious art work. Most Renaissance artworks were commissions. A lot of them, I might add, from the church.
yep
The renaissance wasn't about reason....enlightenment age mah boy! The thing about the rennesiacene is that it was more about "Re"Disciovery of the greek knowledge rather then making new ones. Then again everything is a process.
I have to agree with M C, being religious is not necessarily defying any science or logic. There are many people who are religious but still contributes in science. They believes in Bible or Qur'an or Wedha as mere story and cling to them as moral compass.
Michelangelo was Obviously heavily religious... Davinci proabably not so much.
M C That percentage is very high with (non-Western) muslims, but low with Christians *because of the age of enlightenment* .
Stating that the Renaissance didn't happen is an interesting point of view, but is not by any means a fact. If only 1% of the population experienced it does that mean that it didn't happen? In the 1970s when people living in the Siberian forests came in contact with the outside world they didn't know that the 2nd world war ended because they didn't know there was a war. Does that mean that the 2nd world war wasn't a thing? How many people need to be experiencing it to say that it happened. The war changed the world in many aspects as did the Renaissance. It changed it from the top down, because it changed the governments etc. Causality works in different ways, there are chain reactions. If some peasant didn't experience Michelangelo's art first hand it doesn't mean that it didn't affect him somehow.
The Renaissance didn't have a concept attached to it until many years later, but it's the same for many things. It's impossible to see anything in it's entirety while it's still happening, because it's not in it's entirety yet. People still at this day say that the Sun rises and sets while knowing that saying so is factually incorrect. Does that mean that the scientific revolution hasn't happened either, because it doesn't affect everyone everywhere in every aspect of life.
WWII impacted the majority of the world. Killing in fact more that 1% of the population. He is making the point that while it technically happened, its not relevant, and not worth naming the renaissance.
Mark Bruey Well, we can't forget that renaissance period gave us brilliant minds, that perceived the universe and everything around them in different way that the opressive catholic church made people believe. In fact Da Vinci, Copernico and other scientists' works bumped the modern science by unveiling a lot of things people wouldn't even remind.
While some may argue that Renaissence never really happened, I disagree. All the artistic, cultural and scientific advances by that 5% of the Italian population made possible (in any other way) the modern life we live today. Opening our minds to knowledge again and liberating people from the middle age darkness was a very important step towards modern life so renaissence will always be a "thing" I'll embrace even if it only worked for 5% of italian population at first.
I think all the time periods that historians talk about are artificial reconstructions after the fact. It's our way of "laying a grid" over history - categorizing it and measuring it. If "history" includes everything up to the present, then the Renaissance happened because our present conception of it as "the Renaissance" was the result of all that history.
"People still at this day say that the Sun rises and sets while knowing that saying so is factually incorrect." Especially when there are people living on this planet who live at places to which much of the year is night time and much of year is day time. I'm looking at you Greenland, Finland, Norway, Alaska and Siberia.
+2020Syd This is miles away from intellectual conversation. Quote: "look at the nazi's, jews, everyone who isn't blond hair blue eyes white/aryan" Wtf are you trying to imply? Nazis did not plan to kill everyone without blonde hair.
Renaissance is a broad term used to describe the whole bunch of scientific, humanist, political and artistic changes, philosophies, values, and discoveries in areas mostly inside Europe, that spawned from reconnecting with ancient Greek and Roman civilizations and writings. The views of the Catholic church were challenged. Something that put Europe on the right track towards modern society. Many other cultures would have benefited from it, but did not exactly go through the same lengthy process. Consequences of it can be seen today.
Just because he mentions muslim contributions doesn't mean he is downplaying the European ones.
seriously all of history is so interconnected other civilizations almost always make contributions to other civilizations success.
People are never really confronted with the idea that other civilizations were important, both to world history and, more directly, to European history. The sole exception for this is probably China, as its influence and importance is far too vast for even Euro-centrists to ignore.
Oh to me I felt it that way, I'm watching the course since the beginning and I realised everytime he talks about Europe its to say "Oh it's boring there is better stuff out there in India, Africa lololol". So ok I understand Europe is not the only place on earth but this is getting a little stupid saying Renaissance didn't even happen, I mean obviously it wasn't something that happened overnight but it was real, and that's what lead Europe to dominate the world in the future. I've not watched the reste of the course but I hope he admits that.
And just to be clear I'm not saying that Europe dominated everything since the beginning of men but I feel like John tries too hard to break this stereotype by overestimating non european civilizations and undermining europe's work, just to prove his point that Europe isn't the only thing that exists.
But apart from Greece and Rome, which he talks about a lot in this series, there wasn't a lot of exciting stuff happening in Europe until the Renaissance. So, I can understand why he (being a product of the the USA's decidedly Eurocentric education system) decided to play up the interesting things happening elsewhere in the world.
The "Eurocentrist" education system is a false conception. The whole of the USAs college and grade schools are all liberal and force a bunch of bullcrap on the students. He media, politicians, and teachers are always dissing Europe and white people, men especially. The whole of the world is shouting that white people suck, and is focusing on rather minor accomplishments of minorities. The fact is, we should learn about our ancestors, which in my case are Northern Europeans. Their is a lot of stuff to be proud of about my people, as they generally started the USA, democracy, and much that makes the world great. Not to mention the undeniable military domination of the west. So shut ur liberal mouths up and see things how they are.
The USA is only racist against white people and if U do some research that will be obvious.
6:16 Florentine? Isn't that what everyone's stuck in in 2020?
lol
Every historian nowadays knows that periodization is wrong. The Renaissance was much less a "historical period" and more of an intellectual and artistic revolution that happened in the course of three centuries. One cannot say that "It did not happen" because quite simply it's effects were immediately felt in the scientific and intellectual world. For example Erasmus was invited to the court of the Holy Roman Emperor as a councilor, Dante and Cervantes became celebrities only a few years after their deaths, Shakespeare was read by the Elizabethan nobility, the frescos and statues in the churches were open for all too see. True, the effects of the Renaissance would not mature until the 16th century, but arguably by then the European world was already ready to leave both classical civilization for good and go towards an "Age of Enlightenment". Thus while the Renaissance was not an event like a battle, it was certainly an event in intellectual and artistic history that had very little to do with outside sources such as Muslim or Theological writings and more to do with the professionalization of secular sciences and arts.
Also, I'm a leftist but sorry John Green but even I can't accept this revisionist history that the Ottomans somehow aided to the coming of the Renaissance. If anything the Ottomans were the reason why the Italian Renaissance declined. Most of the trade exports of the Italian city-states went to central and western Europe. The prime materials for this trade to be possible came entirely from the mediterranean through the Indian Spice trade. The Venetians and Genoans facilitated this trade by way of their Greek colonies in the Aegean and Ionian seas. This trade firstly abruptly ended with the fall of Constantinople, which then was followed by the almost total territorial loss of their colonies by the Ottomans barring them completely from the Spice trade. Hence the incentive to discover India and the journey of Columbus.
john Mars Trading tax was the main economic source of the Ottoman Empire. So i'don't think they would just cut off the trade. They simply can't. Now I know you wanna hate Muslims, Turks or the Ottoman Empire but what'r you gona do... Sometimes, truth is a bitch.
Jared Hunter " There was considerable state supervision in commerce and many regulations and a tax on almost every transaction. Licenses were needed for merchants, sea captains and others in business. When an employee left a company, the government was notified. Markets were patrolled by a kadi (judge) with the power to punish on the spot those who tried to cheat. Profit was limited to 10% and the government tried to insure trade was conducted fairly and moved securely over the trade routes .Foreign trade needed the permission of the government and exports were tightly controlled.the main exports were leather,skins and wool. Items needed for the military such as wood for shipbuilding, minerals and food were rarely allowed to be exported. The early Moslem leaders recognized the importance of commerce to the health of the empire and welcome productive immigrants such as the Jews who were expelled from Spain in the 1492. Almost every man in Turkey was engaged in some trade, even the sultan learned a trade. Mehmed I made bow strings, Selin I was a goldsmith. and demonstrated the nobility of work."
"The early Ottoman allies, the French were the first Europeans to be granted trade rights in 1534. The English were allowed in 1567 and in 1581 Queen Elizabeth I granted the Turkey Company an exclusive charter to trade with the Ottoman Empire."
ottomanempire.info/economy.htm
So no, the Ottomans did not facilitate trade in the Mediterranean for the Italian city-states but hindered it, by nearly monopolising the spice-trade, that's why Venice fought SEVEN fricking wars against the ottomans.
john Mars I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the Renaissance "never happened." John Green sheepishly admitted as much in his final thoughts. His point is that it only affected the "elites" or "bourgeoisie" if that is a suitable term for them. The life of a peasant farmer in 1800CE was not much different than the life of a peasant farmer in 2000BCE. Neither had much use for writing or other intellectual pursuits. The only advantage that the 1800CE man had was an iron plow, a horse collar and maybe a musket. You probably aren't arguing against that at all. However, that is probably the best take-home point out of this little video over all the other controversial points.
Alecks Horchata
Yes crusades also played an important role in expanding their trading power.
Alecks Horchata well artists are the same as they ever were... that period being propped up as special may not be any more fair than an independent art fan saying 'well what the renaissance really is to me was my grandma's petunia garden it was just spectacular'... as if the renaissance is more of the eye of the beholder, than an actively pursued goal of participants... take today's media culture... it seems like they're trying to self-aggrandize their purposefulness as if to live up to the standards of 'great times'... maybe part of that self-fulfillment is to realize that as far as history goes, the only real standard is surviving part of which is the benefit of recognizing what you appreciate most from history
Wait, John Green?!?!? Fault in our stars!?!?! Paper towns?!?!? I'm subscribing
welcome to nerdfighteria :)
lol
+hugawolf awesomeness his main channel is vlogbrothers. I give it a 9.5 out of 10. strongly recommended.
k, ill check it out
IKR!? I've been watching crash course forever and halfway through tfios, I realized he was the author!XD
I'm not entirely certain that you can classify the Renaissance as "not happening" simply because the vast majority of people didn't experience it at the time. Certainly your definition of what the Renaissance entails can be fluid, but just because it didn't seem terribly important at the time doesn't mean it was nonexistent. It was simply an event that lasted hundreds of years instead of a decade or two and was restricted to the elitist of the elite. It was still present, as evidenced by the fact that today, we DO marvel over many of the works of art created/rediscovered during this time period. It might not have been terribly important at the time, but we still remember it centuries later.
The printing press was also developed in the 15th century. Then a guy called Aldus Manutius in Italy started printing a ton of books about his favourite things, such as the Greeks, and his press is one of the reasons that Europe suddenly started learning about and nerding out over the Greeks. He even invented a new, slanted font to try and pack more letters onto a page. Because he was in in Italy, it got called italics. In any case, the sudden increase in the availability of books (from Aldus and various others) was critical in spreading ideas, such as Copernicus's heliocentric model of the solar system.
Sucks to all you people who are doing homework. I just find these videos entertaining.
I thought I was the only one.
I laughed at the Assassin's Creed part 😂😂😂 I love the game
fUZZI Lin I think so too! I have a certain Italian assassin as one of my favorite assassins from the game franchise.
This is the first and only time I heard Stan talk.
I get so hyped over the Renaissance. and the medici family. and art. everything.
Beth Kwiecinski me too. Not because one of the influential artists from the renaissance has my name or anything tho...
Splinter was the translated nickname of Masaccio: a master from the early Renaissance.
NOW WE KNOW!
Aye!! Good luck to y’all taking the Euro exam tomorrow 💘
Thanks bruv
thanks man
Thanks kokichi
I have it in a couple months and I’m using it for Homework right now, but don’t worry ill be back
i have 3 days :
You gained a subscriber by making history intresting..
I'm here because the AP World History exam is in two days.
420 Subs and No Videos Same
Tmr yall
Paola Castro good luck i’m terrified
Last minute study gang
Yooo sameeee
So it DID happen, but it's not what we make it out to be. Correct ?
Basically imagine in 1,000 years, scholars look back at the years were living right now and call it the renaissance. Nothing feels different, it's just a name given to a point in time where there is a movement in things related to art was very prominent. It didn't happen in terms of one day there was a drastic change, it was pretty gradual but drastic when looked at from the beginning. If that makes sense.
Well, yes it did happen. It seems the point of the video is to say, "Our perception of the Renaissance is skewed", not "The Renaissance didn't happen."
Well I did happen but just very slowly. Basically the Catholic Church was corrupt, almost every body lost knowledge especially because they forgot to read. Thank goodness for the printing press that was made during that time period allowing people to read easier. And also allowing Martin Luther's 95 theses to spread around Europe much faster. I find it an important time in history because after several wars on religion and new scientific discoveries the church wasn't controlling every body and people were able to say what they want without having to be burned to death. The Renaissance is more than just art and was a very important thing.(There's a lot more to it that I didn't mention.) If you are thinking this video will help you on your test yeah that's a good one. But hey it's just a RUclips video.
The printing press did not really result in immediate (re-)literalisation of Europe (If you could at any time speak of it being truly literalised before). Books were still perversely expensive for 97% or so of the population and being a serf on a farm or a lowly worker in a city did not qualify you for learning to read. And of whom would you have learned? Rich people? They did not especially care for poor people and wouldn't have invested the time and effort... The Clergy? Did only teach what they needed in their own ranks to do theri godly work... The small caste of officials working for the nobles to administrate the lands (if they weren't clergy anyway that is)? Nah, also not interested in spreading knowledge to everybody.
Luther was so revolutionary because he made the contents of the bible available for everybody through translation... now not just the few lucky educated people speaking / understanding latin could follow god's word, but everybody listening to the sermon or scripture citation could make up their own mind. It would still be quite some time until the bible was in every household and reading was a general ability for the common folks... but at least now they could look at what their priest claimed the bible said and if it really turned up that way in his reading.
I know most of the comment here are freaking out about how he down plays the AMAZING GOD-GIVEN SUPER DUPER period we all call the Renaissance but i think hes just trying to convey the fact that we do over play it. Was is super cool that science and art FINALLY made a come back? heck yea. But if you really look at it that was the case in MANY places at different points in history and the Renaissance just is another one of those points but we all applaud it because it basically lead to industrialization and advancement of science instead of being crushed unlike all other periods of growing science. We remember the Renaissance because so many great ideas and objects came out of it but he is right it really just built on what came before, like every other age/era. The Renaissance is romanticized as some amazing wellspring of all things good but really very few contributed anything of value. It was those few that are worth lauding over not the period itself.
He also is conveying that the world as a whole is part of history. Just as what we have today is largely a result of things from the Renaissance, the Renaissance is largely due to other forces including Muslim scholarship along with Greek works. We just remember Renaissance better because it was more recent and we have more paintings, writings and other stuff still around to point to and say LOOK, ISN'T THIS COOL?
He's not saying the whole section of time is irrelevant he's saying we don't look at it subjectively enough compared to most other times and that it was more a smattering of advances that took a LONG time to happen rather than some magical time we like to say it is.
TLDR; Did important things happen in the Renaissance? Absolutely,Yes. Was it a magical time where humanity was transformed? No. A small few made advances that lead to more advances but those advances were really just building upon the advances of before. (still doing it today, believe it or not)
Thank you so much for expressing an intelligent opinion without insulting anyone. I want your comment tattooed on my back.
Who's cramming for a test?
XD Me!!!!
Me
+RyanHong [Hongrand] Midterms :(:
+RyanHong [Hongrand] Quiz actually. Missed the whole explanation lmao
Me
Love this episode: Renaissance, Medici and Assassin's Creed. Ah, just perfect.
You forgot the engineering/building part, and the "we discover new lands that will change the world" part...
Marco polo, magellan, christopher columbus, they change the way to see the world... Plus, many great structures were built, some of the greatest castles ever were built during the renaissance (mostly in France), Leonardo da vinci was a visionary, and had really foreseen lot of technical things, not only in art,
The renaissance's humanism, the way to see our body, our health, even sports... Montaigne, Machiavel, the way to see and think politics, legitimate coercive power, the slow restart of sciences..
Plus many of the roots of the french revolution, and the declaration of the rights of men and citizen are to find in the renaissance... roots that will spread to the american constitution later. And roots that will start all the enlightenment process
I'm Italian, please don't compare us with Berlusconi, the rest it's true and beautiful, good job!!
I want to have a degree in Dark Arts.. Not Sociology/Criminal Justice. :/
alyson burch if so, you need to major in medevil studies
you could take a social justice class at one of those fancy collapsing universities, that is as close as you get to dark arts in real life.
Hey same last name! Lol
alyson burch casual flex but ok
I think John tries to make the point which could have been more forcefully is that the renaissance is a sort of an outdated eurocentric way to teach the history of this era in time. Instead of learning the crusade->renaissance timeline that I'm sure we all grew up with. A more accurate picture would be to teach of the Muslim world's active influence on European learning the way they teach that the Greeks influenced Rome centuries before. It was the Islam Golden age which had gone on for a while before this time that actually kept the Greek/Roman body of knowledge alive and diffused it to Europe.
John Green please never ever stop teaching with that lovely personality of yours
@Gerrelle Faison agreed
"Mario, Luigi, come out, the Renaissance is here!" My classmates and I all died right here XD
+Asher Brine (Spartan 343) you're shown this stuff in class? wow cool !
This was the worst, laziest explanation of the renaissance I've ever seen. Similarly bad was his "explanation" of the middle ages in Europe, and it betrays his seemingly negative view of Europe's history as a whole. I think this man should stop sucking from the teat of his elementary school history teacher, and do his own research.
His video wasn't half as lazy as your response. If you're going to call someone out for being lazy and bad, at least cite an example or two, otherwise you're just as guilty. Furthermore, you can't even be bothered to get some basic facts right, as the videos are a collaboration between Green and Raoul Meyer, an AP World History teacher, not an "elementary school history teacher"...not that there even is such a thing. Lastly, I'm a little confused about why you seem to think working with an actual historian is a bad thing, since you don't provide any examples or justification for why you think he's wrong.
I called the history teacher what I did as an insult, you dunce. And if you don't know what's wrong with this portrayal of European history, then you would do better to educate yourself; as opposed to attacking me. At least I know what I'm talking about. Now I will happily ignore you, since educating you is not even a remotely interesting idea to me.
Scott Baromski Oh, good! I like having the last word! FYI, you might want to change that semi-colon after “yourself” to a comma. Right now it looks like your grammar skills are on par with your insult capabilities. Your responses are all bluster and no skill or real ability. For example, I noticed you, once again, resorted to name-calling instead of actually backing up your thoughts. What’s the matter? Lots of claims, but no real verifiable knowledge? Please don’t tell me it’s not worth your time, since you found the time to make the comment in the first place. Also, no one “attacked” you. I pointed out that your response (not you) was weak, and asked you to cite an example of something you thought was incorrect. For that, you called me a dunce. I guess I should applaud your consistency. Your comment accusing someone of laziness was too lazy to include an example, and now your response bemoaning being “attacked” includes name-calling. Nice work!
Now on to substance: John Green (and many historians) are rightly calling attention to cultural bias and Eurocentrism in many historical textbooks and curricula. Doing this does not constitute a “negative view of Europe’s history” as you noted in your original comment. It DOES, however, give a voice and viewpoint to other cultures outside of Europe, something that should be applauded. Revisiting historical facts and re-examining ideas is not “lazy;” it’s a quest for inclusion and accuracy. Personally, I find Green’s views refreshing and, more importantly, more in line with historical fact than interpretations that treat Europe as the center of the world.
You see what I did there? I offered a point of view, and then I backed it up with a rationale. Now you try…oh wait, you’re ignoring me.
David Barringer Really? You have resorted to nitpicking over grammar? Before I have even brought anything substantial to the table? Normally these kind of comments are reserved for *after* you have suffered an obvious defeat in your argument. Predictably the lame attempt of an insecure mind, trying by measure of any petty technicality, to suppose the intellectual high ground. Not only is it a pathetic behavior, but it is also really embarrassing when you are *wrong*. Clearly you have not only history class to revisit.... Oh, here's one of those citations you have been so desperately awaiting! owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/607/04/, & writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/Semicolons.html . Here you can see that "as opposed to" was being used as a conjunctive adverb between two independent clauses in a "this, therefore that" statement; Furthermore clarifying a long statement that would have otherwise been bogged down by too many commas (See what I did there? eh?). Mongoloid... P.S. - You have earned the verbal abuse with your stupid comments. You don't see me trying low-brow BS like that.
P.P.S - I would be lying if I said that I don't find myself enjoying this a little. Thank you.
I'm here because the test will measure whether I am an informed, engaged, and productive citizen of the world, and it will take place in schools and bars and hospitals and dorm rooms and in places of worship. I will be tested on first dates, in job interviews, while watching football, and while scrolling through my Twitter feed. The test will judge my ability to think about things other than celebrity marriages, whether I’ll be easily persuaded by empty political rhetoric, and whether I’ll be able to place my life and my community in a broader context. The test will last my entire life, and it will be comprised of the millions of decisions that, when taken together, will make my life mine. And everything, everything, will be on it.
that's a bit *deep* for people who are watching teenage mutant ninja turtles
Alright Green, your argument is really invalid and unrelated. Your basically saying that the rennassaince did not happen because it was an evolving idea, right? Well welcome to history. Of course nobody went out side and realized it was the rennansaince, because it is simply a term coined by historians. History does not happen over night, we study it liek it did, but practically everything historical event evolve. For example: sticking with the theme of European History lets talk about the Protestatn Reformation: Martin Luther did not simply post the 95 thesis and the rest of Europe was then divide. No, rather a series of events occured an leading the to development of protestant states and then the 30 years war and the Treaty of Wesphilia. Of course people did not walk outside and said, "Hey its the Protestant Reformation" or "Its the Rennasaince" because historical events sum up the world's point of view of an event, not the individual, micro perspective.
I agree with you Jeff Scharberg
John Green, why are you hating on Aristotle? He was such a boss. Yes, he was wrong about some things, but everyone's wrong sometimes. It's not his fault that his mistakes weren't questioned and were propagated for centuries. Philosophically Aristotle may be my favourite thinker of the Ancient world. His metaphysics, specifically his critique of Plato's Theory of Forms are so rigorous and eloquent they crack his entire worldview open. His Nicomachean Ethics reject abstract absolutism in favour of grounded and practical development of character. (DFTBA should;t stand for "Don't Forget To Bitch (about) Aristotle")! Love Crash course and everything you do!!
always making me fall in love with history .. thank you John Green and Crash Course xx
Anyone else NOT here for school?
Don't mind me , I'm just a peaceful uninteresting comment passing by. Don't worry I won't talk about politics or race or religion.
+The duke of Canada ok???
Aramis Zuniga the joke
Your head
The duke of Canada Hey, the irony .. Canada. lol
what about porn? it brings people together
I'd love to play a game where you negotiate a trade treaty. It'd be more interesting than assassins creed is now.
+michael matthews There is games more orientated to trade and stuff like that :p
+michael matthews There is games more orientated to trade and stuff like that :p
I know and I have them. Just saying that maybe ac should stop
+michael matthews play Crusader Kings, Europa IV, or Civ V
Ben Fox Those are... absolutely not about trade. I already own them all. Trade is secondary at best.
If we follow that logic, then Antiquity, Middle Ages, or Modern Times did not exist either. I mean the people living in Ancient Rome did not think "We live during the age of Antiquity." And those witnessing the fall of Rome did not think "Owe shucks... Antiquity is over. We now enter the Dark Ages." Those are all eras defined by European historians to help them understand their past. Of course, we could define other eras. Of course, the changes brought by Renaissance did not change everything. Of course they were not the result of spontaneous generation and benefited from the contributions coming from other civilisations. However, Renaissance is still a thing for us, and that's all that counts.
And for those complaining about euro-centrism : too bad for you, but there is no human civilisation yet. There are several human civilisations. It just occurs that the Western civilisation still dominate the world. The problem is not the way we understand our history, the problem is that you have (more or less willingly) accepted our periodisation even though it was made for european/western history. The Middle Ages make no sense for India. It is the work of historians from the other civilisations to propose their own periodisation that would fit the history of their own civilisation.
The problem is that the Renaissance is applied to the whole of Europe, when it was really mostly localized in Italy.
***** It wasn't localized in Italy, it was all over Western Europe (UK, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Switzerland, ect).
Rad Dudeman
At different times and for different reasons. It blends in with the reformation and what came before it in the 1300's and 1400's.
Giorgio Vasari, a renaissance historian of art, described the period in which he lived "a period of Rebirth". And he clearly distinguished Ancient History and the Dark ages ( a term coined by Petrarch that lived during the middle ages). End of the story. There was full self-awereness.
Thank You, John Green for helping me in the right way before my British Poetry examination. And, thank you very much for bringing Harry Potter and making it more enjoyable. "The Dark Arts is a dangerous profession" Indeed!
Wow. John Green is only one year older than me. Time to re-evaluate my life goals again.
For those who want to know of some Muslim scholars who influenced Copernicus,
Al Battani
Thabit
Al Shatir
Tusi
Abdullah Yusof Shut up and go back to your fucking desert.
+kingofprussia17 Wait king of prussia with the flag of gb?
+Abdullah Yusof geez, like ten comments were condensed so i red this like "Scholars influencing copernicus" "muslims torture non christians". WHAT
+kingofprussia17 If we intended to kill and destroy every other faithful person in this world, you wouldn't be here. You know nothing of the religion of Islam, stay out of our religion.
Mahdi Sekandari How about you stay out of my religion and stay out of our lands? hypocrite.
anyone else watching this during quarantine for online school
y'all actually watch the videos ur teachers give you?!
Me
John Green make history so fun, he is one of the best historian of all time.
You lost me at Christopher Columbus was an expert sailor.
He actually was a fairly competent sailor. A horrible person mind you, but a good sailor.
AcroFire Entertainment He didn't get lost on his way to India. Hell, he wasn't even trying to get to India. It was physically impossible for him to hit anywhere in Asia or Oceania in the first place, and he couldn't have known that little tidbit of information. It's kind of hard to reach your destination when you don't know that there's a continent in the way. Also he never landed in Canada, he landed in the Caribbean.
Gearfire He was informed that Asia was too far away, he just thought the earth was smaller that people said.
AcroFire Entertainment I think you fail to make the actually obvious dictinction between geographic expert and expert sailor.
justin mallory you know, It was the 15th century; i doubt there was Google maps at that time
The reason they kept painting the Madonna was because they always got money for Madonna paintings I'm not saying that they weren't still religious though
If you're talking about the position of Defense Against The Dark Arts professor, the curse was lifted after they defeated Voldemort for good so you would be fine.
"It matters to us now. It gave us the Ninja Turtles"
Brilliant
Isn't "Some Venetian guys negotiate a trade treaty" the plot of Star Wars Episode 1?
I love it. So true.
I love that "was I a thing?" Vitruvian ninja turtle on your board ...I want it on a t-shirt!! I'd buy if u make one !!
Hey John, have you, or could you, do one of these videos on the Revolutions of 1848 in Europe? Thanks!
3:12 I take smidgen of an Issue with this assertion , saying it did not happen is something that needs some elucidation. Furthermore I think that although normatively the Renaissance is associated with Italy it is important to distinguish the different European Renaissance in order to highlight the contributions that each one uniquely brought to the civilized world. I would not say I’m mad about this but I think it’s more appropriate to focus on each Renaissance individually as it’s own entity as opposed to the trite understanding of it only pertaining to Italy.
I kinda disagree. The Renaissance did happen, but not as definitive as it's made out to do so. The Renaissance happened in Italy 300 years before England. Also the people living during the Renaissance, didn't call it that. That's just what historians call it form hindsight.
Actually the term "Renaissance" WAS coined in the Renaissance by an Italian author describing the artists and architects of his day, although I'm guessing he used the Italian or Latin equivalent and not the French. As far as to whether 'regular' people experienced the benefits thereof, I'd argue that they did, especially in the long term. Certainly the artists and scholars did in the form of paying work. The tradespeople and merchants of the Italian republics certainly had an increased standard of living, plus they had some say in their own governance. There was the re-introduction of the concept of public works, such as city-planning, and water and sewage systems. The introduction of the movable-type printing press meant a freer exchange of ideas and rising literacy, as well as the founding and expansion of centers of learning, creating (better, at least) lawyers, doctors, and, importantly for Mr. Green, scholars. Away from the Italian peninsula, England experienced an increase in trade, a rising middle class, and moved away from the feudal system of government towards Parliamentary rule. In the German states, the wide-spread publication of what might have been a minor theological squabble turned into a complete split with the Roman Catholic Church. This was appealing to: a) Princes who wanted greater autonomy in their rule, and B) The average Christian who found intellectual and political empowerment in the idea that they ought to be able to read and interpret Scripture on their own without intercession from priestly classes. I'd like to add that while Mr. Green seems naturally inclined to this subject matter because his interests lie in the humanities, his tendency to use Italian (and Greek) stereotypes is troubling. When he speaks of China there are no references to Charlie Chan or depictions of people speaking in blurbs of Peking Duck, but the Italians in several of these videos are depicted as pizza tossing, cartoon turtles or mustachioed plumbers from an old video game, and speak in blurbs of olives. Why is this OK? I find this disconcerting from a White male who hails from a place where a wedge of iceberg lettuce topped with mayonnaise and yellow cheese is considered a salad. Also, if you would like to assert that there had been others who had worked with the idea of the heliocentric solar system, and there were, even in Ancient Greece, then you might want to cite some sources. Actually, cite sources in general. I'm not going to take what you say on faith because you're on the internet, which has a dubious reputation for facts.
Jessica Lakis your good!
I'm just a total nerd.
LOL! We are all a little now a days, "nerds" rule the world now. LOL
At last! It has to be all that practice from playing Civilization and Total War.
LMAO!!!!!
I've been watching the series and couldn't concentrate on this episode because I can still see the fold lines on your polo. Like you literally just bought it from Dillard's and slapped it on for recording.
A couple of things. The video makes an effort of painting the Renaissance as a result of Arabic influence on Europe. There is certainly a good deal of intellectual benefit that Europe received from the Islamic world. But the reception of thinkers like Aristotle and Avicenna happened in the 13th century, the time of the scholastic tradition more so than the humanist. Btw, Aristotle had been studied well before that, as his logical works were the focus of study throughout the Middle Ages, thanks to Boethius and Porphyry. The 12th century saw the gain of his whole corpus. But it was the re-discovery of Plato and other writers of Greco-Roman culture like Cicero and Livy that spurred the thought of the Renaissance. And that brings me to another note, there is a different way that the Islamic world is credited with igniting the Renaissance. The Ottoman sacking of the Byzantine world and the fall of Constantinople caused their thinkers to flee to Latin Europe bringing their texts with them. It's easy to see why something this politically incorrect did not get mentioned though.
Your answer is too sophisticated for RUclips. Most of the people to commend here post just to play it smart, having red a random site on internet, thinking they are experts on the field.
anyone got the exam on thursday and feels like they gunna fail BC SAME
That sounds exactly like me
that’s me rn tryna watch all 40 videos
@@emelyaccostupa3311 same here 🤪🤕
oh man, me rn
I've learned more in 11 minutes from this video than I have in a whole semester in class
Hi +CrashCourse! I'm a big fan. Please do a series about art movements for art geeks. It would be interesting to know how painting, sculpture and architecture evolved over the course of time.
Sincerely,
A big fan/ art geek
This makes history a hundred times more interesting than it already is
No one is saying that the Humanists were atheists or non-religious, many weren't and continued to produce religious themed art, but the secular nature of the Florentine Renaissance is unmistakable and undeniable in its move away from religion for the sake of religion and the representation of humanness (and divinity itself) in a more realistic and technically accurate human form. Without this secularity, there would have been no possiblity of backlash from a relgious tyrant like Savonarola. The Northern Humanists on the other hand were more religiously focused and determined to reform a Church that in their view had lost its way.
Why people think of history as a simple string of events? Historical periods are much complex and looooong term than simple events such as a geographic discoveries, wars or revolutions. So the renaissance was a thing, because as you said, it was "a lot of mutually interdependent things that ocurred over centuries", and let me add, in a particular part of the world: Europe (mostly Italy but also Western and Central Europe.) Your point of view is just anachronic: just because the renaissance seems like a very long period of time, much longer than recent historical events (like the creation and development of the United States), doesn't mean that "it was not a thing" (WTF does that mean anyway?!) With that argument you can also say that classical antiquity or prehistory, that were much longer periods than the renaissance, were neither "a thing."
Finally, something in media that expresses the same love for Cool Ranch Doritos™ that I do!
The person who added chapters to these videos is a living god
Im offensive, and I find this Italian
+Gelaiol Faghih you tell them
+Gelaiol Faghih htfuyi6uytr776rrt78ot768r
+Gelaiol Faghih try getting a therapy session and changing the language settings
I have dyslexia and tbh i didint knotuce it until i looked at the coments.x3
😂😂😂
John Green seems oblivious of Aristarchus of Samos, who pioneered the Sun-centric system, more than 1000 years before Copernicus, Arabs, and whoever else.
I see your point, but I'd like to point out that Aristarchus had very little to no impact on the overall change in ideas that came about due to Copernicus and eventually Galileo. While it's a fun fact to see that this idea wasn't new, the point behind teachers (I am one myself) is that we have to focus on those individuals who made an impact. Aristarchus was dismissed for his beliefs therefore we don't discuss him in relation to the Scientific Revolution. Kind of how the Vikings and Polynesians reaching the New World is hardly ever taught. To the most impactful go the spoils of historical relevance... unfortunately.
Did he propose the idea with detailed proof though?
The wikipedia article has interesting info: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos
Apparently he was even able to put the planets in their right order, with respect to their distance to the Sun. And we're talking way before the first telescope was invented.
God bless wikipedia
Yeah but nobody believed him
I would totally play "Some Venician Guys Negociate a Trade Treaty."
oh my god i just saw this video for school and i love John Green books.
Sooooo.... does anyone else want to see John do Crash Course Dark Arts?
I mean, I get it isn't a very well-defined area, and it could be fatal to John Green, which would be a very, very bad thing, but still, CCDA would be very interesting, I believe :)
Over and over and over and over and STAN!!
Sam Y over and over and over and over and over and STAN
So, the Rome fell in 5th century, the Europpe became re-enlightened in 15th century.. So it took 1000 freaking years for people to rediscover the Roman and Greek intellectual heritage. What the hell have they been doing all those 1000 years?? Gross
Because those were times when saying anything that went against church doctrine was dangerous. If going against doctrine didn't get you killed it would at least get you marginalised beyond repair.
Greco-Roman classics weren't lost in Europe. The Latin-educated West preserved Roman classics and histories, and used them as study materials with how they should write Latin, as such texts and, the language in it, didn't change like their present colloquial languages.
The Greek-educated Byzantine preserved Greek classics and histories; they never 'lost' Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Euripides, Thucydides, Euclid, Plutarch or so on. They too used the aforementioned as study materials in learning 'proper Greek', and learnt them alongside Koine Greek for reading the New Testament.
The Renaissance occurred mostly out of better economic prosperity that happened in the West and the spread of literacy and education among more secular, or secularized, institutions.
+Stacy Silver
"What the hell have they been doing all those 1000 years?"
Ora et Labora.
mostly trying not to die? feudalism brought a lot of local safety, but it was kind of static. The Roman and Greek stuff was preserved primarily in the eastern roman empire. When the Ottoman cannons finally breached the Theodosian walls and plundered Constantinople for three days straight, the fallout sent their scholars to what remained of Christian Europe, mostly Italy, it being rather close. thus came the catalyst in the Italian city states.
Stacy Silver
Busy crusading
John's there complaing how amazing Copernicus was, whil he's a genre-setting author with a huge RUclips channel and a great smile. At least he now knows how we all feel.
Someone finally mentioning the islamic worlds and the ottomans contribution to renaissance
Very well argued. This video really changed my perspective on the Renaissance.
That's pretty sad if this video changed your perspective. Read some books, listen to some actual historians. It takes more to gain knowledge on a subject than a 10 min video.
So there are these AP tests people take... No one here is listening to this while going to sleep while pretending this will help us on that test... Definitely
AP World History in two days RIP
:,) i'm literally listening to john's already-really-fast voice on 2x speed
@@jae2675 lol same
The psychology videos helped me on my ap psych test